Cell Type enum ordering mismatch

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cell Type enum ordering mismatch

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!

Paul Gilman


That enumeration is defined here as enum { monoSi, multiSi, CdTe, CIS, CIGS, Amorphous, _maxTypeNames };:


So the order in the SAM user interface is correct.

The model uses the type 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,

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer