3. Results and Discussions
The prototype was operationalized at the Ateneo de Davao University, Bangkal, Davao City, within the parameters of the concentrated solar power (CSP) research site, geographically situated at GPS coordinates 7.0606297, 125.55674. The site was selected for its suitability to evaluate the prototype’s image processing and deep learning inference capabilities, critical for the precise nowcasting of Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI).
Figure 2 illustrates the prototype with a detailed schematic, indicating the component layout and dimensions of the image-sensing apparatus. At the epicenter of the setup is an engineered convex mirror, 23 cm in diameter, affixed to a 42 x 42 cm base plate with a matte black finish to minimize non-essential light and reflections. The positioning of the image sensor, elevated at 35 cm and extended outward by 41 cm, is strategically calibrated to intersect the mirror’s center, ensuring comprehensive sky coverage within the captured frame for solar position analysis.
Prior to integrating the catadioptric camera assembly, precise orientation alignment with true north was accomplished using a calibrated digital compass application. This critical procedure ensures that the system’s geospatial alignment is in harmony with the earth’s geographic coordinates, a foundational requirement for the accuracy of solar tracking.
In the calibration phase, the prototype underwent meticulous adjustments to ensure the precision of the solar position estimations. This process could be conducted manually on-site or remotely, with provisions for secure access through SSH protocol utilizing a VNC server. The operational efficacy of the system was demonstrated as it continuously logged essential data points such as time, estimated DNI, solar position, and the corresponding confidence levels, with all data being formatted into a CSV file for ease of subsequent analysis.
The experimental phase was carefully scheduled to coincide with optimal weather conditions as predicted by AccuWeather, ensuring that data collection on April 15, 26, 28, and 29, as well as May 3 and May 5-7 of 2022, was conducted under clear skies, conducive to precise solar imaging. This stringent approach to data collection was instrumental in ensuring the reliability of the subsequent dataset classification.
Figure 3 exemplifies the output derived from the prototype, showcasing the solar position (1) and the bounding box (2) that encloses the brightest segment of the image—indicative of the highest solar radiation intensity. The internal computation of the centroid and the flexible display of the solar position on the CV-monitoring screen exemplify the prototype’s capability to offer real-time, accurate visual cues of the sun’s location. This visual representation is a critical tool for verifying the solar position against established instruments, such as the STR-22g solar tracker, which provided primary data, and the NREL-SPA, which offered additional azimuth and elevation data for comparative accuracy assessments.
Further refining our sun localization methodology, we utilized the current time to enhance the precision of DNI estimation. The developmental progress of our model is quantitatively assessed in
Figure 4, which outlines the training process involving 4,086 datasets designated for training and validation purposes. Notably, the model achieved a training accuracy of 85.78%. The validation loss was recorded at approximately 8.6893, with the training loss being significantly lower, at around 1.4352. This demonstrates the model’s robustness and its capacity to generalize well on unseen data. In the test phase, the validation accuracy reached an impressive 84.47%, indicating a high level of reliability in the model’s predictive performance. These results underscore the efficacy of our approach and its potential utility in operational settings for solar power forecasting.
A confusion matrix was generated to appraise the model’s classification efficacy, correlating the predicted labels with the actual labels from the testing dataset. The matrix, illustrated in
Figure 5, delineates the accuracy of predictions, with correct classifications prominently displayed along the matrix’s diagonal. This visual representation confirms the model’s proficiency in distinguishing among the defined DNI categories, evidencing an accuracy of 85.74%. Such precision in classification underpins the model’s capability to discern subtle variances in solar irradiance, thereby reinforcing the reliability of the DNI estimation process.
Building on the robust foundation established by the confusion matrix,
Table 3 presents a comprehensive set of classification performance metrics. Within the test set—a collection totalling 408 images—the model achieved an accuracy of 84.47%. This figure substantiates the model’s adeptness at estimating direct solar radiation with considerable reliability. To extend the assessment of the re-trained model’s effectiveness, an array of metrics, including Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1_Score, True Negative Rate (TNR), False Positive Rate (FPR), False Negative Rate (FNR), and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), were meticulously calculated for the test dataset. These metrics offer a granular view of the model’s performance, confirming its efficacy in precisely classifying DNI ranges.
Figure 6,
Figure 7,
Figure 8,
Figure 9 and
Figure 10 demonstrate the classification prowess during live camera operations, expanding on the model’s real-time capabilities. The images vividly depict DNI estimations across the delineated categories—ranging from A_0_20 to E_751_1000—accompanied by corresponding probabilities and solar position metrics. These categories are illustrated through images, showcasing instances of highest and lowest classification confidence.
Notably, some images portray lower confidence levels, intersecting with other classifications. This reduced certainty is predominantly observed in images featuring dense cloud cover, complicating the model’s predictive accuracy. Such observations signal potential avenues for enhancement, particularly through the strategic acquisition of image datasets during key solar events, such as the summer solstice, the solar equinox, and the winter solstice. Targeted data capture during these periods could significantly refine the model’s recognition capabilities, bolstering the accuracy of DNI estimation.
Figure 11 illustrates the correlation between the discretely classified DNI levels generated by our model and the continuous DNI measurements from the standard MS-57 instrument. The graph employs a red line to delineate the 15.53% variation, emphasizing the distinction between the categorical estimates and the continuous real-world data. This visual comparison underscores the model’s capability to approximate DNI values within a defined range, while also pinpointing opportunities to enhance the granularity of predictions to mirror the MS-57’s continuous data more accurately.
Figure 12 provides a Box and Whisker graphical illustration, contrasting the discrete DNI levels predicted by our model with the continuous measurements from the MS-57 instrument. This representation offers a clear visual summary of the distribution ranges and the central tendency of the estimated DNI against the standard reference, capturing the variability and accuracy of our model’s predictions over set intervals.