Quality assurance of PV plants

connected to the grid

Today widely extended technical quality assurance practises
STEP PROCEDURE OBJECTION
Design:
Energy yield forecast
Commercial software

Based on non-guaranteed
information

..for definitive simulations, the user is advised to carefully verify the library data
with the last manufacturers specificationsWe drop out any responsibility about
the integrity and the exactness of the data and performance including in the
library..
Disclaimer at PVSYS Users Guide
The PVsyst is based on the full I-V curve one-diode model. Required information
(series and shunt resistance, photo current, saturation current and diode quality
factor) is mainly obtained from I-V curves database from TISO (Centrale di prova
peer componente PV, Ticino, Switzarland) and Photon (German PV journal)

..These data are key parameters of the model, and should be part of the modules
specifications in the future..
A. Mermoud el al, 25
th
European PVSEC (2010)


The database was compiled to the best of our knowledge and with the greatest
possible accuracy. At the same time, PHOTON cannot be held responsible from
any damage that results from the use of this database.
Disclaimer at Photon database
Risk of relying on default settings that prescribe irradiance behaviour in PV*SOL
and Pvsyst module models

K. Sauer et al, from Yingly
PV Performance Modelling Workshop, Sandia Labs (2013)
Today widely extended technical quality assurance practises
STEP PROCEDURE OBJECTION
Design:
Energy yield forecast
Commercial software Based on non-guaranteed
information
Procurement:
PV module sample
peak power testing
Prior to the
installation, at
qualified laboratories
Neither Light Induced
Degradation nor
Irradiance and temperature
behaviour are addressed
Today widely extended technical quality assurance practises
STEP PROCEDURE OBJECTION
Design:
Energy yield forecast
Commercial software Based on non-guaranteed
information
Procurement:
PV module sample
testing
Prior to the
installation, al
qualified laboratories
Light Induced Degradation
not addressed
Commissioning:

PV plant production
testing

PR during a week
(Often pass criteria
PR 80%)
-Time-dependence disturbs
technical quality
qualification

Weekly PR evolution along the year
0,850
0,900
0,950
1,000
1,050
1,100
1,150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PR
DC

PR
The weekly PR varies up to 10% along the year, and up to 5 % along a
same month.
c-Si PV array, Navarra (Spain), 2011
Today widely extended technical quality assurance practises
STEP PROCEDURE OBJECTION
Design:
Energy yield forecast
Commercial software Based on non-guaranteed
information
Procurement:
PV module sample
testing
Prior to the
installation, al
qualified laboratories
Light Induced Degradation
not addressed
Commissioning:

PV plant production
testing

PR during a week -Time-dependence disturb
technical quality
qualification
- Detailed characterization of
real PV plant behaviour not
addressed
Infrared inspection Hot-spot detection - Acceptance criteria scarcely
addressed
Operation

PV plant production
PR during full years - Ageing measurement not
addressed
IEC 62446:
Grid connected PV systems Minimum requirements for system
documentation, commissioning tests and inspection

7.2.2.2 IR test results Module hot spots

Module temperature should be relatively uniform, with non areas of significant
temperature difference. However, it is to be expected than the module will be hotter
around the junction box compared to the rest as the heat is not conducted as well to
the surrounding environment. It is also normal for the PV modules to see a
temperature gradient at the edges and supports.

A hot spot elsewhere in a module usually indicates an electric problem, possibly series
resistance, shunt resistance or cell mismatch. In any case investigate the performance
of all modules that show significant hot spot(s). Visual inspection may show signs of
overheating, for example a brown or discoloured area.
Today widely extended technical quality assurance practises
STEP PROCEDURE OBJECTION
Design:
Energy yield forecast
Commercial software Based on non-guaranteed
information
Procurement:
PV module sample
testing
Prior to the
installation, al
qualified laboratories
Light Induced Degradation
not addressed
Commissioning:

PV plant production
testing

PR during a week -Time-dependence disturb
technical quality
qualification
- Detailed characterization of
real PV plant behaviour not
addressed
Infrared inspection Hot-spot detection - Acceptance criteria scarcely
addressed
Operation

PV plant production
PR during full years - Ageing measurement not
addressed
SUMMARY:

Energy production of current large PV plants seems to satisfy investors
expectation

Nevertheless, Technical Quality Assurance procedures can be improved in
order to:
Clarify the rules for endorsement of responsibilities in the event of
problems (real production below expectation, hot-spots appearance, etc.)

Improve the technical soundness and the usefulness of in-field
commissioning testing

QA Objective: Tightening real and predicted productions
Expectation in terms of , both, yearly energy production and degradation rate
Assumptions:
Phenomena Procedure Responsible
Weather evolution (G(0) and T
A
) Solar database Nobody
Operation conditions (G(in-plane)
and T
C
) evolution
Transposition models Nobody
PV plant response P*,
INV
, loses
PR, PR
STC

EPC; PV modules and
inverter manufacturers
Commissioning:
Testing the PV plant response during a few weeks period

Operation:
Monthly and yearly verification of PV plant response and
maintenance procedures

Modelling the PV plant response
*
G
P
AC
P
G
T
C

, ,

- Dealing with the PV plant response requires modelling of

, ,

- Because associated responsibilities, involved specifications (P*, thermal
response, etc.) must be agreed with PV manufactures.
- Current specification practises:
- Guaranteed: P*, degradation rate in %/year
- Standard information: NOCT, Thermal coefficients
- Additional information: I-V graphics

, ,

modelling alternatives
1- Considering just the MPP

+ .

+ .

standard data sheet information (IEC 61215 and IEC 61646)
(a, b,c ) a=1, b=0, c=0

200
/
1000
(IEC 61215 and IEC 61646)
granting generality to published values
(1)
Commissioning tests

2- Considering the full I-V curve

Adjusting 5 parameters (ISC, VOC, RS, RP and m) to a given I-V curve is not straightforward
Module to module parameters variation is typically larger than MPP variation

3 Specific energy rating attempts
Kings model from Sandia Lab
Power matrix as defined at IEC 618532
(1) R. Kenny et al, Prog. Photovolt: Rs.Appl. (DOI: 10,1002/pip.2365 (2013)
Available literature warns about scarce benefits from complexity

Surprisingly, there doesnt seem to be a need for overly complicated modelling to
achieve this accuracy for most technologies
PERFORMANCE final brochure (EPIA, 2009)


A simplified version of the Kings model, using a single expression for the maximum,
power point and requiring just 6 empirical coefficients performs as well as the original
(Huld, T. 2011)

The authors feeling is that the complexity of the standard [ IEC 618532] is actually not
beneficial for an accurate energy prediction, as it requires data which is actually
normally not know and the generation of this.. seems to affect the overall agreement
more than it would be without this complicated step
(Jyotirmoy Roy, 2008)
Experimental comparison of different practical possibilities
- 6 PV arrays of different technologies (1.9 < P*(kW)<2.4) are connected to the grid
from 2011, at Navarra ( G
y
1900 kWh/m2; 2,6 < G
d
(kWh/m2)

< 7,6)

- P
DC
, G and T
C
(from Si-c reference PV modules ) are measured at 1 second rate and
recorded as 10 minutes averages.
- Considered models:



DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
Full I-V curve Full I-V curve
MPP, only MPP, and ref(1)
MPP, and
200
/
1000
MPP, and measurements
Weekly energy errors [(Modelled Experimental)/Experimental ], for the c-Si
PV array, weighted by the daily irradiation and expressed in %.
DATA SHEET ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
Full I-V MPP

MPP
,
200

Full I-V

MPP
, ref (1)
MPP
, meas.
W1 0.4 1.85 2.67 -0.08 2.15 1.41
W2 -1.69 0.84 1.81 -0.79 1.12 0.28
W3 -1.78 0.97 2.03 -0.8 1.26 0.32
W4 3.95 1.89 3.79 -0.64 2.93 1.17
Year 2.11 1.50 2.64 -0,83 1.86 0.85
1.42 1.27 1.29 1.07 0.9 0.97
- P
REAL
* 1% larger than P
NOMINAL
*
- Selected weeks are centred on the equinox (W1 and W3), on the summer solstice
(W2) and on the winter solstice (W4)
An MPP model considering just the power temperature coefficient given at
the data sheet explains up to 97% of the observed variability.
Considering also the efficiency variation with irradiance reduces uncertainty
by about 1%
Yearly energy errors at 12 different commercial Spanish PV plants
- G and TC given by reference PV modules, MPP model with and
200
/
1000

- P* and
INVERTER
values obtained at Commissioning tests
Nominal power
(MW)
Real yearly Yield
(kWh/kW)
Modelled yearly
yield (kWh/kW)
Error (%)
2 2038 2067 1.4
2.16 2056 2095 1.9
2.95 2050 2096 2.2
2 2194 2163 -1.4
1.5 2074 2032 -2.1
1.4 1561 1597 2.3
2.03 2142 2140 -0.1
11.2 2016 2038 1.1
2.1 2204 2198 -0.3
1.9 2320 2279 -1.8
9.7 2108 2111 0.1
25.3 1594 1616 1.4
Daily energy errors at 45.6 kW Amaraleja PV plant
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
-5
0
5
10
15
20
K
Td
T
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
-
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

(
%
)
-6 -4.5 -3 -1.5 0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Theoretical-Measured (%)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
%
)
Mean: 1.3 %
STD: 1.9 %
- G and TC given by 9 reference PV modules, MPP model with
- P* and
INVERTER
values first obtained at Commissioning tests and
periodically reviewed
Commissioning testing: Current state of art - 1
- The simplest possibility rely on the Performance Ratio concept

- Acceptation
,

.PR
GUARANTEED
. (or PR PR
GUARANTEED
)

Given by the energy meter Specified at the contract (80%)

Nominal power Given by the in-plane solar radiation meter

- PR calculation requires only G records




- Because it includes time-dependent unavoidable losses, the mere PR is generally
not adequate for sub-year periods (days, weeks, months ).
Weekly PR evolution along the year
0,850
0,900
0,950
1,000
1,050
1,100
1,150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PR
DC

PR
The weekly PR varies up to 10% along the year, and up to 5 % along a
same month.
c-Si PV array, Navarra (Spain), 2011
Commissioning testing: Current state of art - 2
- Time-dependent unavoidable energy loses are removed at the Performance Ratio at
Standard Test Conditions concept:

(1

- E means energy loses and I extends to all unavoidable phenomena:
- Thermal (due to T
C
T
C
* )
- Efficiency variation with irradiance
- Anomalies: Shading, inverter saturation, PV plant disconnections, etc.

- PR
STC
calculation requires (additional to G ) T
C
records .and modelling.

- PV reference modules are recommended to minimize uncertainty

- Acceptation PR
STC
along T PR
STC, GUARANTEED

Weekly PR and PR
STC
evolution along the year - 1
0,850
0,900
0,950
1,000
1,050
1,100
1,150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PR
PRSTC
PR
PR
STC

Commissioning testing: Advances procedures
- Not only energy production but also PV plant characterization is addressed
G
TC
PDC PAC
P
REAL
* = P
NOMINAL
* . (1-F
G
);
INV, REAL
=
INV, NOMINAL
.(1-F
INV

- Highly desirable for further careful operation surveillance
- PV plant in-field characterization requires G, T
C
, P
DC
and P
AC
recordsand modelling

- PV reference modules and accurate wattmeters are recommended to minimize
uncertainty
PV reference modules and accurate wattmeters
In-field testing: AC power response
21
P
AC,EXP
P
DC,EXP
G, T
C

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200
G
ef
(W/m
2
)
P
D
C

[
G
e
f
,

2
5

C
]

(
k
W
)
P
DC
= 0,1087 G
ef
R
2
= 1
In-field testing: STC power of the PV generator
| |
( ) | |
*
C C
DC
ef
DC
1
C 25 ,
T T
P
G P
+
=

P
AC,EXP
P
DC,EXP
G, T
C
,EXP
Mean
I
SC
*

[A] 1240.0 6.4
V
OC
*
[V] 862.3 5.1
I
M
*
[A] 1114.6 4.2
V
M
*
[V] 703.4 10.6
P
M, IEC-60891
*
[W] 784044 11067
FF
*
0.733 0.003
P
M,
*
[W] 742728 4894

In-field testing: efficiency of inverters
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
p
ac
(
%
)
Inversor A
Inversor B
Inversor C
Modelo
Fabricante
q
P
P
AC,EXP
P
DC,EXP
G, T
C
Dealing with hot-spots - 1
Hot-spots threaten PV module lifetime and reduce operation voltage
T
HS
5
o
C
V
OP
= 29.5 V
T
HS
17.4
o
C
V
OP
= 26.3 V
T
HS
14.3
o
C; T
HS
11.8
o
C
V
OP
= 22.6 V
Dealing with hot-spots - 2
Proposal for contracts:

- T
HS
20
o
C PV module rejection
- 10
o
C T
HS
< 20
o
C and V > 20%


CONCLUSIONS

- c-SI PV array response is properly described by a simple model considering
just the maximum power point and the power temperature coefficient

- The power temperature coefficient must be included at the guarantees
provided by the PV module manufacturers

- In-field commissioning testing must preferably deal with PR
STC
(over the
mere PR). That requires measuring G and T
C
and modelling unavoidable
loses

- Commissioning testing can also include the characterization of the
effective behaviour of the PV plant. That requires measuring G, T
C
, P
DC
and
P
AC.


- Reference PV modules are preferred for measuring, both, G and T
C

- Proposed rejection criteria for PV module with hot-spots:
- Temperature differences larger than 20
o
C
- Temperature differences between 10
o
C and 20
o
C, and voltage
operation loses larger than 20%