Holistic design improvement of the PV module frame: Mechanical, optoelectrical, cost, and life cycle analysis

Tummalieh, Ammar; Beinert, Andreas J.; Reichel, Christian; Mittag, M.; Neuhaus, Holger

doi:10.1002/pip.3533

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three types of PV frames are evaluated: 1) Conventional PV module frame with optimized dimensions discussed in [55] and Fig. 3a, 2) Conventional frame with holes drilled in the side for side mounting (see Fig.…”

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent comprehensive study by Tummalieh et al [55] finds the most appropriate dimension of conventional profile of PV frames illustrated in Fig. 1 using FEA, cell-to-module (CTM) and life cycle assessments, which are 18 mm for both w frame,f and w frame,r as well as cavity width of 12 mm.…”

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aforementioned dimensions improve the overall performance of the PV modules and aids in achieving a balance among technical performance, cost, and environmental effects. Also, FEA [55] showed that even small variations in the width of the frame has a large effect on the stress within the solar cells. Their optimized frame has 2.6% less deflection, and can save 30 g aluminum and 0.8 kg CO 2 -eq/kWP, consequently decreasing the total module cost by 0.1% compared to reference dimensions (16 mm front frame width, 20 mm rear frame width and 8.5mm cavity width), however, it slightly reduces PV module power by 0.4 WP (0.11% of PV module total power).…”

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their optimized frame has 2.6% less deflection, and can save 30 g aluminum and 0.8 kg CO 2 -eq/kWP, consequently decreasing the total module cost by 0.1% compared to reference dimensions (16 mm front frame width, 20 mm rear frame width and 8.5mm cavity width), however, it slightly reduces PV module power by 0.4 WP (0.11% of PV module total power). The optimized values of w frame,f , w frame,r and w frame,cavity obtained by Tummalieh et al [55] are used in this analyses for all three types of frames. In addition to the three frame profiles (frame 1, frame 2 and frame 3), two different types of PV modules are investigated in this study, Heliene 144 M6 [56] and 120 M6 monofacial half-cells glass-backsheet PV module used by [55].…”

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The optimized values of w frame,f , w frame,r and w frame,cavity obtained by Tummalieh et al [55] are used in this analyses for all three types of frames. In addition to the three frame profiles (frame 1, frame 2 and frame 3), two different types of PV modules are investigated in this study, Heliene 144 M6 [56] and 120 M6 monofacial half-cells glass-backsheet PV module used by [55]. While most of optimized dimensions values for the proposed design (frame 3) can be obtained from [55,56], the appropriate values for w frame,b and t frame,b were determined using several FEM simulations.…”

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Mechanical and economic analysis of conventional aluminum photovoltaic module frames, frames with side holes, and open-source downward-fastened frames for non-traditional racking

Sadat¹,

Vandewetering²,

Pearce³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using bolts through the back of a solar photovoltaic (PV) module frames to attach them to racking is time consuming and awkward, so commercial PV installations use clamping technologies on the front. Conventional and proprietary clamps are costly and demand access to supply chains for uncommon mechanical components that limits deployment velocity. To overcome these challenges, this study presents new open-source downward-fastened and side-fastened aluminum (Al) framing designs, which are easy to install and compatible with metal and wood racks. The proposed parametric open source designs are analyzed through finite element methods (FEM) simulations and economic analysis is performed to compare to conventional PV frame at both the module and system levels. The FEM results showed all the frames have acceptable mechanical reliability and stability to pass IEC 61215 standards. The results show the new frame (with bottom width of 29 mm and thickness of 1.5 mm) have about a 2% land use efficiency penalty, but have better mechanical stability (lower stress and deflections), are easier to install and have reduced material economic costs (2%) compared to conventional frames. The results are promising for the use of the new PV frame designs for distributed manufacturing targeted at specific applications.

show abstract

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods 31 Mechanical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mechanical and economic analysis of conventional aluminum photovoltaic module frames, frames with side holes, and open-source downward-fastened frames for non-traditional racking

Sadat¹,

Vandewetering²,

Pearce³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Performance and energy loss mechanism of bifacial photovoltaic modules at a solar carport system

Hwang

Kang

Lee

2023

Energy Science & Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As photovoltaic modules are increasingly used in renewable energy systems, ensuring energy efficiency by reducing the levelized cost of electricity has become the focus of current research. Herein, the 1‐year performances of both monofacial and bifacial photovoltaic modules were monitored, compared, and analyzed at a solar carport system in the Korean peninsula. The environmental parameters during the four seasons were investigated for both systems under ambient conditions. Irradiance was determined as the primary influencing parameter in the system. The energy yield of the bifacial module system was 3.08% higher than that of the monofacial system owing to rear‐side absorption during the study period. The loss mechanism for this lower yield was determined by investigating the irradiance effect. It was attributed to low bifaciality due to cell properties (optical and electrical properties, and the sorting effect) and module properties (shading effects from the junction box cable and frame design, and glass grid effect), design of the carport system, and the albedo effect. These analyses revealed that the photovoltaic energy yield can be increased further by reducing these loss parameters at the carport system. This study can contribute to achieving higher energy yield from photovoltaic systems during field applications.

show abstract

Thermomechanical design rules for photovoltaic modules

Beinert

Romer

Heinrich

et al. 2022

Progress in Photovoltaics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a set of thermomechanical design rules to support and accelerate future (PV) module developments. The design rules are derived from a comprehensive parameter sensitivity study of different PV module layers and material properties by finite element method simulations. We develop a three dimensional finite element method (FEM) model, which models the PV module geometry in detail from busbar and ribbons up to the frame including the adhesive. The FEM simulation covers soldering, lamination, and mechanical load at various temperatures. The FEM model is validated by mechanical load tests on three 60‐cell PV modules. Here, for the first time, stress within a solar cell is measured directly using stress sensors integrated in solar cells (SenSoCells®). The results show good accordance with the simulations. The parameter sensitivity study reveals that there are two critical interactions within a PV module: (1) between ribbon and solar cell and (2) between front/back cover and interconnected solar cells. Here, the encapsulant plays a crucial role in how the single layers interact with each other. Therefore, its mechanical properties are essential, and four design rules are derived regarding the encapsulant. Also four design rules concern front and back sides, and three address the solar cells. Finally, two design rules each deal with module size and frame, respectively. Altogether we derive a set of 15 thermomechanical design rules. As a rule of thumb of how well a bill of material will work from a thermomechanical point of view, we introduce the concept of specific thermal expansion stiffness as the product of Young's modulus , coefficient of thermal expansion , joint area , and materials height . The difference between two materials is a measure of how much thermal strain one material can induce in another. A strong difference means that the material with the larger value will induce thermal strain in the other.

show abstract

Holistic design improvement of the PV module frame: Mechanical, optoelectrical, cost, and life cycle analysis

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Mechanical and economic analysis of conventional aluminum photovoltaic module frames, frames with side holes, and open-source downward-fastened frames for non-traditional racking

Mechanical and economic analysis of conventional aluminum photovoltaic module frames, frames with side holes, and open-source downward-fastened frames for non-traditional racking

Performance and energy loss mechanism of bifacial photovoltaic modules at a solar carport system

Thermomechanical design rules for photovoltaic modules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About