Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In this paper, two generic photovoltaic (PV) panels (poly-Si and mono-Si) were experimentally tested in
Received 29 January 2016 typical Mediterranean climatic conditions. The focus of the applied experimental approach was to
Received in revised form examine the effect of backside convective thermal profile and its impact on temperature distribution, i.e.
24 May 2016
on panel electrical efficiency. Therefore, a series of measurements was made in 2015, from April to July, as
Accepted 26 May 2016
Available online 5 June 2016
well as CFD modeling in order to obtain a detailed analysis of the possible working regimes. According to
the obtained experimental and CFD results, the present design of typical PV panels have an unfavorable
impact on PV panel electrical efficiency. Namely, typical contemporary panel designs lead to two typical
Keywords:
Photovoltaics
backside convective air temperature profiles which have a direct impact on the effectiveness of natural
Renewable energy cooling. As shown in the obtained measurements, the specific convective profiles at the backside of PV
CFD analysis panels have a significant influence on the degradation rate of panel electrical efficiency in the estimated
Experimental analysis amount of 2.5% up to 4.5%. The results of the research discussed in this paper signal the need to provide a
Energy efficiency possible redesign of the backside surface in conventional PV panels, in order to increase their average
Thermodynamics efficiency (more efficient backside thermal dissipation).
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction efficiency. There are several research studies related to the inves-
tigation of different cooling techniques and their effect on panel
Sufficient production of electricity from photovoltaic systems performance, [4e10]. As these studies showed, there is a potential
strongly depends on the average achieved electrical efficiency of of increasing PV efficiency in that manner, but the achieved in-
photovoltaic panels (PV), i.e. PV systems, apart from the specific crease is generally modest which questions the feasibility of certain
climate circumstances given in which a PV system operates. The cooling techniques. In most of these studies, emphasis was placed
most widely used contemporary photovoltaic technologies are on technical issues and the economic aspects were linked to them.
siliceous based ones, mono-or polycrystalline, [1,2]. Despite the A comparison of different cooling techniques for PV panels in
significant progress that has been made since the early 1990s, relation to the obtained relative increase in specific panel power
raising electrical efficiency in PV systems and reducing their pro- output can be found in Ref. [5].
duction cost are still major research goals, both in basic and applied The development of efficient hybrid PVT systems is also
ones, especially when considering the relatively high overall in- important in order to enable a more efficient utilization of existing
vestment in PV systems [3]. PV technologies and also to penetrate into the market more deeply.
One possible way of achieving increase in PV efficiency is by The main advantage of PVT systems is the possibility of simulta-
applying a financially feasible cooling technique that can lead to the neous heat and electricity production, whereby the total achieved
decrease of panel temperature and therefore increase its electrical efficiency of the considered PVT systems can be relatively high. In
the specific topic of PVT systems, research efforts are considerable
and different PVT concepts have been investigated in recent years,
[11e16].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: snizetic@fesb.hr (S. Ni
zeti
c). Another option that can lead to the increase of overall electricity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.103
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
212 S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225
a$Gs $Ap ¼ Gs $Ap $hcell þ Ap $afront $DTeq: þ Ap $aback $DTeq: back þ
h i h
front i (5)
þ ε$s$Ap $ Tpanel
4 4
Tamb: þ ε$s$Ap $ Tpanel 4 4
Tamb
front back
S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225 213
Table 1
General characteristic for the considered PV panels (mono and poly).
Fig. 4. Specific positioning of temperature sensors: (a) backside of the PV panel, (b) front side of the PV panel.
50
TC Cell 1
TC Cell 2
45
TC Cell 3
Temperature (°C)
TC Cell 4
TC Tedlar 1
40
TC Tedlar 3
TC Glass 1
TC Glass 3
35
TC Frame
30
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (s)
as the aim was to monitor the period of highest solar irradiation In the next section of the paper, we discuss a detected backside
levels where backside convective thermal exchange is most convective thermal profile of the air that occurs on the backside
intensive. The results varied, mostly depending on wind velocity surface of the PV panel in certain circumstances (in relation to that,
and surrounding air temperature, time of day and irradiation in- we also address the above presented figures).
tensity levels. Typical temperature distribution profiles for the
considered PV panels are presented in Figs. 5 to 8. The aluminum 3.2. Characteristic convective heat transfer at the backside surface
frame temperature was measured with additional installed ther- of the PV panel
mocouples and the data shown in the upcoming figures are average
values for the frame's temperature (surrounding air temperatures The backside surface of PV panels is influential regarding
are also averaged). desired heat rejection, so we wanted to investigate these heat
216 S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225
42
InsolaƟon: 906 W/m
Air velocity: 1.0 m/s
Temperature of the surrounding air: 21°C
40
38
Temperature (°C)
36
34
32
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (s)
Fig. 6. CAP temperature distribution for the poly-crystalline panel (April 29th).
60
TC Cell 1
55
TC Cell 2
TC Cell 3
TC Cell 4
50 TC Tedlar 1
Temperature (°C)
TC Tedlar 3
TC Glass 1
TC Glass 3
45
TC Frame
40
35
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (s)
transfer circumstances both experimentally and by using CFD occurrence of the specific thermal profile as a result of that.
simulations in order to cover a wider range of possible working Furthermore, backside convective thermal profile presents an
regimes, provide a sensitivity analysis and confirm the physical important feature as it acts as a cooling mechanism for PV panels
effects that were sighted. and generally defines the amount of rejected heat from the PV
panel. According to the provided experimental measurements, we
3.2.1. Backside convective air temperature profile detected two typical convective temperature profiles at the back-
The backside surface of PV panels is proven to be warmer than side surface of the PV panel; they are presented in Fig. 9. Temper-
the surroundings in most cases and convection leads to the ature air profiles are presented in relation to the distance measured
S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225 217
45
InsolaƟon: 869 W/m
Air velocity: 1.0 m/s
Temperature of the surrounding air: 28.3°C
44
43
42
CAP
Sensor 1
41 CAP
Temperature (°C)
Sensor 2
40 CAP
Sensor 3
CAP
39 Sensor 4
38
37
36
35
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (s)
Fig. 8. CAP temperature distribution for the mono-crystalline panel (July 9th).
insolation levels and relatively weak prevailing air velocity. showed a certain difference: when comparing temperature read-
Therefore, due to a relatively weak convection heat rejection rate ings, as shown in Figs. 5, 6 and 9, it can be noticed that no matter
for the backside sections of the PV panel and also due to relatively cell number 4 being low in temperature, the surrounding air tem-
high solar insolation levels, it can be presumed that a ‘’cloud’’, i.e. a perature behind the cell is fairly high. A similar effect is noticed
flow separation of warm air accumulates at the lower and upper when comparing sensor 1 and cell 1 temperature, Figs. 7 and 8.
edge of the backside sections of the PV panel creating a kind of hot Further on, the same effect is also visible when comparing readings
air bubble. The hot air bubble insulates the backplane from ambient from temperature sensor 3 and cell 3, although it needs to be said
air, likely leading to the degradation of PV efficiency; in comparison that sensor 3 is much closer to the edge of the PV panel when
to the first case (previous statement is later confirmed in the ob- compared to cell 3. Different conclusions can be drawn when we
tained CFD analysis). The second effects (CASE 2) occur in the worst compare readings from the previously mentioned sensors with
possible case, as higher solar insolation levels are available, but are readings obtained by the rest of the sensors. However, it seems that
unfortunately followed by highest panel electrical efficiency the air temperature around the back edges of the PV panel does not
degradation, which has a direct effect on the amount of PV system correspond to the thermal profile of the whole PV module (Fig. 9).
produced electricity. In both presented cases, the insolation was Also, by looking at Fig. 9, it can be seen that the lower part of the
around 868 W/m2, the average surrounding air temperature was module (region A) operates on a higher temperature than the rest
around 29 C and the average aluminum frame temperature at of the cell, especially higher than the upper part (region C). Pre-
around 37 C. Hence, from the previous elaboration, the importance sumably, the cause of high temperature in region A is due to the low
of specific backside convective thermal profile becomes obvious as convection heat exchange of the considered section, which can be
it has direct implications on panel electrical efficiency (because of explained with flow separation i.e. the forming of an air bubble
increased average PV panel temperature). It is clear that different underneath the panel. If we take into account that the temperature
surrounding conditions can affect the backside temperature profile. in region A is 6 C higher than the temperature in region C, and that
efficiency degradation changes by 0.5%/ C, we can conclude that
3.2.2. Temperature profiles on backside surface region A has a lower efficiency by 3.0%. Since region A covers one
As it can be noticed in Figs. 5 and 7, the PVF layer temperature third of the panel, we can conclude that the electrical efficiency of
tends to be higher than the cell temperature in certain cases, which the PV panel dropped by around 1.0% only as a result of the bracket
was not expected and should not be the case in theory according to design.
the material properties and according to well-known thermody-
namic laws. To remove any doubt, the thermocouples were checked 3.3. Measurement error analysis
after measurements in order to ascertain their efficiency. It essen-
tially seems that even though a PV cell presents a heat source, the In this section we briefly elaborate the influence of expected
temperature at the back side of some cells is substantially higher, by measurement error. The expected measurement error for the
up to 3.0 C, than the temperature of the PV cell itself in the same applied measurement equipment used in the experiment (i.e.
time frame. One possible explanation could lie in additional guaranteed measurement error) was specified in Table 2, according
reflective insolation onto the back side from the ground, but was to available technical data sheets of the equipment producers. Ac-
also eliminated by reducing the reflectivity of the ground with the cording to the specified values in Table 2, the highest measurement
use of dark cloths. Nevertheless, the effect remained unchanged. errors could be expected for the case of air velocity measurement;
The only viable explanation lies in the higher amount of infrared they could be expected to be around ±3%. However, regarding
irradiance (with wavelengths being higher than 1.1 mm in summer), realistic ranges of air velocities during measurements, the deviation
which partially penetrates the front glass layer, silicon PV layer and for the measured results is not significant.
PVF layer and directly heats the thermocouple probe, which is Other used sensors in the herein presented experiment, i.e.
completely opaque for IR irradiance (a similar effect was mentioned temperature and solar insolation sensors, have a relatively modest
in Ref. [8] and was herein experimentally proven). The main indi- guaranteed measurement error, so their influence is also rather
cator is the fact that the effect is more visible in summer, when the insignificant. Finally, the overall expected influence of guaranteed
amount of infrared irradiance should be much higher. The easiest measurement error in temperature measurements, the most
way to prove this should be to make measurements in winter, when important parameter for the purpose of this analysis, is around
there should be less infrared irradiance and that could be a good ±0.3%, which means that the general impact of guaranteed mea-
basis for reaching a conclusion beyond doubt. Presumably, this surement error is minor and does not have a significant impact on
effect was not perceived in other research studies as other mea- the purpose of this study.
surements were done with uninsulated thermocouples. On the In order to visualize air and thermal flow as well as obtaining a
other hand, the thermocouples used in this study were insulated sensitivity analysis, a CFD analysis for mono-crystalline PV panels
with materials similar to PVF, in order to evade measuring mean was carried out.
temperature between the ambient air and PVF layer. Transmission
coefficients for wavelengths above 1.1 mm are around 0.52, 0.92 for 4. CFD analysis and comparison with experimental results
PV panel materials and 0.95 for siliceous, PVF and glass layers
respectively, hence the explanation which takes into account a high A PV panel might appear to be a simple device; however, it in-
amount of infra-red irradiance could prove viable. volves relatively complex heat transfer processes where panel
performance significantly depends from variable surrounding
3.2.3. Specific temperature profiles: correlation of PV cell conditions. To model the mentioned processes, a computational
temperature profile with air fluid dynamics (CFD) technique was implemented. In the case of
temperature profile at backside of PV panel. the PV panel being exposed to open surrounding conditions, wind
Temperature distribution patterns for PV cells were discussed has a high turbulent intensity and this prevents making it
earlier and considering most heat gets away through the aluminum mandatory to model the flow as a turbulent one. Since the occur-
frame, convection heat transfer is roughly the same across the ring heat transfer includes a good part of convection, the correct
whole PV panel and the highest heat values should be somewhere modeling of the region close to the wall is important. In many cases,
in the middle of the panel. However, the experimental results wall functions are sufficient and are often used as an approximation
S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225 219
Table 2 predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under
Guaranteed measurement error for the used measuring equipment. adverse pressure gradients, because it considers the transport of
Sensor type Measurement turbulent shear stress [26]. Furthermore, the convective heat
Error
transfer showed relatively good agreement with the experimental
data [27] and was successfully used in the modeling of a stand-
Temperature (EK-H4) ±0.3%
alone PV system [28], which makes the SST model sufficiently
Temperature (TC-08) ±0.2%
Pyranometer ±0.6% realistic for the considered case of the PV panel being exposed to
Wind speed ±3.0% open wind conditions. In the case of low wind velocity, natural
convection effects are noticeable, as this is a free buoyancy driven
flow where air compressibility is taken into account for those cases
in sub-viscous and buffer regions near the wall. When a level of by the ideal-gas law.
accuracy beyond that is needed, a turbulence model is used to solve In addition to modeling fluid flow, conduction and convection,
the entire flow regime. In cases when flow is not fully turbulent, various additional effects could be considered. For example, a
such as in a natural convection problem, the near wall flow needs to detailed radiation environment, electrical behavior, or even
be resolved and wall functions should not be used. In the herein coupled conductiveeradiative heat transfers with included photo-
analyzed case, the PV panel is exposed to open surrounding con- electric phenomena within PV cells [29] could be implemented to
ditions, where the free stream flow is assumed to be fully turbulent, make the model more realistic. The prime objective of CFD analysis
with a high turbulence intensity of wind stream. Nevertheless, in this paper is to isolate the effect of convection heat transfer and
accurate resolving of the boundary layer is of critical importance to investigate the effect of fluid flow and convection on backboard
correctly model convection problems and possible flow temperature. While upgrading the simulation model to include
separations. multi physics effects would be interesting, it would be hard to
Two-equation turbulence models are often used for numerical isolate the effect of convection on backboard temperature. Conse-
modeling of flow since they are robust, they have shown good re- quently, only a simple CFD model is implemented so that a good
sults and only modestly expand the system of governing equations insight in fluid flow and the respective convection heat transfer
in numerical terms (continuity, momentum, and energy equations). phenomenon could be investigated precisely.
The continuity and momentum equations in Reynolds averaged Generally, the simulation of PV should not consider an isolated
form can be written in tensor notation and Cartesian coordinates system but should replicate the respective microclimate in which it
as: operates [30]. PV panel performance obviously depends on its ra-
diation environment such as shadowing effects and reflections
vr v ruj from neighboring buildings or nearby surfaces of different reflec-
þ ¼0 (6) tive properties. So if one wants to simulate PV system performance
vt vxj
for specific operating conditions, it is very important to have a
" ! # detailed model of the surrounding environment. Since the objec-
vrui vrui vp v vui vuj 2 vuk v tive of this paper is to isolate the effects of fluid flow on convection
þ uj ¼ þ m þ dij þ R
vt vxj vxi vxj vxj vxi 3 vxk vxj ij heat transfer, it is convenient to suppress the effects of radiation so
that a general conclusion on convection effects can be easily ob-
þ rfi
tained. To achieve this, radiation is not directly modeled, but only
(7) its overall effect on heat transfer is taken into account. To simulate
solar irradiance, an equivalent heat source approach was adopted: a
" ! #
vui vuj 2 vuk 2 continuous heat source was applied directly on the PV cell, the
Rij ¼ rui uj ¼ mt þ d rkdij (8) magnitude of which corresponds to the intensity of irradiance in
vxj vxi 3 vxk ij 3
realistic circumstances minus the produced electric power.
The specific body force fi includes external body forces such as
gravity in this case; and Rij is Reynolds stress tensor according to the 4.1. Numerical model setup
Boussinesq eddy viscosity assumption. Turbulent viscosity mt and
turbulence kinetic energy k are obtained from a selected turbulence The earlier described model is solved numerically by a general-
model. The energy conservation equation can be written as: purpose, widely used commercial CFD software, namely ANSYS
FLUENT [31e33]. The first step is the selection of the computational
" #
domain for fluid and multiple solid regions as it is illustrated in
vrE v h i v vT
þ ðrE þ pÞuj ¼ ðkc þ kt Þ þ Sh (9) Fig. 10a, illustrates inlet and outlet boundary conditions of the fluid
vt vxj vxj vxj
region and its size. The domain size was selected with respect to
E is defined by: panel length which was Lp ¼ 0.55 m. The length of the fluid domain
was set to L ¼ 9Lp, of which 3Lp domain length was from the inlet
p u2 to the panel and the domain height was H ¼ 7Lp while the width
E ¼h þ (10) was W ¼ 7Lp (see Fig. 11a and b).
r 2
A simplified scheme of the PV panel is illustrated in Fig. 10b,
In the energy conservation equation (9), viscous dissipation with further elements: glass, PV cell, backboard (PVF) and
terms are not included since they are negligible for a low Mach aluminum frame. Each element (material) that the PV panel is
number. For motionless solid regions, the second term on the left consisted of is described with its thermal properties.
hand side and kt are removed from the equation. The chosen mesh is a tetrahedron mesh with thin prism ele-
To close the governing equations, an SST model [26] was used. It ments in the near wall boundary layer and the element size near
is a combination of two other turbulence models, k-epsilon in the the PV panel is 5 mm with a 0.01 mm height of elements in the
free stream, and k-omega models near the walls. It does not use prism layer (Fig. 1). The prism layer consists of 10 elements with a
wall functions and tends to be most accurate when solving the flow growth rate of 1.15 and far away from the PV panel; the size of the
near the wall. The SST k-omega model also gives highly accurate elements is up to 150 mm with a growth rate of 1.2. The mesh type
220 S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225
Fig. 10. Specific geometry: a) fluid zone: Lp e panel length, L e domain length, H- domain height, W e domain width and b) PV panel.
Fig. 11. a) Mesh elements in fluid region, b) Prism mesh elements near PV panel surface.
Table 4
Comparison of measurements and results obtained through CFD analysis.
G1 G3 C1 C2 C3 C4 T1 T3
Case 1: v ¼ 1.5 m/s;a ¼ 45 Exp 316 313 321 323 325 330 321 331
G ¼ 837 W/m2 CFD 318 319 320 320 321 320 320 320
max ¼ 326 max ¼ 326 max ¼ 326
Case 2: v ¼ 2.7 m/s;a ¼ 0 Exp 308 306 314 317 318 322 315 322
G ¼ 837 W/m2 CFD 314 317 315 316 318 316 315 318
max ¼ 317 max ¼ 319 max ¼ 326
Case 3: v ¼ 1.0 m/s;a ¼ 0 , G ¼ 863 W/m2 Exp 321 316 328 329 330 333 328 337
CFD 323 326 324 326 327 324 324 327
max ¼ 326 max ¼ 328 max ¼ 328
222 S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225
Fig. 14. a) PV panel temperature distribution, b) Backboard temperature distribution (Case 1).
Fig. 15. Variation of Case 1 (a ¼ 100 ) a) Backboard temperature distribution b) Separation zone.
mesh independency test, the mesh in solid regions remained the 4.3. Temperature panel distribution in relation to wind angle of
same as stated earlier in Table 3, while mesh element sizes were attack and solar irradiation intensity: A sensitivity analysis
varied only for the fluid zone. Wind speed was set to 1.0 m/s and
equivalent heat source was 600 W/m2. The results illustrate that An additional sensitivity analysis, besides the one presented in
after a mesh size of 2 million elements, the change in average the data of Table 4, was provided to determine the impact on PV
temperature amounts only 1 K for a mesh up to 5 million elements. panel temperature distribution with respect to constant wind angle
Meanwhile, for smaller meshes with 100 thousand elements, the of attack, intensity of solar irradiation and wind velocity. The re-
difference in average cell temperature amounts 10 K. While sults are presented in Fig. 19, where wind speed (air velocity) was
selecting a lower number of elements improves computational expressed in m/s, irradiation expressed in W/m2 and finally tem-
time, a mesh of about 2 million elements is selected as a compro- perature field expressed in K, as average temperature values for the
mise since the results would not be sufficiently accurate otherwise. PV panel.
S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225 223
5. Discussion
CFD analysis showed a specific air flow regime at the back side of
the PV panel where it can be seen that for specific cases of air flow, a
Fig. 18. Average temperature of solid zones for fluid zone grid independency test. flow separation occurs at different places on the PV panel back side,
as it was depicted in Figs. 16 and 17. The aforementioned flow
separation causes a temperature increase for specific sections of the
PV panel, which eventually causes an overall increase of PV panel
temperature (that is more emphasized in certain regions of the PV
panel as the position of flow separation depends on wind direc-
tion). That can be seen for measuring point 4 (TC Cell 4 in Fig. 4). It is
only reasonable that the temperature of that point should corre-
spond with the temperature of point 1, because both are equally
away from the frame and it can be concluded that the aluminum
frame dissipates most of the heat. However, since the flow sepa-
ration created an air bubble behind point 4 (Fig. 17, cells at the
bottom of the PV module), the heat flow from the back side was
significantly decreased, when compared with point 1, where a
separation bubble also occurs (Fig. 17) but in a less intensive
manner. It can also be noticed that the experimental values corre-
spond well with the numerical values, as far as the back side is
concerned (Table 4). The difference in front side temperature
(measurement points G1 and G3, Table 4) can be explained with the
Fig. 19. Average PV panel temperature with variations of wind velocity and irradiation
fact that the thermocouple at the glass was not insulated from the
intensity (for constant wind angle a ¼ 0 ). surrounding ambient air, hence, the thermocouple sensor was
reading the mean temperature of the glass-air border layer. The
previous issue did not occur on the back side of the PV panel, where
To calculate average PV panel temperature for all the values in the sensors were isolated from the ambient air by tape with similar
the selected range of influential variables (irradiation, wind velocity properties like the PVF layer. That is why the numerically gained
and wind angle), a design of experiments was conducted using 200 back side temperatures correspond better with the experimental
randomly generated numerical experiments with variations of all values. Further, the numerically gained temperatures of the PV cells
224 S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225
Fig. 20. Average solar cell temperature with variations in wind angle of attack and insolation intensity for constant wind velocity of 1.0 m/s.
seem to correspond well with the experimental model (Table 4) so typical and occurring convective air thermal profiles at the backside
the developed CFD model was used for an additional sensitivity of the PV panel for typical Mediterranean climate operating con-
analysis. The sensitivity analysis on the average PV panel temper- ditions. Regarding the detected convective thermal air profiles,
ature field was obtained for different wind angles of attack, wind there is no significant difference between mono and poly-
velocity and also for different intensities of solar irradiation. From crystalline PV technology. According to the measurements ob-
the gained results, it is noticeable that the highest degradation of tained, the most important discovered effect is flow separation that
PV panel electrical efficiency occurs in the circumstances of lowest occurs at the PV panel's backside, which in essence acts as a kind of
wind velocity values, highest solar irradiation levels and finally for thermal insulation and which also causes a specific shape of
the wind angle of attack at around 20 . backside convective thermal profile. The detected effect of flow
For the same irradiation levels and wind velocity, the average PV separation results in the increase of average PV panel temperature
panel temperature has a variation of 3 C from maximal to minimal. and finally enhances the degradation rate of panel electrical effi-
The previous results are also useful data for the mounting of PV ciency. According to the available experimental readings, the
panels in Mediterranean climate conditions. average increase in PV panel temperature due to the discovered
effect of flow separation ranges from 5 C up to 9 C, which means
6. Conclusions that the estimated degradation of PV panel electrical efficiency can
range from 2.5% up to 4.5% in average (if flow separation would be
An experimental investigation of two commonly used photo- removed, an increase in efficiency would surely be provided).
voltaic technologies (poly-Si and mono-Si) was presented in the From the previous elaboration, an important conclusion could
paper, where the main focus was to examine the effect of air be drawn and it is certainly related to the consideration of possibly
backside convective thermal profile, i.e. its potential impact on PV redesigning existing commonly used PV panels in order to break
panel performance. The experimental measurements were carried the addressed flow separation. The PV panel redesign could be
out in typical Mediterranean climate operating conditions from simple and of rather limited initial costs. The obtained modification
April to July. Besides an experimental approach, a CFD analysis was of PV panel backside surface could lead to an average electrical
also obtained as well as a sensitivity analysis. The developed CDF efficiency increase.
model lead to results that compared well to the experimental Further research is needed to determine the aerodynamics of
measurements; the CFD model generally provided slightly higher the redesign and also to evaluate other profiles of air convective
values for specific measurement points compared to the experi- thermal profile that can possibly occur due to stochastic sur-
mental readings (higher only for glass and generally lower for all rounding conditions.
other measurement points). The approach that was used in the CFD
modeling was related to the introduction of an equivalent heat References
source, where we managed to take the influence of thermal radi-
[1] Singh GK. Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) technology: a review.
ation in an indirect manner. Finally, because of the previous reason, Energy 2013;53:1e13.
we succeeded in achieving a good agreement between the [2] Tiwari GN, Mishra RK, Solanki SC. Photovoltaic modules and their applica-
measured and numerical results. tions: a review on thermal modelling. Appl Energy 2011;88(7):2287e304.
[3] Web source: https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/
The sensitivity analysis was carried out, with respect to the IRENA-ETSAP%20Tech%20Brief%20E11%20Solar%20PV.pdf, Last visited,
relation of PV panel temperature distribution and the parameters of November 10, (2015).
wind velocity, wind angle of attack and solar insolation intensity. [4] Alami AH. Effects of evaporative cooling on efficiency of photovoltaic modules.
Energy Convers Manag 2014;77:668e79.
Furthermore, the detected specific range of the considered influ-
[5] Nizeti
c S, Coko D, Yadav A. Grubisic-Cabo. Water spray cooling technique
ential parameters leads to the highest PV panel electrical efficiency applied on a photovoltaic panel: the performance response. Energy Convers
degradation rate. In general, the most critical period for PV panel Manag 2016;108:287e96.
efficiency degradation is in regimes of highest solar irradiation [6] Bahaidarah H, Subhan A, Gandhidasan P, Rehman S. Performance evaluation of
a PV (photovoltaic) module by back surface water cooling for hot climatic
levels and lowest wind air velocities. conditions. Energy 2013;59:445e53.
The most interesting finding of the study is the detection of two [7] Valeh-E-Sheyda P, Rahimi M, Parsamodghadam A, Masahi MM. Using a wind
S. Nizetic et al. / Energy 111 (2016) 211e225 225
driven ventilator to enhance a photovoltaic cell power generation. Energy thermal energy recovery. J Renew Sustain Energy 2014;6. http://dx.doi.org/
Build 2014;73:115e9. 10.1063/1.4885178.
[8] Teo HG, Lee PS, Hawlader MNA. An active cooling system for photovoltaic [29] Jubayer CM, Hangan H. Numerical simulation of wind effects on a stand-alone
modules. Appl Energy 2012;90(1):309e15. ground mounted photo voltaic (PV) system. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
[9] Smith CJ, Forster PM, Crook R. Global analysis of photovoltaic energy output 2014;134:56e64.
enhanced by phase change material cooling. Appl Energy 2014;126(1):21e8. [30] Vaillon R, Robin L, Muresan C, Me nezo C. Modeling of coupled spectral radi-
[10] Chandrasekar M, Suresh S, Senthilkumar T, Ganesh M. Passive cooling of ation, thermal and carrier transport in a silicon photovoltaic cell”. Int J Heat
standalone flat PV module with cotton wick structures. Energy Convers Mass Transf 2006;46:4454e68.
Manag 2013;71:43e50. [31] Allegrini J, Orehounig K, Mavromatidis G, Ruesch F, Dorer V, Evins R. A review
[11] Tsai H-L. Modeling and validation of refrigerant-based PVT-assisted heat of modelling approaches and tools for the simulation of district-scale energy
pump water heating (PVTA-HPWH) system. Sol Energy 2015;122:36e47. systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1391e404.
[12] Elsafi AM, Gandhidasan P. Comparative study of double-pass flat and com- [32] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
pound parabolic concentrated photovoltaic-thermal systems with and applications. AIAA J 1994;32(8):269e89.
without fins. Energy Convers Manag 2015;98:59e68. [33] Defraeye T, Blocken B, Carmeliet J. CFD analysis of convective heat transfer at
[13] Rejeb O, Dhaou H, Jemni A. A numerical investigation of a photovoltaic the surfaces of a cube immersed in a turbulent boundary layer. Int J Heat Mass
thermal (PV/T) collector. Renew Energy 2015;77:43e50. Transf 2010;53(1e3):297e308.
[14] Liang R, Zhang J, Ma L, Li Y. Performance evaluation of new type hybrid
photovoltaic/thermal solar collector by experimental study. Appl Therm Eng
2015;75:487e92.
Nomenclature
[15] Tourkov K, Schaefer, L.. Performance evaluation of a PVT/ORC (photovoltaic
thermal/organic Rankine cycle) system with optimization of the ORC and a: overall coefficient of absorptivity
evaluation of several PV (photovoltaic) materials. Energy 2015;82:839e49. GS: solar irradiance (insolation), W/m2
[16] Zafar S, Dincer I. Thermodynamic analysis of a combined PV/T-fuel cell system E_ in : overall energy input into the PV panel, W
for power, heat, fresh water and hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy E_ out : overall energy output from the PV panel, W
2014;39(19). E_ current : electric output from the PV panel, W
[17] Zhao J, Zhou X, Ma Y, Liu W. A novel maximum power point tracking strategy Q_ cell : PV cell heat source, W
based on optimal voltage control for photovoltaic systems under variable Q_ in : energy (heat) income due to solar insolation, W
environmental conditions. Sol Energy 2015;122:630e49. Q_ convection : convection heat flow, W
[18] Li S. A maximum power point tracking method with variable weather pa- Q_ radiation : thermal radiation heat flow, W
rameters based on input resistance for photovoltaic system. Energy Convers Ap: Surface of the PV panel, m2
Manag 2015;106:290e9. T: thermodynamic temperature, K
[19] Ahmed J, Salam Z. An improved perturb and observe (P&O) maximum power Tamb: temperature of the surrounding objects, K
point tracking (MPPT) algorithm for higher efficiency. Appl Energy 2015;150: p: pressure, Pa
97e108. t: time, s
[20] Chao KH. An extension theory-based maximum power tracker using a particle ui : mean flow Cartesian velocity components
swarm optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 2014;86:435e42. xj: Cartesian coordinates
[21] Abu Eldahab YE, Saad NH, Zekry A. Enhancing the maximum power point fi: body forces
tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev Rij: Reynolds stress tensor
2014;40:505e14. k: turbulence kinetic energy
[22] Daraban S, Petreus D, Morel C. A novel MPPT (maximum power point h: sensible enthalpy, J/kg
tracking) algorithm based on a modified genetic algorithm specialized on kc: thermal conductivity, W/mK
tracking the global maximum power point in photovoltaic systems affected by kt: thermal conductivity due to turbulence, W/mK
partial shading. Energy 2014;74:374e8. Sh: volumetric heat source, W/m3
[23] Feng S, Cao L, Fang G. Dynamic performances modeling of a photo-
voltaicethermal collector with water heating in buildings. Energy Build Greek symbols:
2013;66:485e94.
[24] Zhu T, Ertekin E. Phonon transport on two-dimensional graphene/boron
nitride superlattices. Phys Rev B 2014;90.19:195209. hcell: electrical efficiency of PV cell,
[25] Matic Z. Solar radiation atlas for the area of the republic of Croatia. first ed. DTeq.: temperature difference between PV panel surface temperature and sur-
Zagreb: Energy Institute Hrvoje Pozar; 2007. rounding air, K
[26] Menter FR. Zonal two equation k-u turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. a: average heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K
1992. NASA technical memorandum 103975. ε: emissivity factor,
[27] Brinkworh BJ, Cross BM, Marshall RH, Yang H. Thermal regulation of photo- s: Stefan-Boltzmann constant, W/m2K4
voltaic cladding. Sol Energy 1997;61(3):169e78. r: density, kg/m3
[28] Hiren D. Computational fluid dynamics analysis and experimental validation m: molecular viscosity,
of improvement in overall energy efficiency of a solar photovoltaic panel by mt: turbulent viscosity.