Solar Energy Materials

Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 26 (1992) 51-69 and Solar Cells
North-Holland

The sizing of stand alone PV-systems: a review

and a proposed new method

M. Egido and E. Lorenzo

Instituto de Energ[a Solar, UniversidadPolitdcnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Received 6 May 1991

The reliability of stand alone photovoltaic systems is analyzed in terms of the loss of load
probability, LLP. A variety of numerical and analytic models for calculating the LLP are
described and evaluated using data for three Spanish locations: Madrid, Murcia and Santander,
selected because they represent different climatic conditions. It is concluded that numerical
models are accurate but complex to use, while analytic models exhibit significant lack of
accuracy.
A new analytic model, as accurate as the numerical models and as simple as analytic models, is
proposed. For each location, the model requires as input 4 different coefficients.

1. Introduction

T h e m e r i t of a s t a n d alone PV-system should be j u d g e d in t e r m s of the

reliability of the electricity supply to the load. This is usually q u a n t i f i e d by the
c o n c e p t of loss of load probability, LLP, d e f i n e d as the ratio b e t w e e n the energy
deficit a n d the e n e r g y d e m a n d s both o n the load, over a long p e r i o d of time e~
Because the r a n d o m n a t u r e of the solar radiation, the LLP of, even a trouble-free,
PV-system is always g r e a t e r t h a n zero.
T h e size of a PV-system is a g e n e r a l c o n c e p t i n c l u d i n g the d i m e n s i o n s of the
P V - a r r a y a n d the a c c u m u l a t o r . A useful d e f i n i t i o n of such d i m e n s i o n s relates to
the load: I n a daily basis, the PV-array capacity, C A, is d e f i n e d as the ratio b e t w e e n
the m e a n P V - a r r a y energy p r o d u c t i o n a n d the m e a n load energy d e m a n d . T h e
storage capacity, Cs, is d e f i n e d as the m a x i m u m energy that can be t a k e n out from
the a c c u m u l a t o r divided by the m e a n load energy d e m a n d . So:

rAG C
CA L and Cs = L-' (1)

#1 The LLP is also designated as loss of energy, LOE, by some authors.

0927-0248/92/$05.00 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

52 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

where A is the PV-array area, r/ is the PV-array efficiency, (~ is the mean daily
irradiation on the PV-array, L is the mean daily energy consumption and C is the
useful accumulator capacity.
Note that C A depends on the meteorological conditions of the location. That
means that the same PV-array for the same load can be "large" in one site and
"small" in another site with lower solar radiation.
Given a location and a load, two general ideas are intuitive: First, it is possible
to find many different combinations of C A and C s leading to the same LLP value.
Second, the larger the PV-system size is, the greater the cost and the lower the
LLP.
The task of sizing a PV-system consists of finding the better trade-off between
cost and reliability. Very often, the reliability is an a priori requirement from the
user, and the PV-engineer problem is formulated as follows: Which pair of C A and
C s values leads to a given LLP value at the minimum cost? To solve this problem,
this paper presents a critical review of different methods, that have been referred
in the literature and proposes a new one that attempts to be accurate and simple
to use.
Special attention is paid to the study of the relation between C A, C s and LLP.
This p a p e r does not deal with the estimation of the PV-system cost. In fact, the
last is a classical problem of economics and the PV-sizer can opt for any of the
many methods that are found in the literature [1].
Because long term averages of daily irradiation incident on surfaces other than
horizontal are not generally available, it is useful to define a new p a r a m e t e r
~Ad(0) G(0)
c~i- L CA d ' (2)

where (~(0) is the mean daily irradiation on an horizontal surface. In practical

cases, PV-designers can directly obtain the value of ~TA - and consequently, the
required number of PV-modules - from C~,. Meanwhile, from C A they need to
calculate the ratio G / G ( 0 ) which requires some expertise and expense.
On the other hand, the long term averages of daily irradiation are usually
available in terms of monthly means. This allows to associate a different value of
the PV-array capacity for each month,
~TAGdm rlAGdm( O)
Cam - L or C~'m - L ( m = 1 . . . . . 12), (3)

where Gdm and Gdm(0) are, respectively, the monthly averages of the tilt and
horizontal daily irradiation. Moreover, it has been shown [2] that the location
dependence of the results can be reduced by correlating the collector area to the
irradiation worst month, defined as the one showing the lowest relation between
solar irradiation and energy consumption. For simplicity, in this paper, we are
concerned with loads exhibiting a constant daily energy consumption during the
whole year. Then, the worst month is the one corresponding to the lowest value of
Gdm(0). Hence, in the following we use for C A and CA the lowest values of CA,~
and C~,m, respectively. Other cases can be easily derived from this one.
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 53

2. The reliability map

Each point of the C~,-C s plane represents a size of a PV-system. This allows to
map the reliability as fig. 1 shows. The lines are the loci of all the points
corresponding to a same LLP value. Because of that, we call them isoreliability
lines.
Note that the definition of C A and C s implies that this map is independent of
the load and depends only on the meteorological behavior of the location. We will
see that the isoreliability lines are, very nearly, hyperbola with their asymptotes
parallel to the x and y axis, respectively.
On the other hand, given a LLP value, the plot of the cost of the PV-systems
corresponding to the isoreliability line is, approximately, a parabola having a
minimum that defines the optimal solution to the sizing problem (fig. 2).

3. Review of existing methods

This section reviews the methodologies for estimating the relation between CA,
C s and LLP, that, as far as we know, have been referred to in the literature. For
explanation purposes, we divided them into three different groups:

3.1. Methods based on guesswork

The relation between C A, C s and LLP is exclusively committed to the intuition

of the PV-sizer. The PV-array dimension is calculated to ensure that the genera-
tion during the worst month exceeds the consumption by a security factor directly
established by the PV-sizer according to the type of application and his own
experience. A similar procedure is used to estimate the battery size. To resume:
CA = Fsl and C s = Fs2, (4)
where Fsl and Fs2 are arbitrary factors.

.~ LLP = 0.01

. . . . . . . . . . .

Storage Capacity
Fig. 1. Reliabilitymap.
54 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

-- ~ 0
\ I)

%tot cgu_ Ca=)acity

Fig. 2. The sizing problem: The dashed line is the isoreliability line corresponding to the required LLP
value. The dotted line is the cost of the corresponding PV-systems in arbitrary units. The pair C~os,
Csos defines the optimal size.

As an example, table 1 shows a collection of Fsl and Fs2 widely used by

PV-installers in Spain.
For all Spain, the worst month is December, the tilt angle that optimizes the
radiation during such month is /3 = 60 and the ratio Gdm/Go,n(O) is very close to
1.66.
Such methods are, of course, very simple and useful to have an initial rough
idea of the PV-system dimensions. But they do not allow to quantify the reliability.
Hence, their exclusive use which, unfortunately, is a widespread custom, must be
avoided.

3.2. Numerical methods

The LLP for a given pair of C A and C s values, is calculated by means of a

rather detailed simulation of the PV-system behavior. To explain it in a simple
way, let us imagine a PV-system as represented in Fig. 3 and let us assume that all
the consumption occurs during night and that the battery is free of energy losses.
Then, the state of charge of the battery, at the end of the day j is given by

S O C j = m i n ( S O C ~ _ 1 +~TAGa/_C;1) (s)

Table 1
Typical values of Fsl and Fs2
Fsl / Fs2 Application
Domestic Telecomunications
North of Spain 1.2/5 1.3/7
South of Spain 1.1/4 1.2/5
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 55

BATTERY LOAD

AUXILIARY
GENERATOR
Fig. 3. Schematic of the photovoltaic system used for simulation.

or

SOC~ = min SOCj_~ + C s G d m ( O ) ;1 , (6)

where Gdi is the daily irradiation over the collector surface on the day j and C, is
the nominal capacity of the accumulator. It is calculated from the corresponding
horizontal value using the algorithm proposed by Hay and McKay [3]. Further-
more, let us assume that the auxiliary generator is managed in such a way that, at
the end of the day j, it fulfills the battery if the stored energy is lower than the load
requirements. Then,
SOCj > / 1 / C s ~ EAUXj = 0 (7)
and
SOCj ~ 1 / C s ~ EAuxj = (1 -- SOCk) L / C s and SOCj = 1, (8)
where EAuxj is the energy supplied by the auxiliary generator in the day j.
If the simulation is carried out over a great number of days, N , in order to be
statistically meaningful, then the LLP value corresponding to the stand alone
PV-systems (i.e. the system of fig. 3 excluded the auxiliary generator) is given by

LLP - ~2N=1EAUXj
NL (9)
Eq. (5) implies the use of a constant PV-array efficiency. The validity of such
assumption for the present purposes, is supported by the results of Ambrosone [4],
who found the same LLP values using daily timesteps and r / = constant as they did
using hourly timesteps and considering the r/ dependence on solar irradiance,
ambient temperature and battery state of charge, particularly for C s > 2. Some
authors [5,6] have presented results supporting the opposite idea, i.e. that simula-
tions in hourly basis always lead to more accurate LLP values than in daily basis.
56 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

Table 2
Parameters of the historical horizontal daily irradiation sequences: Gdy(0) is the yearly mean and
Gdm(0), Ktm , and ~1 are the monthly mean of the irradiation, the clearness factor and the first order
autoregressive parameter, respectively

Gd v(0) Gd m(0) Kt m ~,
(kWh/m 2) (kWh/m 2)
Murcia 4.713 2.108 0.510 0.334
Madrid 4.568 1.463 0.398 0.405
Santander 3.183 1.100 0.290 0.241

Nevertheless, a careful analysis of such results discloses that the differences are
due to the use of different and not exactly equivalent transposition models from
horizontal to tilted radiation, in such a way that the daily irradiation on the
PV-array is different when they calculate in hourly and in daily basis. This is a

LPP = 0 1 , MADRID LPP = 0 0 5 , MADRID

065 0 90

- - Historical Data - - Historical Date

060 - Aguior's Model \ - - Aguiar's M o d e l
Oroham's Model ( m } 080 Grohom's Model ( m )
\ -- Grohom's M o d e l \ -- Graham's Model
055
>~
\ >.,070

[2 0 5 0
E3
CL
",, ~.
~ 060 \

..
\
"'-b.
Q~045 --. ~.
(D \ -
O5O
" 0 40

<~040
<ass

030 050

0 2 5
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~AI . . . . . . . ~ ......... ~'2. . . . . . . . % ........ ~......... ~ ......... ,'2'
Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 0 0 1 , MAORID
200 ................................. "~

Historical Date
[~ - - Aguior's Model
...... Oraham's Model ( m )
- -- Graham's M o d e l
150

\\\

)100

<< 0 5 0 ~-~ ~

OOO ..... '"4 ...... " ' ~ ....... 1'2. . . . . . . ":6

Storage Capacity
Fig. 4. Comparison of isoreliability lines in Madrid from historical and from generated data.
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 57

collateral effect that cannot be attributed to the timestep selected for simulation
and that can be taken into account in more simple ways.
Since the simulation is run for a long time period, the initial state of the battery
has no effect. Moreover, as Gordon [7] noted, the assumption of a 24 h distributed
load leads to the same LLP value as that obtained from our nighttime load if C s is
reduced by 1.
These methods offer the advantage of the accuracy and the capability of
improvements by the incorporation of more complex models of the elements of the
system. This way, they are useful for studying many other aspects in addition to the
sizing; for example, the benefits from the use of maximum power trackers, etc.
Some algorithms to help the size optimization have been suggested [8].
The drawbacks are the large computing time and the need of long sequences of
daily irradiation data, as input. Motivated by the rather scarce availability of such
sequences of data, several authors have investigated models to generate synthetic
radiation sequences, from widely available information, usually monthly mean

LPP = 0 1 , MURCIA LPP = 0.05, MURCIA

0.46 060
- - Historical Data
\ - - Historical Date
- - - - Aguiar's Model \ - - Aguier's M o d e l
045 ...... Gr~hom's Model ( m ) Grohem's Model ( m )
\ - -- Grehom's M o d e l 0 55 \ - -- OroharWs M o d e l
\k
>~ \\ \
,\ \
0.44 \
L)
o ~050
o_ Ck
(o) 0 . 4 3 C?
(-3
g. >x0.45
~- 0.42
< <
040
041

i i i , , i J , i~ . . . . . . . . . [ . . . . . . . . . I .... i i I i i
040 8 12 16 035 ........ ~. . . . . . . . . . 8 ......... I'2 . . . . . . . . . 16
Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 0.01, MURCIA

12O

- - H~storicel Dote
- - Agulor's M o d e l
~/ . . . . Grahem's Model ( m )
1 O0 - - - Grohern's M o d e l

Ca- ,
0 ",.. \ x \

>~060

0.40

020 ........ ~, . . . . . . . . . & ......... I'2 . . . . . . . . 16

Storage Capacity
Fig. 5. Comparison of isoreliability lines in Murcia from historical and from generated data.
58 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

values. The generated sequences keep some statistical properties whose validity is
assumed to be general. In particular, the persistence of solar radiation, i.e. the
dependence of today's solar irradiation on the solar irradiation of the precedent
days is adequately described by a first-order autoregressive process [9,10]. More-
over, the probability function of the clearness index for any given period has a
form associated with only its average value for that period [11,13].
To analyze the validity of such models, we selected two of them as representa-
tives and we compared the LLP values obtained from the simulation described by
eqs. (4)-(6) using as input sequences of real daily irradiation data from several
Spanish sites and sequences generated by the models. In particular, we selected
Murcia, Madrid and Santander located, respectively, at the south, center and north
of Spain. Table 2 shows some representative parameters of the corresponding
historical sequences of data. The different values of ~bI indicate that the selected
locations are representative of different types of climate.
In fact, this way of validation is limited by the length of reference data
sequences. Klein and Beckman [14] showed that with the at present available
historical data ( ~ 20 years) only LLP > 10 -2 can be validated. Below this value
there is a need to rely on extrapolations. The reason for that is the natural
variability associated to the climate. That is, equally probable series of 20 years
solar radiation data, can lead to different LLP values for LLP < 10 2. See also ref.
[10] for a good discussion on this.
Note that this way of validation identifies the characteristics of the data that
influence the PV-system performance rather than simply matching statistical
properties.
The first model, proposed by Graham [14], produces sequences of daily clear-
ness index, K,, using a simple autoregressive model of the form
X N = ~J1XN 1 -~ WN' (10)
where X u is related to K t by the transformation function given by
[1 + e r f ( X N / f 2 ) ] =F(K,, F,,), (11)
where F ( K t, K,t) is the well known probability distribution function for K r WN is
an uncorrelated Gaussian random number having a mean of 0 and a variance of 1
and bl is the first-order autoregressive parameter. The input requirements of this
model are the values of Gdm(O)and ~bl. If the latter is not available, an average
value of 0.29 is recommended.
The second model, proposed by Aguiar [15], also produces sequences of K t,
using a library of transition matrices, each corresponding to a specific interval in
K,. From the analysis of observed sequences of data in several stations, the authors
of this model propose a library which validity is supposed to be universal. The only
input requirement are the values of Gdm(O).
Figs. 4, 5 and 6 show some results. We believe that both models lead to an
adequate degree of accuracy. As expected, the larger differences between C~
values from the models and from the historical data correspond to very little C s
values, generally far from that can be considered as practical. Moreover, the
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 59
LPP = 0.1, SANTANDER LPP = 0 0 5 , SANTANDER
0.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

- - Historical Data I/ - - Historical Data

\~\ -- - Aguiar's M o d e l I I Aguiar's M o d e l
Groham's M o d e l (m) -- Graham's Model (m)
060 \\
,, \
-- Graham's Model 1 DO - -- Oraham's Model
\
\\
0080
"\ \\\
8050
Or {2_ ",, \ \ \
O
O O
~>.,0 40 >~0 60
? .........

<2 <
030 O40

020 ........ 4 ......... ~ ......... ,'2 . . . . . . . . ~6 020 i i i . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I i i i i i i i , , I

8 12 16
Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 0 0 1 , SANTANDER
200

"\ \ \
\
- -
- - - -
Historical Data
Aguiar's M o d e l
Graham's Model (m)
i, \ \ - Graham's M o d e l
150 ', \
h \ \
\, \ \
', \
',..~ \
Ck
O 1 DO
(3

< 050

Storage Capacity
Fig. 6. Comparison of isoreliability lines in Santander from historical and from generated data.

differences can be considered as statistically meaningless because of the natural

variability associated to the climate. In spite of that, we note that isoreliability lines
from Aguiar's model are slightly closer to the historical ones than those corre-
sponding to the Graham's model, even when the historical ~b~ value is used as
input.

3.3. Analytic methods

The shape of isoreliability lines prompts the thought that it is possible to

describe them in an analytic form. Hence, computer processing can be avoided and
the sizing task is made easier.
A first attempt has been done by Macomber [1], based on the assumption that
the daily solar irradiation is an uncorrelated Gaussian variable having a mean of
Gjm(0) and a variance of ~r. Both are input to the model. If the value of t7 is not
60 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

LPP = 0.01, MADRID

3 O0

250

- - Historical Data
.4~_ 2 O0 -- -- Monegon's Model

0
CL
Q~)I 5 0

~ 1O0
<

050

0 O0 ........ i ......... ~ ......... ~'z. . . . . . . %6

Storage Capacity
Fig. 7. Comparison of historical and analytic isoreliability lines in Madrid.

available, it can be obtained from the mean according to the procedure described
in ref. [8]. In fig. 7 the results of this model are compared with the simulation for a
LLP = 0.01, in the case of Madrid. It has a good accuracy for storage capacity
greater than 4. The principal disadvantage of this model is that use of the error
function with an iterative process, requires a large computing time.
Barra et al. [16] considered the fraction fo the energy load covered by the
PV-system.

Y = 1 - EAux/L (12)

and they assume that its monthly average, Ym, relates with the size of the
PV-system through the formula

( C Am- - Y m) ( 1- - Ym ) =y,~, (13)

where Ym is a free parameter. This equation represents a hyperbola whose

asymptotes are the straight lines

Ym = CAm and Ym = 1. (14)

In fact, this represents very logical limit conditions. The first means that, for
small size PV-systems, all the energy produced by the PV-array is transferred to
the load. The second comes from the consideration that, for very large field areas,
the energy supplied by the array is always able to satisfy the load.
From the analysis of Ym values obtained by simulations performed with histori-
cal sequences of irradiation data corresponding to several Italian locations, the
authors of the model proposed for Ym the following expression which validity is
assumed to be universal:

~/m=OlT~m, Tm=fsgtmAm, a=2.41X10-=, /3=2.29, (15)

where Am is the monthly average of the fractional length of the day.

 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 61

Obviously
m-12
LLP = ~ Y'. (1 - Ym). (16)
m=l
Later on, Bartoli et al. [17] proposed a different expression to relate y and Cs:
aAmKtm
Cs = ( b + Amgtm) 2' (17)

where
a = al exp(-Ym/31) + 1 and b = a2y~2. (18)
Again, the analysis of several sequences of historical data, leads to the proposi-
tion of the supposed universal values:
a I =0.695, ~2 = 0.274, /31 = 71.2, /32= 0.136.

LPP = 01, MADRID LPP = O 05, MADRID

1o ...... I ............................... 10
1
I
- - Historical Data I / - - Historical Data
II I ..... Borro's Method ' - .... B a r r a ' s Method
08 08
i \ ',,,, - -
--
Bartoli's M e t h o d
Bucciorelli's Method
I \ '",
',, - --
8 a r t o l i ' s Method
Bucciurelli's Method
I \ -.,

06
\
~06
CL Cl
(3 0
LD (D
>~04 ;~0.4
3

02 02

O.O ....... ~, . . . . . . . . . 8 ......... 1~2. . . . . . . 16 00 ........ ~ ......... & ......... ~'t . . . . . . ~,s
Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 001, MADRID

20
'\

- - Historical Data
16 . . . . . Barro's M e t h o d
- - -- Bortoii's M e t h o d
- -- Bucciarelli's Method

",\

G_
O
L~ X ,,,.. I /
>~08
{3
t \ . . . . . . . . .

04

0.0 ......... ~ ......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,2

.. ~6
Storage Capacity
Fig. 8. Comparison of historical and analytic isoreliability lines in Madrid.
62 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems
LPP = 0 1 , MURCIA LPP = 0 0 5 , MURCIA
070

I; h
065 - - H i s t o r i c a l Data - - Historical Data
...... B a r r o ' s Method 07 {II ..... Berra's Method
Bartoli's M e t h o d ", -- Bortoli's Method
Bucclorelli's Method
~060 /L ', -- BucciorellPs Method
,,
(0 ",..
,, "0~06
Ci0.55 eL
I ",,
(D o
(J (J \ ---.. .............
050
>~05
o
~045 \\ . . . . . . .

o4
040

055 ~ i i i , i i~1 i i i i i i i i1i01 . . . . . . . . 115 , 03 .... i ......... 8 . . . . . . . . . 1'2. . . . . . . . ~J6

Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 0 0 1 , MuRCIA
10 .... " 'l ........

I - - Historical Data
Borra's Meihod
O9 \ '~t _-_-~.%t~%'L,,iMg%%%od
',
~08 I

",,
g_
(~O7
~\ "'" -....
>-,
~DG
<

05

04 '''''"'4 ....... ",~ ......... 1~2. . . . . . . . lc~

Storage Capacity
Fig. 9. Comparisonof historical and analytic isoreliability lines in Murcia.

Bucciarelli [18,19] presents a model for the LLP derived by approximating the
probability density function of the difference betwen the daily PV-array output and
the load with two events and by assuming the daily storage charge/discharge
process can be represented as a one-step Markov process. A similar model to that
of the Bucciarelli but using a three-event representation of the difference between
the daily output and the load was presented by Gordon [7], later on. The inputs to
this models are the long term mean, Gd,., the variance, G and the first autocorrela-
tion parameter, 4~1 of the daily solar irradiation impinging on the PV-array. If the
value of ~bl is not available a universal coefficient equal to 0.29 is recommended.
Figs. 8, 9 and 10 show the results of these models for the locations of reference.
All the models lead to differences between their predictions and the results from
historical data that exceed the expected variability in some part of the C s range of
interest. Barra's model systematically leads to oversizing. The model of Bartoli
exhibits a too low sensibility to the battery size, that is, changes of the C s value,
while keeping constant the LLP, do not reflect changes of C~. Finally, the models
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 63
LPP = 0 1, SANTANDER LPP = 0 0 5 , SANTANOER
10 ,,i ................................ 1.0
'I'I
II
[11 - - Historicol D a t a 09 - - Historical Data
--- Barra's M e t h o d ", -- Barra's M e t h o d
O8 ',,
[Ii -- -- Bartoli's M e t h o d --- Bartoli's M e t h o d
', -- Bucciarelli's Method - Buccle rell;'s Method
>~ /I ",,

~06
o_
'-..
g~o~
o O ~\ "-.
<D (.9
o6

o
~o5
02

0.0 ........ ~ ......... ~ ......... ]l 2 . . . . . . . . ]6 03 . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . ?2. . . . . . . . ,6

Storage Capacity Storage Capacity

LPP = 0 0 1 , SANTANDER
20 ,i ................ ~ ................
i
I ", - - H i s t o r i c a l Data
16 ', ..... Borra's M e t h o d
I , Bortoli's M e t h o d
',- -- Bucciore,i's Method

~12 !s ","',,
C/_ \ I

;~08

04

oo ........ ; ......... ~ ......... 1'2 . . . . . . . . . 16

Storage CaF,ocity
Fig. 10. Comparison of historical and analytic isoreliability lines in Santander.

of Bucciarelli and Gordon display very much alike behavior (because of that, the
last has not been represented). They lead, for C), values larger than about 1.3, to
the absurdity that both the array and the battery sizes have to increase simultane-
ously in order to keep the LLP constant.

4. The new proposed model

Two ideas come out from the previous section:

(a) Numerical models can be adequate for the estimation of LLP values.
However, their use for sizing is rather complex and consuming in terms of
computing time, to the extent that they are beyond the skill of the great majority of
current PV-installing companies.
64 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

010 , , [ ,,,
: ,
1
: ;
008 _:

006
L~
i

(D t ,
;!:
>
L~ 004 I ' : i i,
0 ." , , I .:
: I:

0 O2 i :'

00o . . . . . . . . . . . . . "i;
" !
...... t i +~
000I ~ ~OOOl 2 5001 ~ Ol
toss of Load Probabilitie
Fig. 11. The Loss of load Probability versus the geometrical regression error.

(b) All the analytical models proposed up to today allow sizing of pv-systems in
a very simple way by means of straightforward hand calculations. However, they
exhibit significant lack of accuracy which disfavors their general use.
The motivation of our work has been the development of a sizing procedure as
accurate as the numerical models and as simple as the analytical models. To that
end, we have done an in depth analysis of the solar radiation based on Spanish
data [20] and we mapped the reliability for 42 different locations and for 11 LLP
values uniformly distributed between 0.5 and 5 10 - 4 . S o , 462 isoreliable curves
have been studied. We found all of them can be well represented by the expression

CA =mCs n, (19)

where m and n are depend on the LLP value and on the location. Fig. 11 shows
the relative error due to this geometrical regression for all the curves. The mean
value of the coefficient of determination, R e, is 0.98 and it varies between a
minimum of 0.93 and a maximum of 0.999.
For a given LLP, m can be defined as the C A value corresponding to C s = 1. n
takes into account the effect of the persistence of the solar radiation. Note that C s
decreases when n increases, while keeping constant all the other parameters.
Moreover, we found that for each location, the values of m and n are related
whit LLP, through the simple regressions

m = m I + m 2 log(LLP) and n = exp(n 1 - neLLP ) . (20)

T h e R 2 values for both regressions are greater that 0.93.

The main benefit from eq. (19) and (20) is the use of only 4 numbers for each
location instead of the complete sequences of radiation data, without accuracy
losses. This facilitates the task of the PV-sizer. As examples, Table 3 displays the
coefficients of eq. (20) corresponding to the locations here used as reference, and
Figs. 12 and 13 show Spanish coefficient maps for two different values of LLP. For
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 65

M Coefficient (LPP 0.1)

/~_--/ 4 ~ / -L....... )
.iX f "

/ / /'oo: ; ) ~ (0)\
~ ~ o~ / J--oj3 ,L 'l
/ ) ~_/" / Cordoba / ---~mrcla/ ,

~-f~'~-"-q /--'-~-~,
j__~" /Almer.ia'/L ",

-~/X~ I ,o , , 4,,/-- ~'``

N coefficient (I,PP 0 1 )
v S tan

/ ~oo o ,~<>--4 -

- ~./ Y\~ / / / .-~/-~\ /../#---

~ . # // // ~-~,//C(;,c~a/ C~,~te[/l~n\ .. & alma

I / / ;LoJ~--~., ~.z" ,u
L)/~ ,., /" // Aliean~F$-
/ ' "" ~t I rcJ~ 7
/ / .----" Co.eba / "5
l/ / / ,,oivs , ~ o o~ - - / / -- --

Fig. 12, Coefficient Spanish maps for LLP = 1 0 - i ,

a given LLP value, the calculation of the C j, value corresponding to a particular

C s value is a straightforward task using these maps.
Furthermore, we explored the possibility of obtaining m and n from meteoro-
logical information of general availability. As an example, fig. 14 shows the
66 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing o f stand alone PV-systems

Table 3
T h e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s o f eq. ( 2 0 )

mI m2 nl n2 R2n R~
Madrid -0.2169 -0.7865 - 1.2138 - 15.280 93.72 99.80
Murcia 0.0483 - 0.9684 - 1.1329 - 36.415 93.78 99.95
Santander - 0.2026 - 0.7527 - 0.9759 - 14.289 94.81 99.18

M coefficient (LPP 0.01)

\ / ~, (

/ /" B,d ~ .+ . . -.. -0,~

/./-.bo.,,lo " \ / b

i , - ,///

N coefficient (DPP 0 . 0 1 )

-- .--" .f ~o~.~-.,~0~l~-~L~ \ \," ~ o . > - -

? -_../ ....
17~"-
/ t tt\k"- \.
F i g . 13. C o e f f i c i e n t S p a n i s h m a p s f o r L L P = 10 - 2 .
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 67

2.00

1 60

.~ 1 20
0
.::..- ..
. ,

(0) 0 8 0

040

I i l i . . . . . . I I , I I I I I I I l I I I I I I L I~
0 0[~
n 20 0.40 0.60 080
Clearness Lndex of the Worst Month (Kt)

Fig. 14. Coefficient m versus K,,,.

variation of m versus Ktm. It is clear that the use of any correlation linking both
parameters leads to significant accuracy losses Similar comments merit all the
correlation we analyzed between m or n with other radiation parameters (Gdm,
etc.) and between m and n. This research is still being undertaken by including
other widely available meteorological data like the number of rainy days, etc.
Meanwhile, the present results suggest that the location dependence of the
PV-size method cannot be neglected without paying a significant price in terms of
accuracy. This agrees with the fact that the monthly clearness index over a period
of 20 years shows different distributions for the different locations
Example. Estimate the PV-array area, A, needed to obtain a LLP = 0.05 in
Sevilla in supplying a constant load of 500 W h / d a y and for a battery wich useful
capacity is 1500 Wh. The monthly average daily horizontal irradiation in Sevilla is
2.154 k W h / d a y for the worst month (December).

600 . . . . . . . . ,

.... Barro'~ Method

500 - - Proposed Method
..... Macomber's Method
_ _ Bertoli's M e t h o d
_ __ O r o h a r n ' s Model '~
~ ' ~ 4 O0 __ A g u i a r ' s Model ',

Q_
(~) 3 . 0 0

200
~Y
I O0

000
OQO01 0 001 0.01
Loss of Load Probabilitie

Fig. 15. C A versus LLP predicted by analytic models for LLP < 10 -2.
68 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems

From figs. 12 and 13 we obtain the values: m = 0.434, n = 0.02 for LLP = 10 -1
and m = 0.98, n = 0.208 for LLP = 10 -2. Eq. (20) allows then to calculate m I =
-0.112, m 2 = - 0 . 5 4 6 , n 1 = - 1 . 3 1 and n 2 = - 2 6 . 0 2 . For L L P = 0 . 0 5 again eq.
(20) leads to m = 0.598 and n = 0.073.
A value of C A = 0.552 is then calculated from eq. (19). Finally, assuming an
overall system efficiency of 10%, eq. (2) lead to A = 1.281 m 2.

5. The PV-size for very high reliability

We already mentioned the intrinsic impossibility to validate the models for

LLP < 10 -z. This represents an appropriate limit for low or medium reliability
applications (lightning, etc.). However, for high reliability (telecommunications,
etc) there is a need to size for LLP = 10 -3 or even 10 -4. For such range of LLP we
have to rely on extrapolations vetted by reasoning and intuition.
Regarding numerical models, it is possible to generate very long irradiation
sequences. From the analysis of the results using different number of days, Klein
and Beckman say: "The auxiliary fractions calculated with 30000 days of data are
assumed to be identical to the LLP". We believe this is a very reasonable
statement. However it is worth to note that it implies extremely long computing
times.
In orde to analyze the validity of analytic models, we plotted their C~, predic-
tions versus LLP for a constant C s = 8, considered as representative of high
reliability systems. Fig. 15 shows such plots. The features disclosed in the previous
section become here emphasized. The model of Barra leads to unreasonable
oversizing. The model of Bartoli imposes nearly constant C~, that, obviously, leads
to undersizing.

6. Conclusions

An analytic model for accurate sizing stand alone photovoltaic systems has been
developed. For each location, the model requires as input 4 different coefficients
that are obtained from the study of large sequences of historical or generated daily
irradiation data.
Maps of such coefficients have been presented for Spain. From these maps, the
task of PV-sizing becomes very simple and can be accomplished by means of
straightforward hand calculations.
On the other hand, it has been shown that other previous analytic models
exhibit significant lacks of accuracy which disfavors their use.

References

[1] H.L Macomber, I.B. Ruzek, F.A. Costello et al., Photovoltaic Stand-Alone Systems: Preliminary
Engineering Design, Handbook prepared for NASA, L RC, Contract DEN 3-195, August 1981.
 M. Egido, E. Lorenzo / The sizing of stand alone PV-systems 69

[2] R.N. Chapman, Design Consideration for Stand-Alone Photovoltaic Systems, Pro. Symp. on
Applications of Solar and Renewable Energy-86, Cairo, Egypt, March 1986
[3] S.E. Hay and D.C. McKay, Int. J. Sol. Energy 3 (1985) 203.
[4] G. Ambrosone, S. Catalonotti, U. Coscia and G. Troise, Sol. Energy 34 (1985) 1.
[5] LL. Mora, M. Egido and M. Sidrach, Utilization of Simulated Hourly Global Radiation Series for
Sizing Stand-Alone Pbotovoltaic Power Systems, Proc. of the 9th E.C. Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference, Freiburg, 1989, p. 583.
[6] F. Lasnier and T.G. Ang, Photovoltaic Engineering Handbook, (Adam Hilger, Bristel, 1990).
[7] J.M. Gordon, Sol. Cells 20 (1987) 295.
[8] PH. Tsalides and A. Thanailakis, Sol. Cells 18 (1986) 115.
[9] B.J. Brinkworth, Sol. Energy 19 (1977) 343.
[10] V.A. Graham, K.G.T. Hollands and T.E. Unny, Sol. Energy 40 (1988) 83.
[11] B.Y.H. Liu and R.C. Jordan, Sol. Energy 4 (1960) 1.
[12] P. Bendt, M. Collares-Pereira and A. Rabl, Sol. Energy 27 (1981) 1.
[13] K.G.T. Hollands and R.G. Huget, Sol. Energy 30 (1983) 195.
[14] S.A. Klein and W.A. Beckman, Sol. Energy 39 (1987) 499.
[15] R.J. Aguiar, M. Collares-Pereira and J.P. Conde, Sol. Energy 40 (1988).
[16] L. Barra, S. Catalanotti, F. Fontana and F. Lavorante, Sol. Energy 33 (1984) 509.
[17] B. Bartoli, V. Cuomo, F. Fontana, C. Serio and V. Silverstrini, Appl. Energy 18 (1984) 37.
[18] L.L. Bucciarelli, Sol. Energy 32 (1984) 205.
[19] L.L. Bucciarelli, Sol. Energy 36 (1986) 11.
[20] Radiaci6n Solar en Espafia: Afios 1972 a 1984. Centro de Estudios Meteorol6gicos. Ministerio de
Transportes, Turismo y Comunicaciones.