Skip to content

Add polo-smm #2491

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add polo-smm #2491

Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3363ace
Add polo-smm
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
ceba758
Apply suggestions from code review
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
36c9b43
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
eaa90b4
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
794ed98
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
7926a3d
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jun 25, 2025
988557c
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jul 11, 2025
45e768f
Update mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jul 28, 2025
38e5694
Update pvlib/spectrum/mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jul 28, 2025
c24e013
Update pvlib/spectrum/mismatch.py
jesuspolo Jul 28, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
83 changes: 83 additions & 0 deletions pvlib/spectrum/mismatch.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -710,3 +710,86 @@
+ coeff[2] * (airmass - 1.5)
)
return mismatch


def spectral_factor_polo(precipitable_water, airmass_absolute, aod500, aoi,
altitude, module_type=None, coefficients=None,
albedo=0.2):
"""
Estimation of spectral mismatch for BIPV application in vertical facades.
Copy link
Member

@RDaxini RDaxini Jun 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Estimation of spectral mismatch for BIPV application in vertical facades.
Estimate the spectral mismatch for BIPV application in vertical facades.

I think the imperative form is standard practice for the summary line

Parameters
----------
precipitable_water : numeric
atmospheric precipitable water. [cm]

airmass_absolute : numeric
absolute (pressure-adjusted) airmass. [unitless]
aod500 : numeric
atmospheric aerosol optical depth at 500 nm. [unitless]
aoi : numeric
angle of incidence. [degrees]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be nice to link these terms to their respective definitions on the nomenclature page. Not all definitions on that page have been fully developed, but we can link over to them anyway and they will soon be updated.

Suggested change
airmass_absolute : numeric
absolute (pressure-adjusted) airmass. [unitless]
aod500 : numeric
atmospheric aerosol optical depth at 500 nm. [unitless]
aoi : numeric
angle of incidence. [degrees]
airmass_absolute : numeric
absolute (pressure-adjusted) airmass. See :term:`airmass_absolute`. [unitless]
aod500 : numeric
atmospheric aerosol optical depth at 500 nm. [unitless]
aoi : numeric
angle of incidence. See :term:`aoi`. [degrees]

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For aoi, I think the definition here should be angle of incidence on the vertical surface, and maybe we don't link to the generic aoi term.

altitude: numeric
altitude over sea level. [m]
module_type : str, optional
One of the following PV technology strings from [1]_:

* ``'cdte'`` - anonymous CdTe module.
* ``'monosi'`` - anonymous sc-si module.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* ``'monosi'`` - anonymous sc-si module.
* ``'monosi'`` - anonymous sc-si module.

What is "sc-si"? Is this a typo and should be "monocrystalline Si"?

* ``'cigs'`` - anonymous copper indium gallium selenide module.
* ``'asi'`` - anonymous amorphous silicon module.
albedo
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can albedo both be a float and an array?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure, I always thought it as a float, since it refers to a total albedo.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was more wondering if the code allows for albedo being passed in as a time series?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was more wondering if the code allows for albedo being passed in as a time series?

+1 to making this possible if not already

Ground albedo (default value if 0.2). [unitless]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
albedo
Ground albedo (default value if 0.2). [unitless]
albedo
Ground albedo (default value if 0.2). See :term:`albedo`. [unitless]


coefficients : array-like, optional
user-defined coefficients, if not using one of the default coefficient
set via the ``module_type`` parameter.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
user-defined coefficients, if not using one of the default coefficient
set via the ``module_type`` parameter.
user-defined coefficients, if not using one of the coefficient
sets via the ``module_type`` parameter.


Returns
-------
modifier: numeric
spectral mismatch factor (unitless) which is multiplied
with broadband irradiance reaching a module's cells to estimate
effective irradiance, i.e., the irradiance that is converted to
electrical current.

References
----------
[1]. Polo, J., Sanz-saiz, C., Development of spectral mismatch models
for BIPV applications in building façades Abbreviations : Renew. Energy 245
,122820, 2025.:doi:`10.1016/j.renene.2025.122820`
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
[1]. Polo, J., Sanz-saiz, C., Development of spectral mismatch models
for BIPV applications in building façades Abbreviations : Renew. Energy 245
,122820, 2025.:doi:`10.1016/j.renene.2025.122820`
.. [1] J. Polo and C. Sanz-Saiz, 'Development of spectral mismatch models
for BIPV applications in building façades', Renewable Energy, vol. 245,
p. 122820, Jun. 2025,
:doi:`10.1016/j.renene.2025.122820`

This is the IEEE citation I get with Zotero.

"""
if module_type is None and coefficients is None:
raise ValueError('Must provide either `module_type` or `coefficients`')
if module_type is not None and coefficients is not None:
raise ValueError('Only one of `module_type` and `coefficients` should '
'be provided')
am_aoi = pvlib.atmosphere.get_relative_airmass(aoi)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it correct that aoi = 90 - zenith? I think so, because the surface is assumed to be vertical. If that's the case, then I think requesting zenith rather than aoi as input would be significantly easier for a user to understand.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't read the reference so perhaps I miss something, but aoi and zenith being complementary also requires the solar azimuth to be equal to the surface azimuth, which in general won't be the case, right?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

requires the solar azimuth to be equal to the surface azimuth

Yes, you are correct.

pressure = pvlib.atmosphere.alt2pres(altitude)
am90 = pvlib.atmosphere.get_absolute_airmass(am_aoi, pressure)
Ram = am90/airmass_absolute
_coefficients = {}
_coefficients = {
'cdte': (-0.0009, 46.80, 49.20, -0.87, 0.00041, 0.053),
'monosi': (0.0027, 10.34, 9.48, 0.307, 0.00077, 0.006),
'cigs': (0.0017, 2.33, 1.30, 0.11, 0.00098, -0.0177),
'asi': (0.0024, 7.32, 7.09, -0.72, -0.0013, 0.089),
}
c = {
'asi': (0.0056, -0.020, 1.014),
'cigs': (-0.0009, -0.0003, 1),
'cdte': (0.0021, -0.01, 1.01),
'monosi': (0, -0.003, 1.0),
}
if module_type is not None:

Check failure on line 783 in pvlib/spectrum/mismatch.py

View workflow job for this annotation

GitHub Actions / flake8-linter 

E999 IndentationError: unexpected indent
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
if module_type is not None:
if module_type is not None:

coeff = _coefficients[module_type]
c_albedo = c[module_type]
else:
coeff = coefficients
c_albedo = (0.0, 0.0, 1.0) # 0.2 albedo assumed
albedo = 0.2
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know if this is intentional, but this will ignore whatever value the user provides. If it's intentional, the docstring does not reflect that albedo is only used when the type is given, and assumed 0.2 when given the coefficients.

smm = coeff[0] * Ram + coeff[1] / (coeff[2] + Ram**coeff[3]) \
+ coeff[4] / aod500 + coeff[5]*np.sqrt(precipitable_water)
# Ground albedo correction
g = c_albedo[0] * (albedo/0.2)**2 \
+ c_albedo[1] * (albedo/0.2) + c_albedo[2]
return g*smm
Loading