High Accuracy Measurements of DC Current from

Grid Tied PV Systems

Sean M. Orsburn
University of Arizona
AzRISE
Tucson, Arizona
sorsburn@email.arizona.edu
I. CONTEXT & MOTIVATION
Solar Energy is a clean, renewable energy source that is
increasing in popularity as the price of PV modules decreases
and the cost of traditional fossil fuels increases. On average,
Earth receives 4.2 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per square meter every
day [1]. According to U.S. Energy Information
Administrations, the average American home uses nearly 30
kWh per day, which shows that, if the energy could be
collected with 100% efficiency, the average home could be
powered by collecting the suns energy incident on 6 square
meters [2]. The term "solar energy" can refer to several
different technologies that convert solar irradiance to electric
power; in this report we limit ourselves to Photovoltaics (PV).
PV modules are made up of numerous solar cells, and each cell
directly converts sunlight into DC electric power.
PV cells can be made of several different materials,
including Crystalline Silicon, Amorphous Silicon, Cadmium
Telluride (CdTe), and Copper Indium Gallium Selenide
(CIGS). Each of these different materials has different
properties that affect their efficiency, temperature dependence,
and degradation rates. PV modules made from the same
material even differ between manufacturers.
Manufacturers specify the performance of their modules
under Standard Test Conditions (STC). STC are 1000 Watts
per square meter irradiance, 25 degrees Celsius module
temperature, Air Mass (AM) 1.5. Air Mass is the path length of
light as it enters Earth's atmosphere [3]. When the sun is
directly overhead, the AM is 1; however, the Air Mass
increases the further away the sun travels from solar noon. At
sunset, the AM can reach as high as 38. This affects the
intensity as well as the spectrum of the incident light.
The issue with using STC ratings to compare PV systems is
that field conditions are very rarely similar to the test
conditions. To properly determine the actual performance of a
PV system in an environment outside of lab conditions,
accurate measurements of irradiance, module temperature, and
power are required. Accurate field measurements in multiple
geographic regions and climates will allow us to predict how
different technologies will perform in a variety of locations.
This information is important to utility companies, government
regulators, and ratepayers.
This report describes how to obtain accurate power
measurements in an out-door environment. The main challenge
is to find a set of sensors that are insensitive to the large
temperature fluctuations found in an out-door test site.

II. SYNOPSYS OF THIS REPORT
As part of an independent study project in the ECE and
Physics departments, I performed the following tasks:
1. I have researched, tested, and implemented a system to
measure DC current produced by PV modules in the
field.
2. I have quantified temperature-induced errors of 4
different current sensors (2 types of Hall sensors and 2
models of shunt resistors).
3. I created a laboratory test bench to evaluate these
sensors. This test bench included a variable
temperature oven, a data acquisition system running
LabView, and several calibrated current sources and
meters.
4. I built and installed a current and voltage measurement
sensor system for 7 PV systems (ranging from 1-
3kWpeak) located at the TEP solar test yard on
Irvington Road.
5. I verified the precision and accuracy of my current
measurement system in the field by comparing
measurements using my shunt resistor circuit to
measurements using a high precision Fluke multimeter.
6. I worked with a Post-Doc in the physics department to
establish continuous monitoring current measurements
using my shunt resistor circuit.

III. MEASUREMENT DEVICES
Peak power (at STC), measured in Watts (W), is the rating
indicated on a PV module. PV modules rarely produce their
rated peak power; to obtain actual power, continuous
measurements of voltage and current are required.
A. Voltage
Voltage can be measured by attaching a Voltmeter to the
two points between which a voltage measurement is desired.
For example, in Fig. 1, measuring across a hypothetical PV
system could give a result of 100.0 Volts. Unfortunately, most
analog-digital converters used to record voltage measurements
only accept a -5V to +5V range.






Figure 1. Voltmeter measuring full load of the example system.
Figure 2. Voltmeter measuring differential load of the example system.
In this case, the use of a Voltage Divider is necessary. A
voltage divider takes a given voltage, and knocks it down to
more manageable value. The value measured is determined by
the equation
R
eq
=

In our experiments, we used R1 = 200 kOhms, and R2 = 2
kOhms, giving us a measurement 101 times smaller than the
actual voltage present.
B. Current
We considered two common current sensors: Hall Effect
Current Sensors, and Shunt Resistors.
Hall Effect Current Sensors measure the magnetic field
induced by current flow through a conductor. The Hall Effect
sensor output is a voltage proportional to the flow of current
through the sensor. One of the advantages of this measurement
device is the through-hole design; The Hall Effect sensor
does not have to contact the wire being measured, therefore no
heat is generated, and large amounts of current can be safely
recorded. Drawbacks of the use of Hall Effect sensors include:
the required power supply, the need for careful calibration, and
the large temperature dependence. The picture in Fig. 3 shows
the operation of this sensor.






Figure 3. Hall Effect Current Sensor Diagram.
Figure 4. Shunt Resistor Diagram.
Shunt resistors are low resistance precision resistors,
typically used to measure current flow in a wire. Shunt resistors
have resistances ranging from milliohms to one Ohm. Fig. 4
displays the proper connection of a shunt resistor. Similar to
the Hall Effect sensor, the voltage across the resistor is
proportional to the current flow- given by:

In the above equation, current (I) is determined by dividing
voltage (V) by the resistance (R). We chose resistance values
ranging from 0.025 Ohm to 0.1 Ohm depending on the current
range we expect for different PV systems. If we choose R to be
too large, the power dissipated by the resistor, given by
P = IR
will affect the measurement and may damage the resistor. If we
choose R to be too low, the voltage across the resistor becomes
very small and electronic noise becomes significant.
IV. TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCY
Temperature and irradiance are the two most important
factors that impact field performance of PV systems. Fig. 5
shows module efficiency as a function of module temperature.




Figure 5. Effects of Temperature on Efficiency
The decrease in power output at higher temperatures is
mainly due to a decrease in voltage at higher temperatures.
This relation between temperature and voltage is evident in Fig.
6, which shows the air and module temperatures at the top,
followed by the DC Voltage and DC Current.
In order to accurately quantify the temperature dependence
of the PV system performance, we have to ensure that our
sensors report accurate values over a wide temperature range.
In Arizona, it is common for summer temperatures to reach
40C. Inside a metal box in full sunlight, temperatures will
climb even higher, often passing 50C. We therefore require a
sensor with a total temperature induced error of less than 1%
over the range 0C to 60C.
Figure 6. Temperature Effects on PV Modules
A. Equipment Tested
As described before, there are two common ways to
measure current; Hall Effect Current Sensors, and Shunt
Resistors. The first test was to determine what the effects of
high temperatures are on each type of sensor. Four different
units were tested- two shunts, and two Hall Effect sensors. The
four units are:
Ohio Semitronics CTG-101X5 Hall-Effect Current
Transducer
H5-ACDC-125: 5-Channel Current Sensor Board
Empro Shunts (0.005, 0.01, and 0.05 Used)
Ohmite TGHG Series Current Sense Resistors (0.01,
0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 Used)
We also tested the temperature dependency of the LabJack
UE9 Pro AD converter.
B. Oven Test
We used a small oven as a heat-resistant container; inside
the oven, there are two sections separated by a steel partition.
In the bottom partition, a six foot long heating tape was coiled,
filling up the space as much as possible. The heating tape was
connected to a variable AC power source, so the temperature
inside the oven could be maintained at a reasonable level- in
this case 70C. The measurement devices were then
connected, in series, to a constant power source providing 3A
current. As current was passing through the system, the data
was being recorded on a LabJack UE9 Pro. To double check
the readings, two Digital Multimeters were attached to the
circuit. This system made it possible to not only ensure the
current was stable, but allowed for the verification of the
LabJack readings simultaneously.
Each sensor, which was originally at room temperature
(26C), was placed inside the oven and not removed until it
was nearly 65C. Both Hall sensors exhibited significant
temperature dependence. However, the Ohio Semitronics Hall
Effect Sensor had a reversed response when compared to the
Sensor Board. Whereas the sensor board had a relatively
steady decline until it was removed from the oven, the Ohio
Semitronics Sensor had an increased reading.
The results from the shunt resistor show a very close
agreement with the actual current being passed through the
system. These results are represented in Table 1, which shows
the average error caused per degree increase.
TABLE I. ERROR PER DEGREE
Ohio Semitronics Sensor 0.10% / C
Sensor Board -0.15% / C
Shunt Resistor 0.01% / C

Fig. 7 shows the measured error in the DC current for three
different sensors as a function of temperature. This data was
acquired over the course of 30 minutes, during which the
sensors were first heated and then cooled. The hysteresis of the
curve is due to the temperature gauge and the current sensors
not heating and cooling at the same rate.



Figure 7. Measured error in current from three different sensors as a function
of temperature. This data was acquired over the course of 30 minutes,during
which the sensors were first heated and then cooled.
Based on the results in Table 1 and Fig. 7, the shunt resistor
will give the most accurate results given the temperature
variations that may occur throughout the year in the Tucson
region.
V. COLLECTION
A. Labjack UE9
The measurement device used in the collection system was
the LabJack UE9 and UE9-Pro. The LabJack has the ability to
monitor 4 Analog Inputs, and up to 14 Inputs with the use of a
breakout board. The LabJack can be accessed using USB or
Ethernet through a variety of programs; we chose to use
LabView. The Data Input is scanned at 250 Hz, and then
averaged before being relayed; the LabJack is capable of
scanning at 50 kHz, but this decreases the resolution.

VI. BOARD DESIGN
A. Circuit Design
Based on the results in Table 1, we selected the Ohmite
Shunt resistor for field measurements. A circuit diagram of our
measurement system is shown in Fig. 9.
In case of unit failure, the shunt resistor is designed to fault
open. If this were to happen, not only would the system cease
operation, the potential for shocking hazards at the break
increase. As a safety precaution and to ensure the system
remains operational, two rectifier bridges were installed as
bypass diodes. Using the rectifier bridges as a bypass diode
requires only the DC terminals to be used. This connection
makes a path across two diodes in parallel with another set of
two diodes, which is the equivalent of one diode, with better
energy distribution. Putting two of these bridges in series
makes a larger activation voltage requirement for the bypass.
When the resistor is operational, there is only about 0.5 volts
difference across the resistor. The activation voltage for the
bypass is just under 1.4 volts, therefore leaving the diodes
inactive unless a problem occurs.


B. Board Layout
In designing circuit layout, we considered several factors:
1. The ability to easily connect and disconnect the entire
sensor board. Using two sets of terminal blocks, the
entire measurement system can be connected by simply
disconnecting the low-side wire, plugging it in to the
correct terminal, and then running a wire from the
matching terminal block to the panel.
2. The ability to easily connect and disconnect individual
systems. This enables repairs and troubleshooting to be
done quickly and safely, and long-term repairs can be
done with no consequence to power production.
3. Limit heating of the sensor board due to the heat
generation of the resistors. We left three inches between
each resistor to allow heat to dissipate.
The layout of the measurement board is shown in Fig. 8.

Figure 8. Measurement Board Layout. This board was installed at TEP.






Figure 9. Circuit Diagram of the Installed Measurement System
VII. UNCERTAINTIES
A. Systematic
TABLE II. TABLE OF UNCERTAINTIES
Shunt Calibration 1% max, 0.5% RMS
Shunt Temp. Dependence ~.01%
Shunt Power Dissipation IR < 1, W < 0.1%
LabJack Accuracy 0.25%
LabJack Temp. Dependence ~0.001%
Statistical Noise 0.6%, .05% (RMS)
Total Error: 1.1969%, .57% (RMS)
To obtain an accurate predicted Total Error, the following
equation was used.

=
= .011969
B. Statistical (Random) Errors
When the first system results were analyzed, there was a
large amount of fluctuation in the signals. The average output
of the shunt resistors range between 250 millivolts and 1 volt.
Such a small voltage, measured every second, is susceptible to
noise, or random fluctuation in an electrical signal. The noise
was determined to only be present during the operation of the
DC/AC power inverters. As we are unable to remove the main
source of the noise, two different strategies were implemented
to stabilize the wave. At the bottom of Fig. 9, a resistor and
capacitor can be seen attached to the LabJack, both of which
provide extra stability for the measurements.
C. Resistors
The resistor ensures that the LabJack ground and the shunt
resistor potential are well defined with relation to each other.
This relation reduces the noise seen on the current
measurements.
D. Capacitors
Using an oscilloscope, the remaining noise was determined
to have a frequency of roughly 60 hertz. The noise was most
likely due to capacitive coupling in the first place; that is, the
noise was most likely due to a small amount of charge. A small
capacitor was used to reduce this noise.
VIII. VERIFICATION
A. Precision Testing the Labjack
The first reliability and accuracy test was done on the
LabJack. Using a Fluke 8846A Precision Multimeter, an in-
field comparison was run on the recorded values being relayed
to the data loggers. The LabJack, according to the datasheet, is
capable of 20-bit resolution. The Fluke Multimeter, which has
6.5 digit resolution with very high accuracy, was able to verify
the LabJack values for up to three decimal points. This gives an
error well within the one percent goal for the system.
B. Shunt Board
Because the shunt resistors we used have a very small
resistance (0.05), the voltage drop across the resistors is small
as well (20mV at 1A). This makes our measurement system
susceptible to electronic noise. To check the effect of electronic
noise, we compared the voltage measured across a single shunt
resistor to the voltage measured over seven shunt resistors in a
series connection. This test was able to show that the resistors,
even with a very small value, are able to give precise
measurements of current. However, as the test was just
comparing shunt resistors to other shunt resistors, another test
is required to check the accuracy of our system.
C. FlukeMultimeter
The final test ran on the system was done using a Fluke 287
Electronics Logging Multimeter. The meter is rated for
accuracy to within 0.06% for DC current measurement at
temperatures up to 55C. The meter was attached in series with
a shunt resistor for a period of over three days, and the results
were analyzed during active hours.
IX. RESULTS
A. Evaluation
Thankfully data processing for the sensor involved was
simple, as the shunt measurements are being logging once
every second using the LabJack, and the expected actual
current was being averaged and logged every thirty seconds
using the Fluke Multimeter. The plots of current over time are
shown in Fig. 10, for both the Fluke 287 and the Shunt
Resistor.
Figure 10. Current Measured by Shunt Resistor and Fluke 287
In order to determine if the results were in fact comparable,
the shunt resistor measurements had to be averaged over the
same period as the Fluke measurements, in this case thirty
seconds. Once the measurements were averaged, the graphs



were placed on the same chart and compared. A small section
is shown in the Fig. 11, with points shown every two minutes.
With the data averaged over the same range, the collected
measurements were then plot against each other. A best-fit line
was then calculated for the plotted points, as shown in Fig. 12.
The line is in the form a+bx, where a is the vertical offset of
the line, and b is the slope. Ideally, the slope would be exactly
1, meaning the two lines were identical from point to point.
The slope of the graph in Fig. 12 is not exactly 1, which was
not necessary expected; this does show, however, that the
measurements are indeed very close, though further analysis is
required. Many of the outliers shown in Fig. 12 are due to the
spikes and drops in current caused by passing clouds on the
days during data collection, and the difference in response time
between the Shunt Resistor and Fluke Multimeter.
Figure 11. Zoomed Image of Overlapped Measurements
Figure 12. Shunt Measurements vs. Fluke 287 Measurements. Datapoints with
zero current (night hours) were removed to show operational accuracy without
zero current bias.
Using the points in Fig. 12, calculations were made to
determine the average difference and standard deviation of the
difference in measured values. Due to the data collection taking
place over multiple days, there was a significant amount of
points taken at night, with no current being produced.
Therefore, in order to determine an accurate average difference
and standard deviation, these points are filtered out of the
analysis. The average difference was 0.255986 milliamps
(mA), and the standard deviation is 2.83296 mA. With these
two values, a plot of the distribution density was created, as
shown in Fig. 13.
Figure 13. Distribution plot based on the mean and standard deviation of
collected data. Datapoints with zero current were removed.
X. CONCLUSION
The original goal of the project was to design and build a
measurement system capable of recording data with an error of
less than 1%. Based on measurements and specifications of the
individual components we expect and RMS error of .57%. We
verified this by comparing field measurements from our system
with a high accuracy Fluke multi-meter. We found nearly all
of the data collected over a three day period within 0.5% of the
expected values. Statistical Noise (uncertainty), is any
uncertainty due to error ranges or calibration ranges. These can
be accounted for by the uncertainties shown in Table II. One of
our concerns was that there could be systematic uncertainties in
the results that would cause a large error. However, after
calculating the statistical noise to be around .6%, and the
majority of points fall within this range, the data supports the
predictions and the systematic uncertainty is accounted for. We
recommend repeating the field verification using a multi-meter
under different temperatures and weather patterns, i.e. sunny
vs. rainy days and summer vs. winter days.

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_te
chnologies/how-solar-energy-works.html
[2] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3
[3] http://pveducation.org/pvcdrom/introduction/solar-energy
[4] http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Arizona/Tucson/
[5] http://www.ionaphysics.org/lobby/robotics/Textbooks/liechtml/AC/AC_
2.html
[6] http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3344
[7] www.labjack.com
[8] www.fluke.com
[9] www.us.flukecal.com