|
Chaminda, I did not have a chance to look deeply into why you are getting different results if you split up your two PV simulations into two projects. However, I did notice a few things about your project in looking at it. First, I do not think it is adviseable to have two instances of Type99 that are both reading from the same file. This might be the cause of the different results when you move one of the PVs to its own project. Either make a copy of the weather file and give it a different name or just use one instance of Type99 that feeds its outputs to both of your PV simulations. Second, there are errors and inconsistencies in the solar radiation that is passed to the PV. In all cases the total radiation input is connected. However, in some case the beam radiation is connected from another component's output and in other cases it is not. The diffuse radiation input is not connected. This means that the PVs think that there is 0 diffuse radiation at all times. It is very important to be consistent about the radiation inputs to the PV and to make sure that all three (total, diffuse, and beam are all being passed to the PV from another Type. Third, while you can use Type30 as an approximation for shading on a PV it assumes that the impact of shading a PV is linear (i.e. if you shade half the PV you will get half the power output that you would from an unshaded PV). This linear shading impact is often not the case with PVs. There is an alternative model (Type551) in the TESS Electrical library that offers a somewhat improved model for shading PVs. kind regards, David On 05/27/2016 04:41, Chaminda Ranaweera
via TRNSYS-users wrote:
Hello, -- *************************** David BRADLEY Principal Thermal Energy Systems Specialists, LLC 22 North Carroll Street - suite 370 Madison, WI 53703 USA P:+1.608.274.2577 F:+1.608.278.1475 d.bradley@tess-inc.com http://www.tess-inc.com http://www.trnsys.com |