BiTEC-whitepaper - 6.2% TeamTrack Gain PDF

2/25/2021 Soltec Lab | 6.
2% TeamTrack Gain
Whitepaper December 2020
6.2%
TeamTrack
Gain
Field test results and simulations carried out by TÜV Rheinland con rm that
TeamTrack™, Soltec’s backtracking algorithm, increases photovoltaic power plant
production to 6.2%*.
*on regular Mediterrean latitude terrains.
Yearly energy yield increase in ranges between 3.6% and 7.5% compared to standard Tracking.
Energy yield optimization with respect to Standard Backtracking oscillates over the tested
sites between 1.2% and 3.5%
TeamTrack® improves ranges between 0.23% and 1.45%, compared to 1P trackers with central
sensors, and up to 1.13% compared to 32-linked-row trackers in the Mediterranean region with
regular and irregular terrain cases
https://lab.soltec.com/6-2-teamtrack-gain/ 1/31
2/25/2021 Soltec Lab | 6.2% TeamTrack Gain
TÜV Rheinland veri es Soltec’s TeamTrack® Backtracking algorithm behaviour over 9 sites
with di erent terrain and latitude surveys
Authors:
Magnus Herz graduated in renewable energies and works as project manager, researcher and developer in the solar team of TÜV Rheinland
since 2010. In addition to his consulting work for international PV projects, he is involved in several R&D projects developing data-driven strategies
to improve qualiy assurance, risk mitigation and performance modeling of PV systems.
Javier Guerrero-Perez holds a Ph.D. with honors in Renewable Energy. His professional activity spans over ten years in the solar industry within
multinational EPC operations. He has published several papers on modelling electrical behavior of both PV modules and inverters, oriented to
large scale simulation. Since 2015, when he was part of the team of La Silla PV plant (2015), current research lines are focused on modelling the
bifacial PV modules behavior while he is leading tracking algorithms and Soltec’s Bifacial Tracker Evaluation Center research.
Irene Muñoz Benavente holds an International Ph.D. with special honors in Renewable Energy from the Technical University of Cartagena,
working in the renewable energy sector since 2016, speci cally in Photovoltaic. Focused in optimizing tracking algorithms for solar trackers.
Antonio Fabián Ros Gómez holds a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Electronics and Automation Engineering from the Technical University od
Cartagena. Focused in optimizing tracking algorithms and perform solar plants modelling, simulations and data analysis.
ABSTRACT
BACKTRACKING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS USED
1. THE TERRAIN CHALLENGE

1.1. East-West Slopes
1.2. Irregular Slopes
1.3. North-South Slopes
2. LAYOUT OR PLANT DESIGN CHALLENGE

2.1. Alignment
3. TEAMTRACK, SOLTEC’S ALGORITHM TO MAXIMIZE POWER GENERATION

3.1. Soltec’s TeamTrack Algorithms were validated by TÜV Rheinland
3.2. TeamTrack Overview
3.3. TÜV Rheinland Independent Third Party Veri cation
3.3.1 Scenario Description
3.3.2. Methodology
3.3.3. Comparative Results
4. TRACKER TOPOLOGIES AND ADVANCED BACKTRACKING ALGORITHMS. // SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE
STRATEGY
4.1. BTA Strategies using Sensors
4.2. BTA Strategies in Linked-Row Trackers
4.3. Comparison
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
+0.23%
TeamTrack Gain
+0.62%
TeamTrack Gain
+1.13%
TeamTrack Gain
against Middle Sensor against Dual-row against Linked-row
Bactracking System tracking system tracking system
ABSTRACT
Tracking algorithms seek the closest angle to the sun’s perpendicular position, being the backtracking algorithms responsible for adjusting the
angles as required to prevent shading in between trackers. Since the position of the tracker a ects its shade cast, surveys play a mayor role in the
backtracking angle assessment. In addition, backtracking algorithms make trackers work together to ensure each tracker “sacri ces” part of its
natural position with the aim of reducing cast shadows and, hence, maximizing overall power production.
In this whitepaper we present the results of a full study carried out by TÜV Rheinland, verifying Soltec’s TeamTrack® Backtracking algorithm
behaviour over 9 sites with di erent terrain and latitude surveys. This study on TeamTrack® shows that the yearly energy yield increase in ranges
between 3.6% and 7.5% compared to standard Tracking. Energy yield optimization with respect to Standard Backtracking oscillates over the tested
sites between 1.2% and 3.5%.
TeamTrack® is compared to other backtracking strategies in the Mediterranean region with regular and irregular terrain cases. It presents
improvements in ranges between 0.23% and 1.45%, compared to 1P trackers with central sensors, and up to 1.43% compared to 32-linked-row
trackers.
Keywords
Solar trackers, TeamTrack®, Backtracking, Algorithm, Single-Axis Tracker, Energy yield, PV Gain, Middle-sensor, Power generation, BTA, Bu er,
Linked-row tracker, Single-row tracker, TÜV Rehinland, Soltec.
BACKTRACKING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS USED

As opposed to xed structures, solar single axis trackers can prevent photovoltaic module “self-shading”. During sunrise and sunset hours, when
the sun is low, trackers can position themselves at an angle preventing shadow cast onto the back-row panel, as shown in gure 1. This
functionality, known as backtracking, has a clear purpose: To prevent shading and maximize production.
Figure 1a: Standard Tracking keeps tracker at maximum angle for low Figure 1b: Backtracking consists in rotating tracker to lower inclination Figure 1c: Standard Backtracking sets all rows to the same angle,
solar elevation angles, causing self-shading. angles until shading is avoided. Example applying only to closest tracker. according to the formula, which does not consider land survey.
Tracking algorithms seek the angle closest to the sun’s perpendicular position, being the backtracking algorithms responsible for adjusting this
angle as required not to shade the remaining trackers. Since the position of a tracker a ects the others, backtracking algorithms have to get them
to work together to ensure each tracker “sacri ces” part of its natural position with the aim of reducing cast shadows and, hence, maximizing
overall power generation.
In this sense, it is advised to balance irradiation received on di erent planes (i.e. to balance solar tracker angles) to reduce mismatch losses
between strings, as shown in gure 1c.
Commonly, standard backtracking angle is calculated according to the following formula [1]:
Even if the application of these basic geometric principles may seem simple, obtaining a backtracking algorithm that actually maximizes power
generation requires taking into consideration factors or challenges which determine the di erence between standard backtracking systems and a
fully sophisticated backtracking system such as Soltec’s TeamTrack®.
1. THE TERRAIN CHALLENGE
1.1. East-West Slopes

The topography of the terrain has a direct impact on shadow projection because absolute module height varies according to terrain level curves
[2,3]. For example, standard backtracking is insu cient in continuous slopes because it does not take them into account, thus resulting in power
generation losses, as shown in gure 2.
Figure 2a: Standard Backtracking causes self-shading on Eastward slopes land during sunset. Figure 2b: Optimized Backtracking Algorthm (BTA) avoids self-shading.
During sunset, in case of an Eastward slope ( gure 2a), the corrected angle ( gure 2b) should be less inclined than the angle calculated by
standard backtracking, as the latter would result in increased shade-induced power losses. On the contrary, in case of a Westward slope ( gure 2c),
trackers could be more inclined ( gure 2d) than calculated by standard backtracking formulas, leading to strips of sunlight on the ground and
introducing losses due to misorientation or decreased optimization. The same thing would occur during sunrise, but the other way around, as
described in table 1:
Phenomena caused by the application of Standard Backtracking

Sunrise Sunset
Eastward slope Misorientation Shading
Westward slope Shading Misorientation
Table 1: Non-optimized e ects of Standard Backtracking over land slopes.
Figure 2c: Standard Backtracking promotes ‘strips of sunlight’ on Westward Slopes land at sunset. Figure 2d: Optimized Backtracking moves tracker onto a more oriented angle.
An indicator used to assess backtracking algorithm quality is the presence of so-called ‘strips of sunlight’. Sophisticated algorithms minimize the
amount of radiation reaching the ground during backtracking hours. When there is a ‘strip of sunlight’, even if there is no shading, it means that part
of available radiation is being wasted on the ground, meaning a scarce and costly resource (terrain) would not be fully optimized (100%).
In other words, to prevent this situation of non-optimized plant generation, it is necessary to use an evolved backtracking algorithm that takes into
account terrain slopes. In this case, this algorithm would be able to maximize generation during sunrise and sunset, as shown in gures 2b and 2d.
1.2. Irregular Slopes

We know most terrains are not at, but it is also necessary to consider that slopes can have more than one direction and inclination within the
photovoltaic plant site. Slopes tend to have various inclination angles, hence making things more complicated.
In the case of East-West slopes, “sunken” trackers, that is, trackers at a lower height than adjacent trackers due to changes in slope, tend to be
shaded when a standard backtracking algorithm is used. As for “peak” trackers, meaning those sitting higher, their generation will never be
optimized, as shown on gure 3a.
Figure 3a: Standard Backtracking at a peak tracker does not optimize oriented angle and cast a shadow in the back-row tracker. Figure 3b Backtracking algorithms that considers irregular slopes avoid shading casted by peak trackers.
In such cases, power generation is considerably increased if more sophisticated backtracking algorithms are used, as shown on gure 3b. Such
algorithms should consider the slope of all trackers to determine optimal positions and solve con gurations prone to shading.
1.3. North-South Slopes

In the case of North-South slopes, changes in slope along tracker axis are also an issue which worsens the longer the tracker is. As shown in gure
4b, the standard backtracking formula calculated for the most Southern tracker end, cannot take the other tracker end into consideration, thus
projecting triangular shades along the tracker.
Figure 4a: Standard Backtracking estimate the tracker angle on at land. Figure 4b: Standard Backtracking on North-South tilted trackers casts shading in lower tracker extreme.
Figure 4c: Standard Backtracking in rows also casts shading in lower trackers extreme.
2. LAYOUT OR PLANT DESIGN CHALLENGE
2.1. Alignment
The backtracking strategy is usually applied to East-West tracker alignments. However, when actuation is fully independent, shading may occur on
the North-South direction in trackers of the same row and of adjacent rows ( gure 5). This inconvenience is more relevant at higher latitudes (larger
azimuth), where this type of shading occurs.
This is even more complicated by the fact that

layout also has a signi cant impact on rows
when these are misaligned due to typically
irregular plant contours, as shown in gure 5.
To address these inconveniences, calculation
techniques are used to ensure tracker
positioning prevents shading also between
adjacent rows N-S and power generation is
optimized. These calculations are part of the
so-called ‘backtracking algorithms’, which are
more e ective depending on their level of
sophistication.
Figure 5: Shades in North-South direction cast by trackers with di erent angles. Angles of groups a, b and c are assessed according to di erent survey
East-West slopes.
Figure 6. Example of Backtracking Algorithm that gets trackers work together.
3. TEAMTRACK, SOLTEC’S ALGORITHM TO MAXIMIZE POWER GENERATION

3.1. Soltec’s TeamTrack Algorithms were validated by TÜV Rheinland

To address all above-mentioned challenges, Soltec worked for years to develop and perfect TeamTrack, a tracking algorithm which models actual
plant topography and determines all time the best set of angles that prevents shading and maximize generation.
In this section, the results of an in-depth analysis carried out by TÜV Rheinland of TeamTrack® are presented through the evaluation of di erent
plants and designs.
3.2. TeamTrack Overview

The TeamTrack algorithm uses 3D-Survey geometric analyses to consider the relative position of each tracker in the layout, with the aim to
continuously checks the possibility that a tracker might be shading an adjacent tracker. Based on expected sun position by NREL’s SPA, the
algorithm assesses various angle combinations previously to command the trackers position, con rming that the adopted position is more suitable
to prevent shading and maximize production of the plant as a whole.
3.3. TÜV Rheinland Independent Third Party Veri cation

TÜV Rheinland, leading technical service organization worldwide, drafted an independent third-party report to assess Soltec’s TeamTrack®
algorithm e ectiveness.
3.3.1. Scenario Description

To evaluate algorithm robustness, TÜV Rheinland analyzed 9 di erent scenarios: 3 sites with di erent climate conditions and latitudes (shown in
table 2) and 3 di erent survey types, which are as follows:
Very irregular = variable slopes in East-West (σ2 = 4.8 deg2) and North-South direction (σ2 = 4.1 deg2)
Irregular = variable slopes in East-West (σ2 = 4.6 deg2), constant North-South direction (σ2 = 0.9 deg2)
Regular = constant slopes in East-West (σ2 = 0.7 deg2), constant North-South direction (σ2 = 0.2 deg2)
Daylight Temperature Daylight Temperature

Region Location Latitude G Horizontal Global Climate
January (°C) July (°C)
Mediterranean Spain 41.01° N 1700 Semi-arid 12 32
Northern Germany 52.55° N 1000 Cold maritime 4 24
Equatorial Brazil 6.87° S 1900 Hot and humid 27 27
Table 2: Sites Characteristics
System Information
Size of plant 8064 kWp

Module tilted / Orientation 1-axis tracker E / W
Type of installation Ground
Module type Hanwha Q Cells Q.PLUS L-G4.2 350
Inverter type Power Electronics FS3000
Trackers 256
Strings per tracer 3
Modules per string 30
Table 3: System description of PV plant
For this comparison, an 8064-kWp photovoltaic plant with 350Wp modules and 2 centralized inverters was used. 30-Module strings were grouped
in DC combiner boxes. (Table 3). The model considered the shade-induced electric losses of modules, including module bypass diodes. The plant
is comprised of a total of 256 SF7 trackers by Soltec, 2×45, 2-in-portrait modules installed with a 10-meter pitch (GCR: 40%).
3.3.2. Methodology
For each scenario the individual tracking angles of the di erent tracker are provided by the client and serve together with the tracker position as
input for the shading analysis of the system. After calculating the position of the sun, the shaded area of the tracker can be determined for each
time step (1min) over a whole year. Taking the shading situation and the electrical behavior of the PV modules into consideration, the power output
for each tracker and the summarized yield at the inverter are calculated.
The 9 sites (combination of 3 layouts at 3 latitudes) has been simulated for a full year with a 1 minute resolution, taking the set of angles
determined by TeamTrack®, standard tracking (de ned in gure 1a ) and standard backtracking ( gure 1c). Results are compared as follows.
3.3.3. Comparative Results

TeamTrack: Shadow-Free and Maximum Generation
As previously mentioned, the TeamTrack backtracking algorithm processes NREL’s solar position data together with terrain irregularity to obtain
backtracking angle positions which optimize power generation; eliminate shading between rows during sunrise and sunset and ensure utmost
production.
Figure 7a illustrates the percentage of module surface shades calculated for a speci c date (June 21st), in regular terrain for Mediterranean
latitude. Graph shows the di erent behavior of TeamTrack®, Standard Backtracking, and Standard Tracking. TeamTrack algorithm e ectiveness
becomes evident when compared to standard strategies, which do not take slopes into consideration (as previously illustrated in gure 3).
Figure 7a: Percentage of shaded module area for June 21st (1-minute resolution)
The graph shows signi cant shade reduction compared to standard tracking and backtracking strategies due to terrain westward slope, especially
during sunrise, when trackers with standard tracking and standard backtracking are shaded, whereas TeamTrack keeps solar trackers shade-free1.
This improvement is translated directly into greater power generation, represented in gure 7b. Energy Yield that day was 3.4 kWh/kWp under
standard tracking, 3.5 kWh/kWp under standard backtracking and up to 3.7 kWh/kWp using TeamTrack, meaning a 9% increase.
While the tracker with standard tracking and even backtracking are shaded in the morning, the tracker with TeamTrack are mainly shade free.
Figure 7b: Speci c AC Power for June 21st (1-minute resolution)
Comparisons of the 9 cases conclude that the use of TeamTrack results in a yearly energy yield increase ranging of 3.6% to 7.5% with respect to
Standard Tracking. Energy yield optimization with respect to Standard Backtracking at the di erent sites ranges from 1.2% to 3.5%.
1
Only during sunrise and sunset a small number of trackers with TeamTrack are shaded for a few minutes. This is due to the e ect that the tracker casts a shadow on the adjacent one due to the irregular terrain and numerous slopes,
regardless of the angle of rotation. In comparison with the shaded areas of the other algorithm, this e ect is not signi cant and does not in uence the correct function of the TeamTrack algorithm.
Comparisons of the 9 cases conclude that the use of TeamTrack results in a yearly energy yield increase ranging of 3.6% to 7.5% with respect to
Standard Tracking. Energy yield optimization with respect to Standard Backtracking at the di erent sites ranges from 1.2% to 3.5%.
The results for the case of regular terrain in Mediterranean latitudes (41º) are presented below. Three strategies of backtracking have been
analyzed to get the results: standard tracking, standard backtracking and TeamTrack.
Energy yield by Team Track increases in 6.2% and 2.3% with respect to Standard Tracking and Standard Backtracking. This increase is consistent
over the months, as shown in gure 8.
Figure 8: Monthly speci c AC yield of TeamTrack® and common tracking algorithms.
Spec. Yield TeamTrack-Std Di [%] TeamTrack-StdBT Di [%]

January 8.7 4.3
February 8.1 4.3
March 6.7 3.3
April 6.2 1.9
May 4.8 1.1
June 4.6 0.9
July 4.9 1.1
August 5.3 1.5
September 6.9 2.8

October 7.9 4.1
November 8.8 4.6
December 9.5 5.1
Table 4: TeamTrack energy yield. Monthly comparison with common tracking algorithms.
It is interesting to analyze the month of December, when under average latitude and regular terrain conditions, power generation increases up to
9.5% compared to standard tracking and 5.1% when compared to standard backtracking. The highest monthly increasement is reached in
December in northern latitude, with 14.1% and 18.9%, respectively.
Baseline case summary Mediterranean region

Semiarid climate Regular Terrain
YEARLY improvement +6.2%
Maximum monthly improvement +9.5%
Results for the 9 de ned scenarios are shown in the table below and con rm that Soltec’s TeamTrack algorithm leads to higher annual yield gains
ranging between 3.6% and 7.5% in comparison to a standard tracking algorithm.
Table 5: Annual yield gain with Soltec’s TeamTrack compared to Standard Tracking.
4. TRACKER TOPOLOGIES AND ADVANCED BACKTRACKING ALGORITHMS. // SELECTING THE MOST SUITABLE
STRATEGY
As seen above, the main drawbacks of backtracking algorithms are linked to terrains of complex topography. In fully at and horizontal terrains
standard backtracking can provide acceptable results. However, considering the increasingly larger size of photovoltaic plants, it is uncommon to
nd terrains with such characteristics. Furthermore, optimized backtracking avoids the need for large earthworks during the project’s civil phase,
thus o ering economic and environmental bene ts.
Backtracking is also a ected by the tracker type used. Although there are many types of trackers, two of them easily stand out: decentralized or
independent and centralized.
Although most Tier 1 solar tracker manufacturers use backtracking algorithms to try to prevent the inconveniences described in the rst section,
the type of tracker selected determines the backtracking algorithm strategy that can be implemented onsite. Below we analyze the strengths and
weaknesses of key strategies, comparing them to irradiance optimization achieved with TeamTrack.
4.1. BTA Strategies using Sensors

Trackers following sensor-based backtracking strategies are equipped with cells in strategic spots to detect shades. As it is shown in gure 9, when
shade reaches the sensor, the tracker corrects the angle and controls its position based on sensor feedback. This type of strategy does not require
knowing terrain topography beforehand but has several inconveniences.
Firstly, this type of control only ensures correct performance at the

point where the sensor is placed. For example, a sensor installed in the
middle would only prevent shading in the middle. However, in the case
of long trackers with North-South inclination there would be shades in
the extreme closest to the ground, as shown in gure 10.
Backtracking control systems of this type tend to include a bu er,
applied to all trackers to prevent this type of shading and correct
installation inaccuracies. This bu er positions trackers at an angle lower
than the calculation angle, making it possible to prevent shading on
solar trackers installed on terrains with steep slopes. However, that will
also causes an increase of power losses due to misorientation on the
trackers installed on the areas with a less steep slope.
Figure 9: Backtracking algorithm based on sensors allows strips of sunlight
Figure 10: Example of shading in BTA equipped with middle sensors in trackers with North slope.
As above mentioned, a visual indicator to evaluate backtracking algorithms optimization and quality is to observe the level of radiation that
reaches the ground (‘strips of sunlight’). This translates into energy not reaching the tracker and, therefore, into power generation loss and terrain
misuse.
The inaccuracy of these systems can be mitigated by means of machine-learning techniques and software. However, that takes a long time and
never quite reaches the reliability level of topography modeling strategies. Furthermore, these control systems depend on sensor reliability, thus
increasing the need for periodic cleaning, inspections and maintenance requirements to ensure proper performance, as well as increasing
operations and maintenance costs. Sensor-based positioning strategies increase the risk of failure and, therefore, of energy losses.
The base case described in section 2 (Mediterranean latitude and regular terrain) was used to implement a layout in which 1-in-vertical
con guration trackers are equipped with a sensor in the middle to simulate backtracking strategy operation.
Evaluation is carried out by assessing the following indicators:
Shading (SH) is a percentage average of the shaded area, which does not include energy.
Misorientation (MSO) quanti es the lack of orientation induced. It is calculated as the relationship between irradiance on non-shaded areas (Gplane )
and the maximum irradiance that would theoretically be available, i.e. with a standard tracking strategy (trackers perfectly oriented) and without
shading.
Finally, BT E ectiveness (BTEf) is an index that includes MSO and SH e ects.
The following table shows those indicator results:
G e ective Misorientation Improvement

BT Strategy Layout Shading (SH) BT E ectiveness (BTEf)*
(kWh/m2) Losses (MSO) Vs StdTrack
regular 2.080 0.0% 7.88% 92.12% BASELINE

StdTrack
irregular 2.081 0.0% 7.87% 92.13% BASELINE
regular 2.207 -5.3% 0.66% 94.10% 6.10%
Middle sensor
irregular 2.204 -5.4% 1.08% 93.59% 5.92%
Middle sensor regular 2.182 -6.4% 0.55% 93.07% 4.88%
+bu er 25cm
irregular 2.179 -6.5% 0.96% 92.60% 4.73%
regular 2.212 -5.1% 0.58% 94.33% 6.33%

TeamTrack®
irregular 2.206 -5.4% 0.97% 93.72% 6.02%
Table 6: Evaluation of BT strategies with middle sensor. *Percentages with respect to the non-shading case. (G objective = 2331 kWh/m2)
As can be observed in gure 11, bu er reduce shading but increases the misorientation and nal energy is lower. Team Track achieves the best of
both cases.
Figure 11. Comparison of SH and MSO losses of Middle sensor with and without margin with TeamTrack
4.2. BTA Strategies in Linked-Row Trackers

Linked trackers are trackers in which two or more rows are linked mechanically, meaning their tilting angle is the same. Movement restriction in this
type of trackers limits their capacity to optimize backtracking adaption to terrain topography. ( gures 12.a and 12.b).
Although shades can be prevented by positioning trackers more horizontally, such position is not favorable in terms of energy yield ( gure 12.b).
Figure 12a Standard Backtracking in linked trackers on East-West slopes casts shades and induces strips of sunlight
On the contrary, the positioning of decentralized or independent trackers is better adapted to terrain characteristics. The level of algorithm
sophistication determines the level of optimized power generation. Shades and strips of sunligth can be almost avoided with a sophisticated
backtracking algorithm, as seen in gures 12c and 12d.
Figure 12b Backtracking algorithm in linked trackers on East-West slopes induces strips of sunlight
Figure 12c Backtracking algorithm in independent trackers on East-West slopes induces minimal strips of sunlight.
Figure 12d Soltec’s TeamTrack in independent trackers on East-West slopes completely avoids shading and strips of sunlight.
The larger the number of linked trackers, the more detrimental this lack of optimization due to misorientation. The following table shows the
percentage of annual shading for various linked or central trackers con gurations for the same base case (described in section 2), ranging from
dual-row trackers to others connecting up to 32 trackers driven by a single engine.
This lack of optimization will be quanti ed using the “misorientation index”, which annual results for both regular and irregular layouts are shown in
table 7.
G e ective Misorientation Improvement

BT Strategy Shading (SH) BT E ectiveness (BTEf)
(kWh/m2) Losses (MSO) Vs StdTrack
Tracker regular irregular regular irregular regular irregular regular irregular regular irregular
StdTrack 2080 2081 0,0% 0,0% 7,88% 7,87% 92,12% 92,13% BASELINE BASELINE
Single row 1P 2.201 2204 -5,6% -5,4% 0,55% 1,08% 93,92% 93,59% 5.84% 5.92%
LINK2 2.199 2193 -5,7% -5,9% 0,56% 1,00% 93,79% 93,14% 5.71% 5.39%
LINK10 2.191 2181 -6,0% -6,4% 0,70% 1,11% 93,37% 92,56% 5.36% 4.84%
LINK20 2.188 2170 -6,1% -6,9% 0,70% 1,20% 93,22% 92,00% 5.20% 4.30%
LINK32 2.188 2158 -6,1% -7,4% 0,71% 1,32% 93,21% 91,37% 5.20% 3.71%
Dual-row 2P 2.209 2204 -5,2% -5,4% 0,64% 1,03% 94,19% 93,58% 6.23% 5.91%
TeamTrack® 2.212 2206 -5,1% -5,4% 0,58% 0,97% 94,33% 93,72% 6.33% 6.02%
Table 7: Comparison of annual shading for linked trackers *Percentages with respect to the non-shading case. (G objective = 2331 kWh/m2)
As expected, we can see how misorientation impact increases when additional trackers are linked. Besides, this impact is deeper when survey
include irregularities.
Figure 13: Comparison of tracker linked Row BT misorientation and shading with TeamTrack reference.
This problem does not apply to independent trackers that in gures 2d & 2c can be positioned to better adapt to terrain characterisitics, as
described on 3b.
Figure 12d includes a comparison with Soltec’s TeamTrack, which allows for the optimization power generation.
Centralized trackers all move with the same angle, meaning they have the inherent limitation of being incapable to adapt to terrain
conditions. On the contrary, independent trackers do adapt, favoring the optimization of radiation levels during backtracking periods.
4.3. Comparison
Using the baseline case (Mediterranean latitude and regular layout), the energy capture by di erent types of trackers and/or algorithm strategies
along the year has been compared, and yield estimated assuming a PR of 85%.
Misorientation E ective Energy Yield Energy Yield Comparison Energy Yield Comparison
BT Strategy Index Insolation (PR=85%) Vs Vs
Losses (MSO) kWh/m2 kWh/kWp StdTrack TeamTrack
StdTrack 0,0% 2080 1768 BASELINE -6,33%
TeamTrack -5,1% 2212 1880 6,33% BASELINE
Middle sensor -5,3% 2207 1876 6,10% -0,23%
LINK2 -5,7% 2199 1869 5,71% -0,62%
LINK32 -6,1% 2188 1860 5,20% -1,13%
Middel sensor+bu er -6,4% 2182 1854 4,88% -1,45%
Dual-row 2P -5,2% 2209 1878 6,23% -0,10%
Table 8: Comparison for di erent types of trackers and algorithm strategies. (G objective = 2331 kWh/m2)
5. CONCLUSION
The study of TÜV Rheinland veri es that Soltec’s TeamTrack obtains 6.2% more energy than standard tracking in regular terrains and average
latitudes. Optimization compared to standard backtracking is 2.3%. Furthermore, the study concludes that compared to standard tracking, Soltec’s
TeamTrack obtains production gains ranging between 3.6% and 7.5%, depending on terrain and climate conditions. If a comparison is made to
standard backtracking, annual optimization ranges between 1.2% and 3.5%.
Tracker pitch positively impacts power generation because, on the one hand, tracking time increases for both monofacial and bifacial plants and,
on the other hand, module rear side view factor increases. Bifacial production di erences caused by larger aisle width exist throughout the entire
tracking period and are directly related to albedo. Besides, the measured mismatch has yields low results that do not imply representative changes
that a ects the Bifacial Gain of the modules.
Lastly and as mentioned in previous whitepapers, albedo is the most in uential Bifacial Gain parameter and can vary seasonally depending on
ground changes, such as those caused by grass growth. When developing a bifacial plant, it is key to know plant albedo, which can be measured
using di erent methods. Having said that, albedo is commonly measured with albedometers placed horizontally in shade-free, representative
ground locations.
Algorithm gains depend on terrain regularity and latitude. For example, in highland latitudes (Germany), TeamTrack’s gain reaches 14.1% compared
to standard tracking and 18.9% when compared to standard backtracking in December.
Figure 14: Evaluation of di erent backtracking strategies. *To visually represent the shading percentage on the graph, the bar value has been multiplied by 3.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] K. Anderson, “Maximizing Yield with Improved Single-Axis Backtracking on Cross-Axis Slopes,” pp. 1–9, 2020. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76023.pdf
[2] E. Lorenzo, L. Narvarte, and J. Muñoz, “Tracking and backtracking,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 747–
753, 2011. [Online]. Available:
https: //doi.org/10.1002/pip.1085
[3] K. Anderson and M. Mikofski, “Slope-Aware Backtracking for Single-Axis Trackers,” pp. 1–24, 2020, [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76626.pdf
©Soltec, all rights reserved. The total or partial exploitation, reproduction, distribution, public communication or alteration of this work is prohibited without the written authorization of Soltec.
[/emaillocker]

BiTEC-whitepaper - 6.2% TeamTrack Gain PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BiTEC-whitepaper - 6.2% TeamTrack Gain PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BiTEC-whitepaper - 6.2% TeamTrack Gain PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/25/2021 Soltec Lab | 6.

Whitepaper December 2020

BACKTRACKING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS USED

1. THE TERRAIN CHALLENGE

2. LAYOUT OR PLANT DESIGN CHALLENGE

3. TEAMTRACK, SOLTEC’S ALGORITHM TO MAXIMIZE POWER GENERATION

3.3.3. Comparative Results

BACKTRACKING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS USED

1. THE TERRAIN CHALLENGE

1.1. East-West Slopes

Phenomena caused by the application of Standard Backtracking

1.2. Irregular Slopes

1.3. North-South Slopes

2. LAYOUT OR PLANT DESIGN CHALLENGE

This is even more complicated by the fact that

Figure 6. Example of Backtracking Algorithm that gets trackers work together.

3. TEAMTRACK, SOLTEC’S ALGORITHM TO MAXIMIZE POWER GENERATION

3.1. Soltec’s TeamTrack Algorithms were validated by TÜV Rheinland

3.2. TeamTrack Overview

3.3. TÜV Rheinland Independent Third Party Veri cation

3.3.1. Scenario Description

Daylight Temperature Daylight Temperature

Size of plant 8064 kWp

3.3.3. Comparative Results

Figure 7b: Speci c AC Power for June 21st (1-minute resolution)

Figure 8: Monthly speci c AC yield of TeamTrack® and common tracking algorithms.

Spec. Yield TeamTrack-Std Di [%] TeamTrack-StdBT Di [%]

September 6.9 2.8

Baseline case summary Mediterranean region

4.1. BTA Strategies using Sensors

Firstly, this type of control only ensures correct performance at the

Figure 9: Backtracking algorithm based on sensors allows strips of sunlight

Finally, BT E ectiveness (BTEf) is an index that includes MSO and SH e ects.

The following table shows those indicator results:

G e ective Misorientation Improvement

regular 2.080 0.0% 7.88% 92.12% BASELINE

irregular 2.179 -6.5% 0.96% 92.60% 4.73%

regular 2.212 -5.1% 0.58% 94.33% 6.33%

4.2. BTA Strategies in Linked-Row Trackers

G e ective Misorientation Improvement

You might also like