MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285130416 · doi:10.1109/jphotov.2022.3185546

DUET: A Novel Energy Yield Model With 3-D Shading for Bifacial Photovoltaic Systems

2022· article· en· W4285130416 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Photovoltaics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsIrradiancePhotovoltaic systemTilt (camera)PyranometerComputer scienceShadingRay tracing (physics)OpticsSolar irradianceAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)MathematicsElectrical engineeringPhysicsGeometryEngineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bifacial photovoltaic (PV) performance models strive to accurately quantify rear-incident irradiance. While ray tracing models are optically rigorous, they require significant computational resources; faster view factor (VF) models are widely adopted but require user-defined loss factors to approximate rear shading and irradiance nonuniformity, introducing uncertainty in energy yield predictions. This article describes DUET—a bifacial PV performance model that calculates optical and electrical performance based on a physically representative array geometry. DUET’s novel shading algorithm pairs a 3-D VF model with deterministic ray-object intersections to capture 2-D shade-inclusive irradiance profiles while minimizing computational cost. Series and parallel combination of current–voltage curves capture irradiance nonuniformity throughout the module and array. This article provides validation against open-access system measurements from a test site in Roskilde, Denmark, and comparison to other software tested there [1]. DUET’s modeled bifacial energy yield agrees with measured data within −1.56% for fixed-tilt and −0.65% for horizontal single-axis tracked (HSAT) systems. Mean absolute error (MAE) in hourly bifacial power is 14.2–15.0 mW/Wp for fixed-tilt and 17.3–18.3 mW/Wp for HSAT, depending on the module temperature model applied. Comparing modeled and measured rear irradiance of two rear-facing pyranometers, DUET’s MAE values of 2.8 W/m <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$^{2}$</tex-math></inline-formula> for fixed-tilt and 3.7 W/m <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$^{2}$</tex-math></inline-formula> for HSAT are among the lowest errors reported for other software tested at this site. DUET provides computationally efficient bifacial performance modeling with geographic, temporal, and structural specificity to determine loss factors for use in other performance models or to be used directly in system design optimization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it