ARTICLE IN PRESS

Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84

www.elsevier.com/locate/solmat

Letter

Efficiency model for photovoltaic modules and demonstration of its

application to energy yield estimation
Wilhelm Durischa,, Bernd Bitnara, Jean-C. Mayora, Helmut Kiessa, King-hang Lamb,
Josie Closea
a
Paul Scherrer Institut, PSI, 5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland
b
Department of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong, China
Received 9 March 2006; accepted 1 May 2006

Abstract

A new method has been proposed [W. Durisch, K.H. Lam, J. Close, Behaviour of a copper indium gallium diselenide module
under real operating conditions, in: Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress VII, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002, ISBN 0-08-044079-7] for the calculation of the annual yield of photovoltaic (PV) modules at
selected sites, using site-specific meteorological data. These yields are indispensable for calculating the expected cost of electricity
generation for different modules, thus allowing the type of module to be selected with the highest yield-to-cost ratio for a specific
installation site. The efficiency model developed and used for calculating the yields takes three independent variables into account: cell
temperature, solar irradiance and relative air mass. Open parameters of the model for a selected module are obtained from current/
voltage (I/V) characteristics, measured outdoors at Paul Scherrer Institute’s test facility under real operating conditions. From the model,
cell and module efficiencies can be calculated under all relevant operating conditions. Yield calculations were performed for five
commercial modules (BP Solar BP 585 F, Kyocera LA361K54S, Uni-Solar UPM-US-30, Siemens CIS ST40 and Wuerth WS11003) for a
sunny site in Jordan (Al Qawairah) for which reliable measured meteorological data are available. These represent mono-crystalline,
poly-crystalline and amorphous silicon as well as with copper–indium-diselenide, CuInSe2 PV modules. The annual yield for these
modules will be presented and discussed.
r 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Efficiency model; Energy yield; Real operating conditions; Current/voltage (I/V) characteristic

1. Introduction various climatic conditions. The efficiency Z is in general

Earlier work [1] carried out at the Paul Scherrer Institute
(PSI) [2,3] demonstrated that manufacturer’s technical
specifications for modules are not sufficient for selecting
the type of module best suited for a photovoltaic (PV)
system to be operated under the climate conditions of a
particular site. The aim of this work is, therefore, to
develop a semi-empirical efficiency model, which allows
calculating the efficiency of cells and modules under
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 56 310 26 25; fax: +41 56 310 2199.
E-mail addresses: wilhelm.durisch@psi.ch (W. Durisch),
bernd.bitnar@psi.ch (B. Bitnar), j.c.mayor@hispeed.ch (J.-C. Mayor),
hkiess@deplanet.ch (H. Kiess), khlam@eee.hku.hk (K.-h. Lam),
jclose@ad.arch.hku.hk (J. Close).
a function of
Z ¼ f ðG; W; AMÞ, (1)
where G is the global irradiation, W the cell temperature and
AM the relative air mass.
In order to develop a suitable efficiency model, different
types of modules were experimentally investigated under
actual operating conditions. It is shown, that the same
functional dependence of Z on G, W and AM applies to
different types of modules, if the model parameters are
determined for each module separately. Then, in combina-
tion with site-specific meteorological data, the weekly,
monthly and annual yields can be predicted, which allows
selecting that type of module resulting in the best yield-to-
cost ratio of the PV system at a specified site.

0927-0248/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solmat.2006.05.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
80 W. Durisch et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84

2. The efficiency model
Current/voltage (I/V) characteristics are required to
determine the efficiency of the PV modules, which is
dependent on the environmental values: G, W and AM. For
this purpose, an outdoor test facility and a data acquisition
system were developed and constructed firstly at PSI [4]
and then at The University of Hong Kong (HKU),
allowing fast acquisition of I/V characteristics under all
operating conditions, i.e. varying ambient air temperature
Wa and cell temperature W as well as global solar irradiation
G onto the plane of the module. The time of the day,
month and year as well as wind speed were simultaneously
registered in the data base. The I/V characteristics were
evaluated to yield the efficiency. Hence, the efficiency of the
modules is available at all possible temperatures, irradia-
tion intensities and air masses and combinations thereof.
For typical results and the methodology of evaluation of
the I/V characteristics the reader is referred to Ref. [5].
Based on the results of these measurements several semi-
empirical efficiency models were tested. The most suitable
model which could represent all module types investigated
so far, was found to be
 
Z ¼ p qG=Go þ ðG=G o Þm
 

1 þ rW=Wo þ s AM=AMo þ ðAM=AMo Þu ,
where G o ¼ 1000 W=m2 , Wo ¼ 25 1C and AMo ¼ 1:5.
The parameters p, q, m, r, s and u have to be determined
for each type of module from a specific set of outdoor
measurements, meaning handling of multitudes of data
obtained under various climatic conditions. The basic
requirement is fulfilled with relationship (2): the efficiency
is zero at zero irradiation. Furthermore the efficiency is a
linear function of cell temperature under constant irradia-
tion and constant air mass, as observed repeatedly. The
model also takes into account a non-linear dependence of
efficiency on air mass, as found empirically.
In calculations of energy yields, the air masses AM are
obtained from the date and time of the day and of the
geographical coordinates of the selected site for the PV
system.
The cell temperatures measured were put in relationship
with the ambient air temperature Wa. The relationship of
Ross [6] was confirmed, which is given as
W ¼ Wa þ hG, (3)
where h is the Ross coefficient. Since W, Wa and G were
measured, the Ross coefficient h for the different types of
modules could be determined. Since meteorological data-
bases give G and Wa, the temperature of the cells in the
module can be obtained with the aid of the Ross
coefficient.
The module’s yield Em can now readily be calculated:
the meteorological data at the specific site together with
the geographical coordinates of the site allow to
calculate W and AM as a function of time. These data are
fed into Eq. (2). The power delivered by a module is then
calculated as
PðtÞ ¼ ZðtÞAGðtÞ, (4)
A being the active cell area of the module. If integrated
over a year, the annual energy yield Em can be predicted.
The flow chart for the calculation of the electricity yield is
illustrated in a simplified form in Fig. 1.
ð2Þ
3. Results
The open parameters p, q, m, r, s and u in Eq. (2), were to
be determined for modules with different types of solar
cells using non-linear least squares fitting methods. The
numerical values for five different modules fabricated with
mono-crystalline, poly-crystalline and amorphous silicon
as well as with copper–indium-diselenide, CuInSe2 are
listed in Table 1. The Ross coefficient, h, also is included in
Table 1.
Using Eq. (2) and the parameters for the various
modules, the efficiency ZSTC, power PSTC, and temperature
coefficient aSTC under standard test conditions (STC:
W ¼ 25 1C, AM ¼ 1:5, G ¼ 1000 Wm2 ) can be calculated

Fig. 1. Method for predicting daily, monthly and annual module yield, as well as specific electricity generation cost. Symbols are used as follows: G, global
irradiance onto module (W/m2); Wa, ambient temperature (1C); W, cell temperature (1C); Zm, module efficiency (Wel/Wrad); Am, module area (m2); P,
module output power (Wel); Em, annual yield of the module (kWh); C, yearly production cost ($); c, specific electricity generation cost ($/kWh).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Durisch et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84 81

Table 1
Parameters for the efficiency model for modules with cells fabricated of different solar cell material

Module Producer p q m r s u h

BP 585F mono-Si BP Solar 23.62 0.2983 0.1912 0.09307 0.9795 0.9865 0.028
LA361K51S poly-Si Kyocera 15.39 0.1770 0.0794 0.09736 0.8998 0.9324 0.026
UPM US-30 a-Si UniSolar 36.02 0.7576 0.6601 0.02863 1.1432 1.0322 0.022
CIS ST40 CuInSe2 Siemens 18.55 0.3288 0.2612 0.10039 0.9678 0.9864 0.032
WS11003 CuInSe2 Wuerth 12.33 0.0685 0.0618 0.0673 0.9172 0.9701 0.030

The Ross coefficient h (1C/Wm2) is also included in the table, since it is finally required to calculate the cell temperature in the different modules.

Table 2
Efficiency ZSTC, its temperature coefficient aSTC, output power PSTC, and areas A of selected commercial modules, according to producer’s specifications
and according to this work

Module BP 585F LA361K51S UPM US-30 CIS ST40 CIS WS11003

Producer BP Solar Kyocera Uni-Solar Siemens Wuerth

Cell efficiency ZSTC, this work, (%) 15.4 12.7 7.23 11.6 11.7
Cell efficiency ZSTC,p, producer, (%) 16.6 14.2 7.50 10.9 9.68
aSTC, this work, (%/1C) 0.062 0.049 0.010 0.050 0.031
Output PSTC, this work, (W) 78.9 45.7 29.0 42.6 18.1
Output PSTC,p, producer, (W) 85 51 30 40 15
Deviation of output (PSTCPSTC,p) /PSTC,p (%) 7.2 10.4 3.3 +6.5 +20.5
Active cell area A (m2) 0.512 0.360 0.401 0.367 0.155
Module area Am (m2) 0.629 0.443 0.476 0.423 0.183

PSTC,p is the output power specified by the module producer.

with Eqs. (5)–(7) and thus compared with those of the
manufacturers. The results are presented in Table 2. Our
results demonstrate significant deviations from the speci-
fications given by the manufacturers.
ZSTC ¼ pðq þ 1Þð2 þ r þ sÞ,
aSTC ¼ ðqZ=qWÞSTC ¼ pðq þ 1Þr=Wo ,
PSTC ¼ ZSTC G no Aa .
It should be noted, however, that the module
LA361K51S is no longer fabricated by Kyocera because
their more recent modules have higher efficiencies. Also,
our results of the amorphous Si as well as of the CIS
modules refer to their non-degraded state. One has to be
aware of this when comparing the modules as done in the
following sections. The monocrystalline silicon module of
BP Solar shows the highest, and the amorphous of UNI-
SOLAR the lowest efficiency under STC. However, the low
value of the temperature coefficient aSTC of the amorphous
module indicates only a low decrease of Z and that of the
monocrystalline module a high decrease of Z with rising
temperature, a fact which may become relevant in hot
climates.
4. Verification of model
The efficiency model (2) will be verified by comparing
with measured efficiencies. To obtain two-dimensional
representations the measured efficiencies have to be
transformed to standard climatic condition values. The
general transformation equations (8) were set out in
Ref. [3]:
Zm ðx; y1;0 ; . . . ; yi;0 Þ ¼ Zm ðx; y1 ; . . . ; yi Þ þ Zc ðx; y1;0 ; . . . ; yi;0 Þ
 Zc ðx; y1 ; . . . ; yi Þ. ð8Þ
(5)
They allow transforming the measured efficiencies Zm
(6) into efficiencies Zm,xo,yo at constant irradiance Go and air
mass AMo, or at constant irradiance Go and cell
(7) temperature Wo, or at constant cell temperature Wo and air
mass AMo. The efficiency Zc is calculated via efficiency
model (2).
The efficiency at standard irradiance G ¼ Go and
standard air mass AM ¼ AMo, but varying cell tempera-
ture W, is found from model (2) to be
Z1000;1:5 ¼ pðq þ 1Þð2 þ s þ rW=Wo Þ. (9)
Corresponding relationships are found for W ¼ Wo and
AM ¼ AMo but varying G, as well as for G ¼ Go and
W ¼ Wo but varying AM, respectively:
 
Z25;1:5 ¼ p qG=G o þ ðG=G o Þm ð2 þ r þ sÞ, (10)
 
Z1000;25 ¼ pðq þ 1Þ 1 þ r þ s AM=AM o þ ðAM=AMo Þu .
(11)
By combining the transformed efficiencies with Eqs.
(9)–(11), the comparisons shown in the following Figs. 2–4
were obtained. These allow the model to be validated
against the measured data. They also show the effect of
irradiation, temperature and air mass on the efficiency of
the modules investigated. Experimental data and model are
in excellent agreement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
82 W. Durisch et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84

18

16
mc-Si module, BP 585F
14

12 p-Si module, Kyocera LA361K51S

Efficiency η, % 10 CIS module, Siemens ST40

8
a-Si module,UNI-SOLAR, US-30
6

4 Efficiency vs. Temperature

At Gn = 1000 Wm-2 and AM = 1.5
2 Transformed measurements
Model
0
0 20 40 60 80
Cell temperature ϑ, °C

Fig. 2. Efficiency vs. cell temperature at constant irradiation and constant air mass.

18

mc-Si module, BP 585F

16

14 p-Si module, Kyocera LA361K51S

12
Efficiency η, %

CIS module, Siemens ST40

10

8
a-Si module,UNI-SOLAR, US-30
6

4 Efficiency vs. Air Mass

At Gn = 1000 Wm-2 and ϑ = 25 °C
2 Transformed measurements
Model
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Air Mass AM, m/m

Fig. 3. Efficiency vs. air mass at constant irradiation and constant cell temperature.

5. Annual yield estimation for a site at Jordan 6. Conclusion and discussion

Using the efficiency model (2) with the parameters as
listed in Table 1, the efficiencies of each module at any time
can be calculated and hence its yearly yield, provided
appropriate meteorological data are available. For this
work we used reliable time-resolved (5-min mean values)
data of Al Quawairah [7], a sunny site in the South of
Jordan near the Gulf of Aqabah on the western side of the
Red Sea. Using measured ambient air temperatures and
irradiances, the cell temperature is calculated according to
Eq. (3). The results are shown in Table 3 for south-oriented
and in Table 4 for sun-tracked modules.
A general model for the efficiency of modules was
established which allows accurate calculation of the
efficiency under varying climatic conditions. It is shown
that the model can be applied for modules fabricated from
different cell materials. Open model parameters have to be
determined by extended series of I/V measurements and by
applying fitting techniques. In order to calculate the energy
yield over a desired period of time, time-resolved meteor-
ological data of the specific site for the PV installation have
to be available. They are fed into the efficiency model and
by integration, the energy yield over the desired period of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
W. Durisch et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84 83

18
mc-Si module, BP 585F
16

14 p-Si module, Kyocera LA361K51S

12

Efficiency ϑ, %
CIS module, Siemens ST40
10

6 a-Si module, UNI-SOLAR, US-30

4 Efficiency vs. Irradiance

At ϑ = 25˚C and AM = 1.5
2 Transformed measurements
Model
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Irradiance Gn, Wm-2

Fig. 4. Efficiency vs. irradiance at constant cell temperature and constant air mass.

Table 3
Fixed-position, south-facing modules at an inclination angle of 301: global-inclined irradiance Gi,South,301, module yield Em and efficiency Z

Module BP 585F LA361K51S UPM US-30 CIS ST40 CIS WS11003

Irradiance Gi,South,301 (kWh/m2 yr) 2523 2523 2523 2523 2523

Em (kW h/yr) 183.0 107.5 71.5 95.3 45.6
Em,p ¼ ZSTC,pGi,South,301Aa (kW h/yr) 214.4 129.0 75.9 100.9 37.9
(Em,p–Em)/Em (%) 17 20 6.2 5.9 16.9
Em/Aa (kW h/m2 yr) 357 299 178 260 283
Em/Am (kW h/m2 yr) 291 242 150 225 240
Em/PSTC (kW h/kWSTC yr) 2319 2352 2466 2237 2524
Annual cell efficiency (%) 14.2 11.8 7.1 10.3 11.2
Annual module efficiency (%) 11.6 9.57 5.98 8.94 9.51
Module area required for 1 kWSTC (m2) 8.00 9.71 16.4 9.90 10.13

Subscript p refers to producer. The last row shows the module area required to produce 1 kW output power under standard test conditions.

Table 4
Sun-tracked modules: global-normal irradiance Gn, module yield Em and efficiency Z

Module BP 585F LA361K51S UPM US-30 CIS ST40 CIS WS11003

2
Irradiance Gn (kW h/m yr) 3547 3547 3547 3547 3547
Yield Em (kW h/yr) 249.2 145.8 95.3 131.3 64.2
Em,p ¼ ZSTC,p Gi,South,301Aa (kW hp/yr) 301.5 181.3 106.7 141.9 53.2
(Em,pEm)/Em (%) 21 24 12 8.1 17.1
Em/Aa (kW h/m2 yr) 487 405 238 358 398
Em/Am (kW h/m2 yr) 396 328 200 310 337
Specific yield Em/PSTC (kW h/kWSTC yr) 3158 3190 3286 3082 3553
Annual cell efficiency (%) 13.7 11.4 6.71 10.2 11.2
Annual module efficiency (%) 11.2 9.24 5.65 8.85 9.50
Relative extra output (Em,sEm,i)/Em,i (%) 36 36 33 38 41

Subscript p refers to producer. The last row shows the extra output of sun-tracked modules compared to fixed-position modules.

time can be calculated. This is of relevance for system its application to energy yield estimation of different types
designers and for selecting the module for the best yield-to- of modules in a sunny country.
cost ratio at a specific location under consideration for a The annual electricity yields of five different module
PV system. This work explains the calculation method and types are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The Wuerth CIS
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
84 W. Durisch et al. / Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 91 (2007) 79–84
module demonstrates the highest yield per kWSTC. This is
mainly due to its low dependence of Z on temperature.
However, it has to be mentioned that the module tested is a
relatively small one out of a pre-production series. From
the industrially manufactured modules (BP Solar, Kyocera,
UniSolar and Siemens), the US-30 module from UniSolar
demonstrates the highest yield per kWSTC. This is due to its
very low dependence of Z on temperature and the largely
low air mass at the site under consideration. However,
about double the module surface area (and therefore twice
as much material for the support structure) is required for
the same output, if compared with the crystalline
technologies. It remains to be clarified whether the gain
of about 5–6% in annual energy yield would pay off
economically. The maximum efficiency of the modules
tested varies between about 8% and 16%, at a module
temperature of 25 1C and an air mass of 1.5, Fig. 4. Tables
3 and 4 also show that the specifications made by the
manufacturers would lead to an overestimation in the
annual output of 6–24%. However, it should once again be
pointed out that the LA361K51S module originates from
very early production, and that the data for the US-30,
ST40 and WS11003 modules correspond to the non-
degraded state. Degradation is still an issue to be
investigated further [5]. Therefore, the comparison has to
be taken with care. It is interesting to note that the sun-
tracked modules deliver 33–41% more output than
modules in fixed position. However, sun-tracked modules
are exposed to higher insolation in the morning and
evening hours than modules in fixed position. Their cell
temperature is therefore higher for most of the time,
leading to a somewhat lower annual efficiency, Tables 3
and 4.
Having efficiency models for various types of modules,
as well as meteorological data available for different sites,
allows calculations of their annual yield, and comparisons
between their performances at specific sites under specific
climatic conditions. The best choice of module with respect
to annual electricity yield and costs can then be made
during the planning phase of a photovoltaic plant.
References
[1] W. Durisch, K.H. Lam, J. Close, Behaviour of a copper indium
gallium diselenide module under real operating conditions, in:
Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress VII, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002, ISBN 0-08-044079-7.
[2] W. Durisch, A. Wörz, J. Urban, D. Tille, Bull. SEV/VSE 10 (1997) 35.
[3] W. Durisch, O. Struss, K. Robert, Efficiency of selected photovoltaic
modules under varying climatic conditions, in: Renewable Energy, first
ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 779–788.
[4] W. Durisch, J. Urban, G. Smestad, Characterization of solar cells
and modules under actual operating conditions, in: Proceedings
of the World Renewable Energy Congress, 15–21 June 1996,
Denver, Colorado, USA, vol. 1, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1996,
pp. 359–366.
[5] K.H. Lam, J. Close, W. Durisch, Sol. Energy 77 (2004) 121.
[6] R.G. Ross, Interface design considerations for terrestrial solar cell
modules, in: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, 15–18 November 1976, Baton Rouge, LA, 1976, pp.
801–806.
[7] W. Durisch, J. Keller, W. Bulgheroni, L. Keller, H. Fricker, Appl.
Energy 52 (1995) 111.