- Posts: 2
 
Cell Type enum ordering mismatch
- heychrisaikens
 - Topic Author
 
        Less
        More
        
            
    
        
            
        
                06 Aug 2018 12:02                #6385
        by heychrisaikens
    
    
            
            
            
            
            
                                
    
                                                
    
        Cell Type enum ordering mismatch was created by heychrisaikens            
    
        We are writing some custom wrappers around both the pvsamv1 and iec61853par modules, but are seeing a mismatch in the ordering of enum options between the two when using the SAM UI and the SSC SDKTool.
The enum for iec61853par has CdTe as the fifth option, but the SAM UI for the IEC61853 Single Diode Model option has CdTe listed third.
In addition, the only field in the SDK Tool that calls out the enum also has a different order (see below).
iec61853par - type: monoSi,multiSi/polySi,cis,cigs,cdte,amorphous
pvsamv1 - 6par_celltech monoSi=0,multiSi=1,CdTe=2,CIS=3,CIGS=4,Amorphous=5
Can anyone advise on if the orders are actually different for cell type between pvsamv1 and iec61853par, or if the SDKTool just has the order listed wrong? Thank you very much for the assistance!
    
    The enum for iec61853par has CdTe as the fifth option, but the SAM UI for the IEC61853 Single Diode Model option has CdTe listed third.
In addition, the only field in the SDK Tool that calls out the enum also has a different order (see below).
iec61853par - type: monoSi,multiSi/polySi,cis,cigs,cdte,amorphous
pvsamv1 - 6par_celltech monoSi=0,multiSi=1,CdTe=2,CIS=3,CIGS=4,Amorphous=5
Can anyone advise on if the orders are actually different for cell type between pvsamv1 and iec61853par, or if the SDKTool just has the order listed wrong? Thank you very much for the assistance!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Paul Gilman
 
        Less
        More
        
            
    
        - Posts: 5666
 
            
        
                07 Aug 2018 16:02                #6386
        by Paul Gilman
    
    
            
            
            
            
            
                                
    
                                                
    
        Replied by Paul Gilman on topic Cell Type enum ordering mismatch            
    
        Hello,
That enumeration is defined here as
:
github.com/NREL/ssc/blob/develop/shared/lib_iec61853.h
So the order in the SAM user interface is correct.
The model uses the
input to choose an initial guess value for the numerical solver algorithm to help it find a solution. It is not a physical parameter of the model.
We are working on some improvements to the solver for the next version of SAM.
Best regards,
Paul.
    
    That enumeration is defined here as
Code:
enum { monoSi, multiSi, CdTe, CIS, CIGS, Amorphous, _maxTypeNames };
github.com/NREL/ssc/blob/develop/shared/lib_iec61853.h
So the order in the SAM user interface is correct.
The model uses the
Code:
type
We are working on some improvements to the solver for the next version of SAM.
Best regards,
Paul.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
        Moderators: Paul Gilman    
 
 



