Site 2.55
Site ID
2.55
Health
COD
2018
Nominal Capacity
399 kWp
Average Specific Yield
1041 kWh/kWp
Total Estimated Loss
35.41%
Possible Gain
9% to 19%
CAPEX, OPEX
1 ₹/Wp, 0 ₹/Wp/a
Expenditure / Energy
0.5 ₹/kWh to 0.2 ₹/kWh
Abstract
Loosely hanging cables with low bending radius were found. Modules with detached J- boxes found on site. It is recommended to (i) optimize the cable layout, (ii) improve cleaning activity, (iii) replace damaged modules, (iv) retrofit the mounting structure, (v) relocate tables away from parapet wall and high wind zones, (vi) clean inverter fans and filters more frequently, and (vii) install a weather station or at least an irradiation sensor on the module plane. The estimated production boost expected by the retrofitting actions lies between 8.5% and 18.8%.
Image gallery
Main Findings
Poor cable management: Loosely hanging cables with low bending radius. Missing string labelling.
Layer of spray paint on module glass.
Modules found with J-box detached and
hanging.
PV tables installed beyond roof boundaries in high wind zones.
Inverter fans and filters are noisy from soiling.
Poor quality clamps that are not suitable for high wind zones. Clamps were also observed to be easily displaced from grooves.
Tables observed to have varying orientation and tilts.
Modules placed on parapet walls have permanent cell damage from reduced heat dissipation.
Modules are shaded by parapet walls, leading to permanent cell damage from hotspots.
IR analysis reveals hot cells from shading by parapet wall, which may indicate irreversible cell damage.
No weather station found on site.
Impact on Performance
Heavy Soiling
The system performance was affected by soiling loss of 2.5%, estimated from IV curve measurements.
Estimated Loss
≈ 2.5%
Cell Cracks
The EL image reveals presence of cracks, isolated parts, and dark cells. These defects are expected to impact performance and generate hotspots.
Estimated Loss
≈ 8%
Underperformance
Based on the IV curve measurements, the estimated underperformance is 18.8% for the measured modules.
Estimated Loss
≈ 18.8%
Near Shading
According to PVsyst simulation, the near shading losses account to 2.34%.
Estimated Loss
≈ 2.34%
Total Estimated Energy Loss
≈ 35.41%
Proposed Solutions
Strings, tables, and inverters should have a suitable labelling (UV-resistant).
The cable layout can be optimized; the minimum cable bending radius is 10x the cable diameter.
Modules with detached J-boxes, irreversible cell damage, and modules with spray paint layers shall be replaced as they pose performance and safety threat.
Tables installed beyond roof boundaries to prevent damage from high wind loads.
Inverter fans and filters shall be cleaned more frequently.
Poor quality clamps used shall be replaced with better quality ones suitable for local wind loads.
PV tables shall be rearranged to have uniform orientation and tilt. The module tilt shall be changed to optimal tilt of 30°.
Modules placed on parapet walls shall be moved away to prevent mechanical damage and improve air flow.
A re-sorting shall be conducted to have lower performing modules in the same string, or at least the same MPPT.
Module tilt shall be changed to optimal tilt of 30°.
A weather station, or at least an irradiation sensor on the module plane shall be installed.