Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations
Several studies on photovoltaic systems focused on how it operates and energy required in operating it. Little attention is paid on its configurations, modeling of mean time to system failure, availability, cost benefit and comparisons of parallel and series-parallel designs. In this research work,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of industrial engineering international 2017-12, Vol.13 (4), p.479-486 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 486 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 479 |
| container_title | Journal of industrial engineering international |
| container_volume | 13 |
| creator | Suleiman, K Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim Koko, A. D Bala, S. I |
| description | Several studies on photovoltaic systems focused on how it operates and energy required in operating it. Little attention is paid on its configurations, modeling of mean time to system failure, availability, cost benefit and comparisons of parallel and series-parallel designs. In this research work, four system configurations were studied. Configuration I consists of two sub-components arranged in parallel with 24 V each, configuration II consists of four sub-components arranged logically in parallel with 12 V each, configuration III consists of four sub-components arranged in series-parallel with 8 V each, and configuration IV has six sub-components with 6 V each arranged in series-parallel. Comparative analysis was made using Chapman Kolmogorov's method. The derivation for explicit expression of mean time to system failure, steady state availability and cost benefit analysis were performed, based on the comparison. Ranking method was used to determine the optimal configuration of the systems. The results of analytical and numerical solutions of system availability and mean time to system failure were determined and it was found that configuration I is the optimal configuration. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1957705589</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1957705589</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-a358e362204d11e08bb2409ce992cdfee17bb60f662d7cbd0f2ea44f579b0bbc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1LAzEQDaJgqf0BHoQFz6uTZLPZHDxI8QsKXhS8hWR3UlLazZpsEf-9KeuhXgxMZmDeezPzCLmkcEMB5G2qABQrgcocqi6bEzJjTNBSUvZxelSfk0VKG8hPSgW8npG7ZdgNJvoU-sLi-IXYFy7sY9H5lPzOb00sUjj8g-lxW7Shd369j2b0oU8X5MyZbcLFb56T98eHt-VzuXp9elner8qWC96UhosGec0YVB2lCI21rALVolKs7RwildbW4OqadbK1HTiGpqqckMqCtS2fk-tJd4jhc49p1Ju8Y59HaqqElCBEozKKTqg2hpQiOj1EvzPxW1PQB6P0ZJTORumDUbrJnGLiYL7MpyMGqIZnTpUhbIKk3OzXGI-G_6N79Uf3kNIYoqaSCSn4DzDdf4Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1957705589</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Suleiman, K ; Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim ; Koko, A. D ; Bala, S. I</creator><creatorcontrib>Suleiman, K ; Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim ; Koko, A. D ; Bala, S. I</creatorcontrib><description>Several studies on photovoltaic systems focused on how it operates and energy required in operating it. Little attention is paid on its configurations, modeling of mean time to system failure, availability, cost benefit and comparisons of parallel and series-parallel designs. In this research work, four system configurations were studied. Configuration I consists of two sub-components arranged in parallel with 24 V each, configuration II consists of four sub-components arranged logically in parallel with 12 V each, configuration III consists of four sub-components arranged in series-parallel with 8 V each, and configuration IV has six sub-components with 6 V each arranged in series-parallel. Comparative analysis was made using Chapman Kolmogorov's method. The derivation for explicit expression of mean time to system failure, steady state availability and cost benefit analysis were performed, based on the comparison. Ranking method was used to determine the optimal configuration of the systems. The results of analytical and numerical solutions of system availability and mean time to system failure were determined and it was found that configuration I is the optimal configuration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2251-712X</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1735-5702</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2251-712X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Availability ; Configurations ; Cost benefit analysis ; Engineering ; Engineering Economics ; Facility Management ; Failure analysis ; Industrial and Production Engineering ; Logistics ; Marketing ; Mathematical and Computational Engineering ; Mathematical models ; Organization ; Original Research ; Photovoltaic ; Photovoltaic cells ; Quality Control ; Reliability ; Reliability Solar panel ; Safety and Risk ; Solar panels</subject><ispartof>Journal of industrial engineering international, 2017-12, Vol.13 (4), p.479-486</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><rights>Journal of Industrial Engineering International is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-a358e362204d11e08bb2409ce992cdfee17bb60f662d7cbd0f2ea44f579b0bbc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-a358e362204d11e08bb2409ce992cdfee17bb60f662d7cbd0f2ea44f579b0bbc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,27924,27925,41120,42189,51576</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Suleiman, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koko, A. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bala, S. I</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations</title><title>Journal of industrial engineering international</title><addtitle>J Ind Eng Int</addtitle><description>Several studies on photovoltaic systems focused on how it operates and energy required in operating it. Little attention is paid on its configurations, modeling of mean time to system failure, availability, cost benefit and comparisons of parallel and series-parallel designs. In this research work, four system configurations were studied. Configuration I consists of two sub-components arranged in parallel with 24 V each, configuration II consists of four sub-components arranged logically in parallel with 12 V each, configuration III consists of four sub-components arranged in series-parallel with 8 V each, and configuration IV has six sub-components with 6 V each arranged in series-parallel. Comparative analysis was made using Chapman Kolmogorov's method. The derivation for explicit expression of mean time to system failure, steady state availability and cost benefit analysis were performed, based on the comparison. Ranking method was used to determine the optimal configuration of the systems. The results of analytical and numerical solutions of system availability and mean time to system failure were determined and it was found that configuration I is the optimal configuration.</description><subject>Availability</subject><subject>Configurations</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering Economics</subject><subject>Facility Management</subject><subject>Failure analysis</subject><subject>Industrial and Production Engineering</subject><subject>Logistics</subject><subject>Marketing</subject><subject>Mathematical and Computational Engineering</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Organization</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Photovoltaic</subject><subject>Photovoltaic cells</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reliability Solar panel</subject><subject>Safety and Risk</subject><subject>Solar panels</subject><issn>2251-712X</issn><issn>1735-5702</issn><issn>2251-712X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UE1LAzEQDaJgqf0BHoQFz6uTZLPZHDxI8QsKXhS8hWR3UlLazZpsEf-9KeuhXgxMZmDeezPzCLmkcEMB5G2qABQrgcocqi6bEzJjTNBSUvZxelSfk0VKG8hPSgW8npG7ZdgNJvoU-sLi-IXYFy7sY9H5lPzOb00sUjj8g-lxW7Shd369j2b0oU8X5MyZbcLFb56T98eHt-VzuXp9elner8qWC96UhosGec0YVB2lCI21rALVolKs7RwildbW4OqadbK1HTiGpqqckMqCtS2fk-tJd4jhc49p1Ju8Y59HaqqElCBEozKKTqg2hpQiOj1EvzPxW1PQB6P0ZJTORumDUbrJnGLiYL7MpyMGqIZnTpUhbIKk3OzXGI-G_6N79Uf3kNIYoqaSCSn4DzDdf4Y</recordid><startdate>20171201</startdate><enddate>20171201</enddate><creator>Suleiman, K</creator><creator>Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim</creator><creator>Koko, A. D</creator><creator>Bala, S. I</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch</general><scope>OT2</scope><scope>C6C</scope><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171201</creationdate><title>Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations</title><author>Suleiman, K ; Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim ; Koko, A. D ; Bala, S. I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3538-a358e362204d11e08bb2409ce992cdfee17bb60f662d7cbd0f2ea44f579b0bbc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Availability</topic><topic>Configurations</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering Economics</topic><topic>Facility Management</topic><topic>Failure analysis</topic><topic>Industrial and Production Engineering</topic><topic>Logistics</topic><topic>Marketing</topic><topic>Mathematical and Computational Engineering</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Organization</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Photovoltaic</topic><topic>Photovoltaic cells</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reliability Solar panel</topic><topic>Safety and Risk</topic><topic>Solar panels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Suleiman, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koko, A. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bala, S. I</creatorcontrib><collection>EconStor</collection><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><jtitle>Journal of industrial engineering international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Suleiman, K</au><au>Yusuf, U. A. Ali Ibrahim</au><au>Koko, A. D</au><au>Bala, S. I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations</atitle><jtitle>Journal of industrial engineering international</jtitle><stitle>J Ind Eng Int</stitle><date>2017-12-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>479</spage><epage>486</epage><pages>479-486</pages><issn>2251-712X</issn><issn>1735-5702</issn><eissn>2251-712X</eissn><abstract>Several studies on photovoltaic systems focused on how it operates and energy required in operating it. Little attention is paid on its configurations, modeling of mean time to system failure, availability, cost benefit and comparisons of parallel and series-parallel designs. In this research work, four system configurations were studied. Configuration I consists of two sub-components arranged in parallel with 24 V each, configuration II consists of four sub-components arranged logically in parallel with 12 V each, configuration III consists of four sub-components arranged in series-parallel with 8 V each, and configuration IV has six sub-components with 6 V each arranged in series-parallel. Comparative analysis was made using Chapman Kolmogorov's method. The derivation for explicit expression of mean time to system failure, steady state availability and cost benefit analysis were performed, based on the comparison. Ranking method was used to determine the optimal configuration of the systems. The results of analytical and numerical solutions of system availability and mean time to system failure were determined and it was found that configuration I is the optimal configuration.</abstract><cop>Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2251-712X |
| ispartof | Journal of industrial engineering international, 2017-12, Vol.13 (4), p.479-486 |
| issn | 2251-712X 1735-5702 2251-712X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1957705589 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals |
| subjects | Availability Configurations Cost benefit analysis Engineering Engineering Economics Facility Management Failure analysis Industrial and Production Engineering Logistics Marketing Mathematical and Computational Engineering Mathematical models Organization Original Research Photovoltaic Photovoltaic cells Quality Control Reliability Reliability Solar panel Safety and Risk Solar panels |
| title | Comparison between four dissimilar solar panel configurations |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T22%3A53%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20between%20four%20dissimilar%20solar%20panel%20configurations&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20industrial%20engineering%20international&rft.au=Suleiman,%20K&rft.date=2017-12-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=479&rft.epage=486&rft.pages=479-486&rft.issn=2251-712X&rft.eissn=2251-712X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40092-017-0196-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1957705589%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1957705589&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |