| Literature DB >> 31546770 |
Xiaobo Xu1, Xiaocheng Zhang2, Zhaowu Huang3, Shaoyou Xie4, Wenping Gu5, Xiaoyan Wang6, Lin Zhang7, Zan Zhang8.
Abstract
In the photovoltaic (PV) field, the outdoor evaluation of a PV system is quite complex, due to the variations of temperature and irradiance. In fact, the diagnosis of the PV modules is extremely required in order to maintain the optimum performance. In this paper, an artificial neural network (ANN) is proposed to build and train the model, and evaluate the PV module performance by mean bias error, mean square error and the regression analysis. We take temperature, irradiance and a specific voltage for input, and a specific current value for output, repeat several times in order to obtain an I-V curve. The main feature lies to the data-driven black-box method, with the ignorance of any analytical equations and hence the conventional five parameters (serial resistance, shunt resistance, non-ideal factor, reverse saturation current, and photon current). The ANN is able to predict the I-V curves of the Si PV module at arbitrary irradiance and temperature. Finally, the proposed algorithm has proved to be valid in terms of comparison with the testing dataset.Entities:
Keywords: PV module; artificial neural network; current characteristics prediction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31546770 PMCID: PMC6766317 DOI: 10.3390/ma12183037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Deployment of PV modules and equipment in Cocoa, Florida.
Figure 2Current characteristics for different T and G.
Figure 3MLP structure of the neural network.
Irradiance (G) and ambient temperature (T) of the PV module for training MLP to obtain I-V curves.
| G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) | G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) | G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) | G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100.3 | 12.9 | 102.1 | 20.0 | 109.8 | 25.0 | 104.0 | 33.0 |
| 346.7 | 12.9 | 352.0 | 20.0 | 349.9 | 25.0 | 324.7 | 33.0 |
| 608.5 | 12.7 | 604.0 | 20.0 | 601.9 | 25.0 | 601.1 | 32.3 |
| 873.3 | 12.9 | 847.9 | 20.1 | 847.4 | 25.0 | 845.7 | 34.4 |
| 1105.0 | 12.5 | 1052.3 | 20.0 | 1088.2 | 25.0 | 1097.2 | 34.6 |
Figure 4Prediction results when the temperature is 10.1 °C, 16 °C, 28.3 °C, and 35 °C, with the corresponding illumination intensity 595.9 W/m2, 483.9 W/m2, 895.6 W/m2, and 950.5 W/m2, respectively; (a) first prediction results; (b) second prediction results.
Figure 5Regression analysis results corresponding to different temperatures and irradiances (a) T = 10.1 °C, G = 595.9 W/m2; (b) T = 16 °C, G = 483.9 W/m2; (c) T = 28.3 °C, G = 895.6 W/m2; (d) T = 35 °C, G = 950.5 W/m2.
MSE, MBE, and parameters of regression analysis for measured and predicted curves.
| xSi12922 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) | MSE (%) | MBE (%) | Best linear fit: A = βT + α | R2(%) |
| 207.9 | 21.6 | 0.14357 | −0.0081567 | A = (0.95983)T + (0.044092) | 99.3498 |
| 491.7 | 15.5 | 0.33843 | 0.036869 | A = (1.06340)T + (0.168920) | 99.8593 |
| 922.9 | 23.8 | 0.36043 | 0.0094 | A = (0.97613)T + (0.120550) | 99.8593 |
| 639.1 | 25.0 | 0.33031 | 0.035184 | A = (1.01750)T + (−0.09513) | 99.9086 |
| 384.7 | 18.3 | 1.59730 | −0.29256 | A = (1.00290)T + (0.253630) | 99.5170 |
| 1059.6 | 30.3 | 0.48341 | −0.025697 | A = (0.97268)T + (0.087804) | 99.8283 |
| 443.7 | 24.3 | 0.34652 | −2.4395 | A = (1.05980)T + (−0.15873) | 99.9102 |
| 895.6 | 28.3 | 0.24494 | 0.17058 | A = (1.01460)T + (0.033725) | 99.9439 |
| 380.3 | 25.7 | 0.54364 | 0.0438 | A = (0.86450)T + (0.164720) | 99.4472 |
| 565.2 | 22.3 | 0.80404 | 0.03101 | A = (0.94354)T + (0.022098) | 99.8563 |
| 768.6 | 31.6 | 0.83609 | 0.0305 | A = (1.07590)T + (0.123480) | 99.9921 |
| 922.9 | 31.8 | 0.88071 | 0.0541 | A = (0.92050)T + (0.386470) | 99.9315 |
| 930.2 | 33.2 | 0.75781 | 0.1589 | A = (1.05340)T + (0.313870) | 99.9730 |
| 483.9 | 16.0 | 0.15812 | 0.0076 | A = (0.97426)T + (0.041104) | 99.8693 |
| 1066.7 | 35.0 | 1.79780 | 0.1181 | A = (0.86818)T + (0.743890) | 99.9504 |
| 650.1 | 30.0 | 1.81190 | 0.03271 | A = (1.50320)T + (1.44840) | 99.6288 |
| 951.5 | 25.0 | 0.76103 | 0.03312 | A = (1.07101)T + (0.37733) | 99.9840 |
| 1000.8 | 32.5 | 0.59843 | 0.0929 | A = (0.96008)T + (0.23463) | 99.9368 |
| 525.2 | 33.0 | 2.72460 | 0.00837 | A = (0.63929)T + (0.95310) | 99.2597 |
| 950.5 | 35.0 | 1.46910 | 0.12831 | A = (0.89510)T + (0.50351) | 99.6683 |
Figure 6Comparison of the performance prediction results of the PV module on (a) 8 June 2011; (b) 18 June 2011; (c) 29 June 2011.
The MSE between the measured and the predicted data for the ANN method and Khan’s analytical one.
| G (W/m2) | Tc (°C) | ANN MSE (%) | Khan MSE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 425.5 | 38.2 | 0.43587 | 3.38521 |
| 1032.6 | 47.1 | 0.35621 | 1.82391 |
| 281.4 | 34.7 | 0.57120 | 5.93176 |
| 106.4 | 24.8 | 0.19348 | 9.12813 |