Quantifying Structural Shading and Reflection Effects on Single Axis Tracked Bifacial Photovoltaic System Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural elements of bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems, such as module frames, module supports, and torque tubes, affect module rear irradiance profiles through both shading and reflection. Standard bifacial energy yield models represent racking effects as a flat rear irradiance de‐rate factor; however, this neglects 1) the impact of racking reflection, and 2) the variation of racking effects over time. In this work, a differential irradiance approach is presented to quantify the effect of racking shading and reflection on bifacial rear irradiance. Using this method, racking effects on system energy yield, irradiance mismatch losses, and bifacial gain are calculated. This is applied to a single‐axis‐tracked 2‐in‐portrait bifacial PV system in Livermore, California with 74.5% reflective racking using bifacial_radiance ray tracing software. Racking reflection counteracts the irradiance reduction and mismatch losses caused by racking shading. Racking reflection reduces average rear irradiance shading by up to 19.2% per timestamp and 9.1% per year compared to absorptive racking. Racking effects vary diurnally, seasonally, and with respect to albedo. In a single day, the impact of racking on rear irradiance varies up to 14.6%. Applying this method will improve energy yield modeling accuracy of bifacial PV systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".