Category: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
ORIGINAL
Evaluating and Analyzing the Transposition Factor in Al- Musayyib Technical College to Setting the Optimal Tilt Angle for Fixed and Seasonal Orientation
Evaluación y análisis del factor de transposición en la Escuela Técnica Superior Al Musayyib para establecer el ángulo de inclinación óptimo para la orientación fija y estacional
Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem1 *, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji1 *, Ahmed T Abdulsadda2 *
1Electrical Engineering Techniques Department, Technical College Al-Mussaib, Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University. Iraq.
2Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University. Iraq.
Cite as: Hameed Jaseem BM, Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji M. Evaluating and Analyzing the Transposition Factor in Al- Musayyib Technical College to Setting the Optimal Tilt Angle for Fixed and Seasonal Orientation. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024; 3:853. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024853
Submitted: 01-02-2024 Revised: 12-04-2024 Accepted: 10-06-2024 Published: 11-06-2024
Editor:
Dr.
William Castillo-González 
Note: paper presented at the 3rd Annual International Conference on Information & Sciences (AICIS’23).
ABSTRACT
The transposition factor (TF) enhances the photovoltaic (PV) systems’ capacity to generate output power. The observed phenomenon denotes the alteration in power production resulting from the inclination of the collector plane. The objective of this study is to assess and compare the effects of two different types of orientation, fixed titled plane and seasonal tilt adjustment, on the power output of a photovoltaic system located in the electrical engineering technologies department at Al- Musayyib Technical College (MTC) in Iraq. The specific coordinates of the location are latitude 32° 46′ 59.99″ N and longitude 44° 19′ 0.01 E . The simulation will be conducted using the Perez model in PVSYST software, focusing on a standalone system with a power capacity of 3000 Wp. The results that were displayed are dependent on the highest (TF), the optimal tilt angle for a fixed tilted plane is 28o, and for seasonal tilt adjustment is (12o in summer and 50o in winter). In addition, the results showed that applying the seasonal tilt adjustment was preferable to using a fixed titled plane in this location to gain the maximum amount of system production power while maintaining a low cost.
Keywords: Transposition Factor; Seasonal Adjustment Orientation of PV System; Al-Musayyib Technical College Optimum Orientation; Fixed Titled Plane Orientation.
RESUMEN
El factor de transposición (FT) aumenta la capacidad de los sistemas fotovoltaicos (FV) para generar potencia de salida. El fenómeno observado denota la alteración en la producción de potencia resultante de la inclinación del plano de colectores. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar y comparar los efectos de dos tipos diferentes de orientación, plano fijo inclinado y ajuste estacional de la inclinación, sobre la producción de potencia de un sistema fotovoltaico situado en el departamento de tecnologías de ingeniería eléctrica del Al- Musayyib Technical College (MTC) de Iraq. Las coordenadas específicas de la ubicación son latitud 32° 46′ 59,99″ N y longitud 44° 19′ 0,01 E. La simulación se llevará a cabo utilizando el modelo Pérez en el software PVSYST, centrándose en un sistema autónomo con una capacidad de potencia de 3000 Wp. Los resultados que se mostraron dependen de la mayor (TF), el ángulo de inclinación óptimo para un plano inclinado fijo es 28o, y para el ajuste de inclinación estacional es (12o en verano y 50o en invierno). Además, los resultados mostraron que la aplicación del ajuste estacional de la inclinación era preferible a la utilización de un plano inclinado fijo en esta ubicación para obtener la máxima cantidad de potencia de producción del sistema manteniendo un coste bajo.
Palabras clave: Factor de Transposición; Ajuste Estacional de la Orientación del Sistema Fotovoltaico; Orientación Óptima del Colegio Técnico Al-Musayyib; Orientación del Plano Titulado Fijo.
INTRODUCTION
The energy sources of the contemporary world are currently shifting from conventional to clean and renewable. Solar energy has been widely acknowledged as a highly promising and reliable renewable energy source. due to its sustainability and accessibility in nearly every part of the globe. Photovoltaic (PV) technology, which has advanced quickly, is one possible use of solar energy. Using solar PV technology is one of the finest ways to use the sun’s energy.(1) The yearly solar energy that reaches Earth’s surface is 1.5×1018 kWh,(2) of which 30 % is reflected back into space and the remainder is absorbed by clouds, land masses, and seas. Iraq is situated in the Middle East, specifically between latitudes 29° 5’ and 37° 22’ N and longitudes 38° 45’ and 48° 45’ E. September is predicted to have the most significant solar radiation at 6790 kWh/m2, while December has the lowest at 1660 kWh/m2.(3) Iraq is thus ideally situated for solar energy potential.
PV panel orientation and tilting angle have a significant influence on their performance. The tilt angle and direction can alter how much solar radiation the panel absorbs. In the morning and afternoon, the rays of sun’s fall at a narrow angle. At noon, they fall at a high angle. Thus, PV tilt angles vary monthly, seasonally, and annually based on the location.(4) Mathematical computations and experimental data should be used to support monthly and seasonal variations in the tilt angles of the panels. Numerous investigations revealed that the Optimal tilt angle is dependent on the days of the year, solar declination angle, and latitude angle (λ).(5) To get more energy, solar panels are usually angled towards the equator. The optimal tilt angle from the sky for each year depends on the location’s latitude and weather conditions.(6,7) A yearly increase in the total solar irradiation of 29,2 % was achieved in Egypt by adjusting collectors’ azimuth and tilt angles to their optimal values on a daily basis, according to a study conducted by Morcos. This was in comparison to a fixed collector whose tilt angle matched its geographic latitude,(8) evacuated tube solar water heaters,(9,10) hybrid power systems,(11,12) PV generation(13,14) and solar cookers.(13)
According to the literature, it is stated that in the northern hemisphere, the most favorable direction for orientation is towards the south, and the most favorable degree of inclination relies only on the latitude. Researchers have not provided a specific value for the ideal tilt angle. For instance, Lunde(15) and Garge(16) βopt=∅±15°, Heywood(17) reached the conclusion that βopt=∅-10 ̊ while according to Duffie et al.(18), the recommended equation βopt=( ∅+15°)±15° incorporates the latitude of the place ∅, winter and summer are indicated by plus and minus signs. Theoretical models for βopt were proposed by Lewis(19), who examined two distinct models for βopt that correspond to, as stated in βopt=∅±8°. El-Kassaby et al.(20) and Bari et al.(21) developed the analytical equation to determine the ideal daily angle at every latitude. They demonstrated that the largest discrepancy between the calculated value for βopt using the analytical equation and the experimental value for βopt did not surpass 3%. Furthermore, they determined that the most favorable inclination angle for each given time frame could be derived by integrating the analytical equation across the specified duration. El-Kassaby et al.(20) calculated the most favorable tilt and surface azimuth angles for an absorber plate that is protected by either one or two glass coverings. He stated that the utilization of two glass coverings instead of a single one has negligible impact on the value of βopt. Prior research does not provide a specific recommendation for the tilt angle.
Sun-tracking devices can be used to receive the most efficient solar energy yield. Many studies demonstrate that, in comparison to fixed systems, tracking systems provide for a considerable amount of solar energy. Comparing tracking systems with fixed systems,(22) discovered that the total daily energy collected increased by almost 43,87 %. In Mousazadeh et al.(26), an extensive analysis of the energy gain of several trackers is conducted.(23) The authors of that research report a 10–100 % increase in solar energy captured using tracking systems, based on various time periods and geographic circumstances. According to Tomson(24), employing a two-positional tracking system that places collectors in the morning and afternoon can increase seasonal energy yield by 10 % to 20 %. Using a single-axis tracking system, Abidin et al.(25) discovered significant gains of 51,4 %, 28,5 %, and 18,7 % from the extraterrestrial, expected, and observed radiations, respectively. Sun-tracking systems, however, are highly costly, energy-intensive, and should not be used with small solar panels.(26) Setting up the collection on the optimal angle is the other way to get more energy. Many studies have been done around the world to find the best tilt position for solar collectors, Izmir in Turkey,(27) Sanliurfa, Turkey,(28) Dhaka,(29) 30 cities in China,(30) Madinah, Saudi Arabia,(1) Jordan,(31) Helwan, Egypt, Brunei Darussalam,(1) Syria,(32) Cyprus(1), Burgos, Spain,(33) and many more.
In recent years, a multitude of research projects have concentrated their attention on optimising the tilt and orientation angles in certain locations. Benghanem(34) determined the most favorable inclination angle for the solar panel in Madinah, Saudi Arabia by analyzing past data. The second-order polynomial equations were fitted to describe the graphs of total solar irradiation versus tilt angle for each month. To find the optimal tilt angle, the polynomial formulas were differentiated and set equal to zero. Kacira et al.(35) determined the most favorable inclination angle for Sanliurfa, Turkey and implemented it in a sun tracker that operates on two axes. The performance of the tracking photovoltaic (PV) module was compared to that of an identical PV module with zero tilt angles. In 2009 a study determined the ideal tilt angle for solar panels in Syria by considering the amount of extraterrestrial radiation that falls on a tilted surface at any given moment. conducted a study in Dhaka to determine the optimal tilt angle for solar panels. This was accomplished by employing three solar models.
In this study to increase solar radiation falling on the solar complex and to obtain the maximum energy production, the solar array must be at a correct angle. By designing and simulation, an independent system using Perez model on PVsyst 7.2 software to obtain the value of the yearly and seasonal optimal angle (summer and winter) depend on analysis of transposition factor in the (MTC).
Transposition factor
The generation of energy of PV arrays is influenced by the transposition factor, which is determined by the tilt and azimuth angles. In orientation optimization, a transposition factor, which is defined as a ratio of incident radiation on the plane to horizontal irradiance, is crucial.(36) The transposition factor quantifies the irradiation gain or loss caused by a collector plane that is tilted. The direction of incident irradiation on the surface of the photovoltaic module is directly proportional to the highest amount of the transposition factor. For example, the optimizing tool of PVsyst, a software program designed for the modeling and analysis of PV systems,(7) incorporates transposition factor calculations through the computation of 475 yearly transposition factor calculations. Utilizing this instrument, optimal position of PV systems can be ascertained.
The concept of transposition factor refers to a variable or parameter that influences the rearrangement or reordering of elements within a given system the graphs produced in PVsyst, as exemplified in figure 1, can be utilized to visually depict the transposition factors associated with various combinations of tilt and azimuth during an entire year’s cycle. The optimal orientation is indicate by a black dot, which represents the ideal combination of the tilt and azimuth. Subsequent contours depict areas with equal transposition factors, delineated by iso-transposition curves. The monthly tables, shown in table 1, present the fluctuations of transposition factors across different tilts and azimuth combinations for the entirety of a year.
Figure 1. Graph of the transformation factors for year that PVsyst created for TCM
In order to optimize the annual energy yield, the utilization of graphs and tables is recommended. Conversely, systems that rely on timing or season of use can determine the most favorable orientations by referring to the monthly tables. Figure 2 and figure 3 shows the transposition factors for each of the tilt and azimuth angle combination that includes a summer and winter cycle.
|
Table 1. Monthly transposition factors for (MTC) (Iraq) with different tilt and azimuth angle |
||||||||||||||
|
Tilt |
Azimuth |
Jan. |
Feb. |
Mar. |
Apr. |
May |
June |
July |
Aug. |
Sep. |
Oct. |
Nov. |
Dec. |
Year |
|
0° |
+/- 0° |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
15° |
+/- 0° |
1,3 |
1,21 |
1,13 |
1,05 |
1 |
0,98 |
0,99 |
1,03 |
1,1 |
1,18 |
1,28 |
1,33 |
1,09 |
|
15° |
+/- 30° |
1,25 |
1,18 |
1,11 |
1,04 |
1 |
0,98 |
0,99 |
1,03 |
1,08 |
1,15 |
1,24 |
1,28 |
1,08 |
|
15° |
+/- 60° |
1,14 |
1,09 |
1,05 |
1,02 |
0,99 |
0,98 |
0,99 |
1,01 |
1,04 |
1,08 |
1,13 |
1,15 |
1,04 |
|
15° |
+/- 90° |
0,99 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,98 |
0,99 |
0,98 |
0,99 |
0,98 |
|
30° |
+/- 0° |
1,52 |
1,35 |
1,19 |
1,05 |
0,95 |
0,91 |
0,93 |
1,01 |
1,14 |
1,3 |
1,48 |
1,58 |
1,13 |
|
30° |
+/- 30° |
1,44 |
1,29 |
1,15 |
1,03 |
0,95 |
0,92 |
0,93 |
1 |
1,11 |
1,25 |
1,41 |
1,49 |
1,11 |
|
30° |
+/- 60° |
1,23 |
1,14 |
1,07 |
0,99 |
0,95 |
0,92 |
0,94 |
0,98 |
1,04 |
1,12 |
1,2 |
1,25 |
1,03 |
|
30° |
+/- 90° |
0,96 |
0,94 |
0,94 |
0,93 |
0,93 |
0,92 |
0,93 |
0,93 |
0,93 |
0,95 |
0,94 |
0,95 |
0,93 |
|
45° |
+/- 0° |
1,66 |
1,41 |
1,19 |
0,98 |
0,85 |
0,79 |
0,82 |
0,93 |
1,11 |
1,34 |
1,6 |
1,75 |
1,11 |
|
45° |
+/- 30° |
1,54 |
1,33 |
1,14 |
0,97 |
0,86 |
0,81 |
0,84 |
0,93 |
1,08 |
1,27 |
1,49 |
1,62 |
1,07 |
|
45° |
+/- 60° |
1,25 |
1,13 |
1,03 |
0,93 |
0,87 |
0,84 |
0,85 |
0,91 |
0,99 |
1,1 |
1,22 |
1,29 |
0,99 |
|
45° |
+/- 90° |
0,9 |
0,87 |
0,87 |
0,85 |
0,84 |
0,84 |
0,84 |
0,85 |
0,86 |
0,89 |
0,89 |
0,9 |
0,86 |
|
60° |
+/- 0° |
1,7 |
1,39 |
1,12 |
0,87 |
0,71 |
0,64 |
0,67 |
0,81 |
1,02 |
1,3 |
1,62 |
1,8 |
1,02 |
|
60° |
+/- 30° |
1,56 |
1,29 |
1,07 |
0,86 |
0,74 |
0,68 |
0,7 |
0,82 |
0,99 |
1,22 |
1,49 |
1,65 |
0,99 |
|
60° |
+/- 60° |
1,22 |
1,07 |
0,96 |
0,83 |
0,76 |
0,73 |
0,75 |
0,81 |
0,91 |
1,04 |
1,18 |
1,26 |
0,9 |
|
60° |
+/- 90° |
0,83 |
0,79 |
0,79 |
0,76 |
0,75 |
0,74 |
0,75 |
0,76 |
0,78 |
0,81 |
0,82 |
0,83 |
0,77 |
|
90° |
+/- 0° |
1,48 |
1,12 |
0,8 |
0,52 |
0,35 |
0,28 |
0,31 |
0,44 |
0,68 |
1,02 |
1,38 |
1,6 |
0,7 |
|
90° |
+/- 30° |
1,31 |
1,02 |
0,77 |
0,56 |
0,43 |
0,38 |
0,4 |
0,51 |
0,68 |
0,94 |
1,23 |
1,42 |
0,7 |
|
90° |
+/- 60° |
0,98 |
0,82 |
0,71 |
0,59 |
0,52 |
0,49 |
0,5 |
0,56 |
0,66 |
0,8 |
0,93 |
1,02 |
0,66 |
|
90° |
+/- 90° |
0,65 |
0,6 |
0,59 |
0,55 |
0,53 |
0,53 |
0,53 |
0,55 |
0,57 |
0,61 |
0,62 |
0,64 |
0,57 |
Figure 2. Graph of the transformation factors for summer that PVsyst created for TCM
Figure 3. Graph of the transformation factors for winter that PVsyst created for TCM
In general, the total amount of solar irradiation incidence on photovoltaic (PV) panels is comprised of three components: the direct beam irradiation (GBt), the diffuse irradiation reflected from the ground (GDt), and the absorbed beam irradiation (GGt).
The (Gt) radiation incidence on the tilted plane is calculated by decomposing the (G) monthly average horizontal plane incident (KWh/m2). Variations in tilt angles (β) affect (Gt) values. At the optimum tilt angle (β opt), the global beam on the tilted surface (Gt) is at its highest value. TF is greatest at this tilt angle.(37) According to equation (1).
METHOD
Simulation methodology
Step 1: set up the parameters for geographical sites
The PV Syst software version 7.2.2 was utilized in this study. The system is situated within the Electrical engineering technologies department in MTC region of Iraq, specifically positioned at a latitude of 32° 46′ 59,99″ N and a longitude of 44° 19′ 0,01 E. Furthermore, it is situated at an elevation of 27 meters. The software is utilized for acquiring the geographical characteristics of certain sites to enables the retrieval of monthly data on Global Horizontal Radiation (GHI or GlobHor) and monthly Diffuse Horizontal Radiation (DiffHor), as presented in table 2.
|
Table 2. Geographical characteristics of the site |
||
|
|
GlobH |
DiffH |
|
|
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh/m²) |
|
Jan. |
91,8 |
30,7 |
|
Feb. |
109,5 |
33,6 |
|
Mar. |
150,7 |
49 |
|
Apr. |
171,9 |
58,8 |
|
May |
209,9 |
64,2 |
|
June |
238,2 |
53,7 |
|
July |
228,5 |
59,8 |
|
Aug. |
214,5 |
52,1 |
|
Sep. |
174,6 |
43,8 |
|
Oct. |
124 |
42,5 |
|
Nov. |
88,5 |
33 |
|
Dec. |
81,8 |
28,5 |
|
Year |
1883,9 |
549,7 |
Step 2: settingof the fixed tilted optimum tilt angle
Figure 4. Tilt angle of the site
To obtain the optimum tilt angle in this site as in figure 1 depicts the various tilt and azimuth angles that can be used to maximize solar radiation received by PV panels and, in turn, system production power. In Iraq, fixed PV arrays must face south.
Step 3: loads information and energy use
As shown in figure 5 reveals that the daily energy consumption is 11010 Wh/day, and the total monthly power need is 330,0 kW/mth.
Figure 5. Loads Information on energy use
Step 4: PV system design and component sizing
Off-grid solar energy system is made to meet the daily needs of the Rest, and it needs to be able to recharge the battery bank sufficiently to provide power at night or when the sun is not shining. System size is the process of figuring out what voltage and current each part of the standalone PV system needs to operate in order to power the load. In figure 6 shown the PV system compounds.
Figure 6. PV system design and component sizing
Step 5: setting of the seasonal tilt angle (summer and winter)
In this step, step 1, step 4 and step 4 is constant in this study, as shown in figure 7 seasonal tilt adjustment chosen from field type . after testing many seasonal tilt angle to find the optimum tilt angle for summer and winter. The PV Syst. suggested the seasonal summer and winter tilt angle are 20o, 50o respectively. The winter months chosen and the other months for summer as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7. Seasonal tilt adjustment
Step 6: compute the results
The PVSyst software is used to compute the results for steps 2 and the results from step 5 the important results of this study calculate the maximum (TF), which means getting optimum tilt angle.
RESULTS
In this study, the Perez transposition model presently implemented in PSyst was chosen. Annual comparisons will be made between the outcomes of the cases according to the maximum system Production, maximum (TF), which signifies obtaining the optimum tilt angle.
Case 1: set the fixed tilted optimum tilt angle
From PV Syst. software suggest the 20o is the tilt angle the results shown in table 3.
|
Table 3. Tilt angle suggest from PV syst. software |
|||||
|
Angle |
System Production |
Normalized prod. |
Performance ratio |
Array losses |
TF |
|
Degree |
(Kwh/yr) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
|
20 |
4940 |
3,58 |
0,632 |
1,82 |
1,097 |
After testing, many tilt angle to obtain maximum (TF). The result shown in table 4.
|
Table 4. Result for different tilt angle |
|||||
|
Angle |
System Production |
Normalized prod. |
Performance ratio |
Array losses |
TF |
|
Degree |
(Kwh/yr) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
|
27 |
4987 |
3,63 |
0,636 |
1,81 |
1,106 |
|
28 |
4988 |
3,65 |
0,640 |
1,80 |
1,107 |
|
29 |
4988 |
3,65 |
0,639 |
1,80 |
1,107 |
|
30 |
4987 |
3,66 |
0,640 |
1,78 |
1,106 |
|
31 |
4986 |
3,66 |
0,642 |
1,78 |
1,106 |
As shown in table 4 the angles 28o and 29o have the same system Production (4988) Kwh/yr and same (TF) (1,107). The balances and main results of this two angle as shown in table 5.
|
Table 5. Balances and main results of tilt angle 28o and 29o |
||||||||
|
Angle |
GlobHor |
GlobEff |
E_Avail |
EUnused |
E_Miss |
E_User |
E_Load |
Solar fraction |
|
Degree |
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(EUsed / ELoad) |
|
28 |
1883,8 |
2031,3 |
4987,8 |
882,1 |
17,57 |
4000,9 |
4018,5 |
0,996 |
|
29 |
1883,8 |
2031,3 |
4988,2 |
883,5 |
24,33 |
3994,1 |
4018,5 |
0,994 |
Table 5 show the optical factors between these angles. Also in table 6 show the method of calculate the (TF) in PV syst software by applying equation (1) as follow.
|
Table 6. Meteo and incident energy results of tilt angle 28o and 29o |
|||
|
Angle |
GlobHor |
GlobInc |
TF |
|
Degree |
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh/m²) |
(%) |
|
28 |
1883,8 |
2084,5 |
1,107 |
|
29 |
1883,8 |
2084,5 |
1,107 |
Based on the data presented in tables 2 and 3, it can be observed that for a tilt angle of 28 degrees, the performance ratio is higher compared to a tilt angle of 29 degrees. Additionally, the amount of missing energy is lower, while the solar fraction is higher as shown in figure 8.
Figure 8. Performance ratio and solar fraction for tilt angle 28o and 29o
Case 2: set the seasonal tilt angle (summer and winter)
In this case From PV Syst. software suggest that the 20o, 50o are seasonal tilt angle for summer and winter respectively The System Production 5179 Kwh/yr., the Performance ratio is 0,620 and (TF) is 1,148 the results as shown in table 7.
|
Table 7. Results for seasonal tilt angle 20o, 50o |
|||||
|
Angle S-W |
System Production |
Normalized prod. |
Performance ratio |
Array losses |
TF |
|
Degree |
(Kwh/yr) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
|
20-50 |
5179 |
3,67 |
0,620 |
1,97 |
1,148 |
After testing more than tilt angle for summer and winter season to obtain maximum system production with maximum (TF) the final result shown in table 8.
|
Table 8. The optimum seasonal tilt angle with maximum TF |
|||||
|
Angle S-W |
System Production |
Normalized prod. |
Performance ratio |
Array losses |
TF |
|
Degree |
(Kwh/yr) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
(Kwh/kwp/day) |
(%) |
|
12-50 |
5199 |
3,67 |
0,617 |
1,99 |
1,152 |
|
Table 9. Balances and main results for optimum seasonal tilt angle (12o, 50o) |
||||||||
|
Month |
GlobHor |
GlobEff |
E_Avail |
EUnused |
E_Miss |
E_User |
E_Load |
SolFrac |
|
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(kWh) |
(KWh) |
ratio |
|
|
Jan. |
91,8 |
144,3 |
383,6 |
17,2 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Feb. |
109,5 |
152,1 |
401,6 |
83,1 |
0 |
308,3 |
308,3 |
1 |
|
Mar. |
150,7 |
173,3 |
443,8 |
100,1 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Apr. |
171,9 |
175,1 |
435,3 |
86,2 |
0 |
330,3 |
330,3 |
1 |
|
May |
209,9 |
205,1 |
487 |
134,4 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
June |
238,2 |
228,5 |
529,6 |
174,8 |
0 |
330,3 |
330,3 |
1 |
|
July |
228,5 |
221,4 |
509,3 |
151,3 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Aug. |
214,5 |
215,8 |
496,9 |
143,9 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Sep. |
174,6 |
184,5 |
438,9 |
90,6 |
0 |
330,3 |
330,3 |
1 |
|
Oct. |
124 |
154,6 |
380 |
44,6 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Nov. |
88,5 |
130,9 |
334,6 |
0 |
0 |
330,3 |
330,3 |
1 |
|
Dec. |
81,8 |
134,9 |
358,3 |
20,5 |
0 |
341,3 |
341,3 |
1 |
|
Year |
1883,8 |
2120,3 |
5199 |
1046,8 |
0 |
4018,5 |
4018,5 |
1 |
The monthly of the optical factors for optimum seasonal tilt angle (12o, 50o) as shown in table 10.
|
Table 10. The optimum seasonal tilt angle (12o, 50o) |
|||
|
Month |
GlobHor |
GlobInc |
TF |
|
(kWh/m²) |
(kWh/m²) |
ratio |
|
|
January |
91,8 |
146,7 |
1,599 |
|
February |
109,5 |
155 |
1,416 |
|
March |
150,7 |
177,6 |
1,178 |
|
April |
171,9 |
179,6 |
1,045 |
|
May |
209,9 |
210,3 |
1,002 |
|
June |
238,2 |
234,3 |
0,984 |
|
July |
228,5 |
227 |
0,994 |
|
August |
214,5 |
221,2 |
1,031 |
|
September |
174,6 |
189,7 |
1,086 |
|
October |
124 |
157,7 |
1,272 |
|
November |
88,5 |
133,3 |
1,506 |
|
December |
81,8 |
137,2 |
1,676 |
|
Year |
1883,8 |
2169,5 |
1,152 |
As shown in table 10 the maximum monthly (TF) is in December, and minimum is in June and July which is related to temperature in PV module.
CONCLUSIONS
In the department of electrical engineering technologies at Al-Musayyib technical college in Iraq, this study examines and compares two possible positions for the installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems: a fixed titled plane and a seasonal tilt adjustment. In order to establish which of these options would result in the highest yearly transposition factor (TF) and the highest output system production power, this determination was carried out with the assistance of the PVSyst software. The conclusions that can be drawn from the research results are as follows:
· The transposition factors that were computed using PV Syst are consistent with equation (1). This is the case under the assumption that (GlobInc) is equivalent to (Gt), and (GlobHor) is equivalent to (G).
· The higher transposition factor for fixed orientation is 1,107 % at a tilt angle of (28o), which is the optimal tilt angle at this site. The highest system production power is 498-kilowatt hours per year, the maximum energy delivered to the user is 4000,9-kilowatt hours per year, and the least amount of energy that is missing is 17,57-kilowatt hours per year.
· The higher transposition factor for seasonal orientation is 1,152 % at a tilt angle of (12o, 50o) for summer and winter, respectively, which is the seasonal optimal tilt angle at this site. The amount of energy that is delivered to the user is 4018,5-kilowatt hours per year, with the system production power being 5199-kilowatt hours per year. The amount of energy that is missing is 0,0-kilowatt hours per year, which means that the energy that is supplied to the user is equal to the energy that the user requires.
· To put it another way, the amount of solar radiation that is collected by the photovoltaic panel throughout the year can be optimized to acquire the greatest output power by making two annual adjustments to the tilt angle. This is in contrast to the practice of using a tilt angle that is set annually in order to reduce the cost of employing another orientation such as tracking.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE
1. A. Z. Hafez, A. Soliman, K. A. El-Metwally, and I. M. Ismail, “Tilt and azimuth angles in solar energy applications–A review,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 77, pp. 147-168, 2017.
2. G. Liu, W. Wu, Q. Ge, E. Dai, Z. Wan, and Y. Zhou, “GIS-based assessment of roof-mounted solar energy potential in Jiangsu, China,” in 2011 Second International Conference on Digital Manufacturing & Automation, 2011, pp. 565-571: IEEE.
3. A. D. Hansen, P. Sorensen, L. H. Hansen, and H. J. R. R. N. L. Bindner, “Models for a stand-alone PV system,” 2000.
4. A. Rouholamini, H. Pourgharibshahi, R. Fadaeinedjad, and G. Moschopoulos, “Optimal tilt angle determination of photovoltaic panels and comparing of their mathematical model predictions to experimental data in Kerman,” in 2013 26th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 2013, pp. 1-4: IEEE.
5. S. O. Ganiyu, C. A. Martínez-Huitle, and M. A. Rodrigo, “Renewable energies driven electrochemical wastewater/soil decontamination technologies: A critical review of fundamental concepts and applications,” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, vol. 270, p. 118857, 2020/08/05/ 2020.
6. I. J. Khadim, E. J. Mahdi, A. H. J. E. Ubaid, and T. Journal, “Determining Tilt Angle for Fixed Solar Panel Tosites of Iraq’s Provinces by Using the Programs on NASA and Google Earth Websites,” vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 498-506, 2014.
7. A. K. Yadav and S. S. Chandel, “Tilt angle optimization to maximize incident solar radiation: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 23, pp. 503-513, 2013.
8. T. M. Yunus Khan et al., “Optimum location and influence of tilt angle on performance of solar PV panels,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, vol. 141, pp. 511-532, 2020.
9. R. Tang, Y. J. E. c. Yang, and management, “Nocturnal reverse flow in water-in-glass evacuated tube solar water heaters,” vol. 80, pp. 173-177, 2014.
10. X. Zhang et al., “Experimental investigation of the higher coefficient of thermal performance for water-in-glass evacuated tube solar water heaters in China,” vol. 78, pp. 386-392, 2014.
11. M. S. Ismail, M. Moghavvemi, T. J. E. c. Mahlia, and management, “Design of an optimized photovoltaic and microturbine hybrid power system for a remote small community: Case study of Palestine,” vol. 75, pp. 271-281, 2013.
12. R. Yan, T. K. Saha, P. Meredith, S. J. E. c. Goodwin, and management, “Analysis of yearlong performance of differently tilted photovoltaic systems in Brisbane, Australia,” vol. 74, pp. 102-108, 2013.
13. V. Sethi, D. Pal, K. J. E. C. Sumathy, and Management, “Performance evaluation and solar radiation capture of optimally inclined box type solar cooker with parallelepiped cooking vessel design,” vol. 81, pp. 231-241, 2014.
14. B. Fortunato, M. Torresi, A. J. E. C. Deramo, and Management, “Modeling, performance analysis and economic feasibility of a mirror-augmented photovoltaic system,” vol. 80, pp. 276-286, 2014.
15. P. J. Lunde, “Solar thermal engineering: space heating and hot water systems,” 1980.
16. H. P. Garg, Treatise on solar energy. John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
17. B. Norton and S. J. A. E. Probert, “Natural-circulation solar-energy stimulated systems for heating water,” vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 167-196, 1982.
18. J. A. Duffie and W. A. Beckman, Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
19. G. J. S. W. T. Lewis, “Optimum tilt of a solar collector,” vol. 4, no. 3, 1987.
20. M. J. S. El-Kassaby and w. technology, “Monthly and daily optimum tilt angle for south facing solar collectors; theoretical model, experimental and empirical correlations,” vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 589-596, 1988.
21. S. J. E. C. Bari and Management, “Optimum slope angle and orientation of solar collectors for different periods of possible utilization,” vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 855-860, 2000.
22. M. H. M. Sidek, N. Azis, W. Z. W. Hasan, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir, S. Shafie, and M. A. M. Radzi, “Automated positioning dual-axis solar tracking system with precision elevation and azimuth angle control,” Energy, vol. 124, pp. 160-170, 2017.
23. A. Hussain, S. M. Arif, and M. Aslam, “Emerging renewable and sustainable energy technologies: State of the art,” Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 71, pp. 12-28, 2017.
24. T. J. R. e. Tomson, “Discrete two-positional tracking of solar collectors,” vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 400-405, 2008.
25. M. A. Zainol Abidin, M. N. Mahyuddin, and M. A. A. Mohd Zainuri, “Solar photovoltaic architecture and agronomic management in agrivoltaic system: A review,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 7846, 2021.
26. H. Mousazadeh et al., “A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output,” vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1800-1818, 2009.
27. H. Gunerhan, A. J. B. Hepbasli, and Environment, “Determination of the optimum tilt angle of solar collectors for building applications,” vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 779-783, 2007.
28. Y. Tian and C.-Y. Zhao, “A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in solar thermal applications,” Applied energy, vol. 104, pp. 538-553, 2013.
29. H. Ghosh, N. Bhowmik, and M. J. R. E. Hussain, “Determining seasonal optimum tilt angles, solar radiations on variously oriented, single and double axis tracking surfaces at Dhaka,” vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1292-1297, 2010.
30. R. Tang and T. J. A. e. Wu, “Optimal tilt-angles for solar collectors used in China,” vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 239-248, 2004.
31. A. Shariah, M.-A. Al-Akhras, and I. J. R. E. Al-Omari, “Optimizing the tilt angle of solar collectors,” vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 587-598, 2002.
32. K. J. E. C. Skeiker and Management, “Optimum tilt angle and orientation for solar collectors in Syria,” vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 2439-2448, 2009.
33. A. De Miguel, J. Bilbao, M. J. E. c. Diez, and management, “Solar radiation incident on tilted surfaces in Burgos, Spain: isotropic models,” vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 945-951, 1995.
34. M. J. A. E. Benghanem, “Optimization of tilt angle for solar panel: Case study for Madinah, Saudi Arabia,” vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 1427-1433, 2011.
35. M. Kacira, M. Simsek, Y. Babur, and S. J. R. e. Demirkol, “Determining optimum tilt angles and orientations of photovoltaic panels in Sanliurfa, Turkey,” vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1265-1275, 2004.
36. R. Chandel and S. S. Chandel, “Performance analysis outcome of a 19‐MWp commercial solar photovoltaic plant with fixed‐tilt, adjustable‐tilt, and solar tracking configurations,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 27-48, 2022.
37. M. Baqir and H. K. Channi, “Analysis and design of solar PV system using Pvsyst software,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 48, pp. 1332-1338, 2022.
FINANCING
There is no specific funding to support this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All authors reviewed the results, approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to publish it.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Data curation: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Formal analysis: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Research: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Methodology: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Drafting - original draft: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.
Writing - proofreading and editing: Bushra Majed Hameed Jaseem, Muhammed Salah Sadiq Al-Kafaji, Ahmed T Abdulsadda.