Computational fluid dynamics simulation reveals wind load distributions across mega-scale solar arrays, indicating distinct zoning coefficients based on terrain shielding and wind angles.
Photovoltaic (PV) power generation, as a renewable energy system, contributes to global decarbonization efforts. Wind load is one of the dominant loads acting on PV arrays, and the wind load shape coefficient is a parameter characterizing the non-uniform wind-pressure effect on PV modules, which directly affects the estimation and distribution of wind loads. The coefficient is influenced by aerodynamic interference among PV modules and environmental boundary conditions. However, systematic research on the wind load shape coefficient for mega-scale PV arrays and its influencing factors remains limited. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was developed and verified in Ansys Fluent to investigate the shielding effect on the wind load shape coefficient of mega-scale PV arrays. This study clarifies how PV panel module arrangement, terrain shielding height difference, and wind direction angle affect the shielding effect. The influence of PV panel module arrangements (linear and columnar configurations) on the shielding effect was investigated, focusing on the impact on the wind load shape coefficient of mega-scale PV arrays under varying terrain shielding height differences and wind direction angles. Recommended values were proposed for different wind load shape coefficient zones across PV panel modules. The findings showed that under full terrain shielding conditions, the effects of terrain shielding height difference and wind direction could be neglected, allowing a uniform wind load shape coefficient of 0.3 for all PV panel modules within the array. In contrast, without terrain shielding, the wind direction angle must be considered. In this case, the wind load shape coefficient values were determined as 1.1 for the windward zone, 0.55 for the edge zone, and 0.5 for the internal zone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: