Optimum Tilt Angle and Orientation of Photovoltaic Thermal System for Application in Greater Toronto Area, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>We present a study conducted to obtain optimum tilt angle and orientation of a solar panel for the collection of maximum solar irradiation. The optimum tilt angle and orientation were determined using isotropic and anisotropic diffuse sky radiation models (isotropic and anisotropic models). The four isotropic models giving varying optimum tilt angles in the range of 37 to 44°. On the other hand, results of the four anisotropic models were more consistent, with optimum tilt angles ranging between 46–47°. Both types of models indicated that the collector tilt should be changed four times a year to receive more solar radiation. The results also indicate that the solar panel should be installed with orientation west or east of due south with a flatter tilt angle. A 15° change in orientation west or east of due south results in less than 1% reduction of the total solar radiation received. For a given optimum tilt angle, the effect of photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) orientation west or east of due south on the outlet temperature was determined using a one-dimensional steady state heat transfer model. It was found that there is less than 1.5% decrease in outlet temperature for a PV/T panel oriented up to 15° east or west of due south from March to December. This result indicates that existing roofs with orientations angles up to 15° east or west of due south can be retrofitted with a PV/T system without changing the roof shape.</p>
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".