ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 pp.

909–930 909

Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic

conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Haitham Bahaidarah1, Shafiqur Rehman2, *, Abdul Subhan1, P. Gandhidasan1

and Hasan Baig3
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals, Dhahran-31261, Saudi Arabia
2
Center for Engineering Research, Research Institute, King Fahd University
of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran-31261, Saudi Arabia
3
Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering & Physical Sciences,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
*Author for corresponding. E-mail: srehman@kfupm.edu.sa

(Received 11 May 2015; Accepted 26 August 2015)

Abstract
In this paper, the performance characteristics of a photovoltaic (PV) module are
modeled numerically and validated experimentally for the typical climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The electrical model is developed using
EES software including all the important parameters like cell temperature,
maximum power point current, maximum power point voltage, electrical power,
and maximum power point efficiency. The model results were compared with
the experimental values obtained by exposing the PV panel to the local
environmental conditions of Dhahran. The variation of cell temperature,
maximum power point current, voltage, maximum power and efficiency of PV
module was recorded for a typical day and the effect of climatic conditions
including solar irradiance, ambient temperature and wind speed was quantified.
Finally, the modeled results were found to be in close agreement with the
experimental values with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 and root mean
square error of e = 5.2% for the overall efficiency and power output.

Keywords: Solar energy, Photovoltaic, Modeling, Environment, Maximum

power point efficiency

1. INTRODUCTION
Meeting exponentially growing power demands as a result of more rapidly increasing
population has become a challenge to planners and utilities in terms of time, budget,
and the environmental protection. Now time has come to diversify and supplement
means of power production by clean means such as solar photovoltaic (PV), solar
thermal, wind, hydro, wave, tidal, and bio-fuels. Of these clean sources of energy,
solar and wind have been accepted commercially and are economically and
910 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

technically feasible. The solar PV technology has lead the power market among clean
sources of energy beside hydro and the power of wind. Solar PV is now the third most
important source of energy from global installed capacity point of view. The global
PV installed capacity reached 102.2 GW at the end of year 2012 an addition of 31.1 GW
in 2012 (Roney, 2013). The global annual cumulative increase in PV installed
capacity is shown in Figure 1 (Ref., 2013). In 2010 the PV installed capacity was
40.7 GW and in 2011 it touched 71.1 GW an increase of 30.7 GW. As per available
information, more than 100 countries are now using solar PV (Ref., 2013).
For effective and efficient utilization of PV technology for power generation,
accurate knowledge of solar radiation availability and effect of weather conditions
such as dust, temperature, and wind speed on PV production is of utmost importance.
Photovoltaic modules perform differently under different environmental conditions.
The performance of a building integrated photovoltaic system depends on local
meteorological parameters, site conditions and system characteristics as reported by
Aaditya et al. (2013). Solar radiation and the PV cell temperature were the crucial
parameters adversely affecting the output of a 5.25 kWp BIPV system installed at the
Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. It is well
known that the power and efficiency of PV module usually falls at a rate of 0.5% ℃
and 0.05% ℃ , with increase in ambient temperature (Kim et al., 2011). A significant
number of theoretical and experimental studies have been carried out on PV systems
to optimize their usage in the past years. Belgacem (2012) conducted experimental
study to evaluate the performance of 2.1 kWp and 2.8 kWp installed capacity pv
systems for water pumping under local climatic conditions in Tunisia. The study
reported an overall maximum efficiency of 3.7% and the mean efficiency of about
2.5% at constant pumping head. Dubey and Tay (2013) tested the performance of two
types of photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) modules under the tropical climatic conditions

Figure 1. Global cumulative PV installed capacity.

ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 911

of Singapore. The study found that the average PV efficiency of the PV-Thermal
modules was about 0.4% higher than the normal PV module. Tiba and Beltrão (2012)
studied the performance of monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous
silicon and thin film technologies exposed to the climatic conditions of Recife and
Araripina. The results showed that there was a loss in energy yield of the order of 4%.
In general it was noticed that higher the temperature lower was the energy yield and
vice versa. Kumar et al. (2014) carried out a detailed experimental study on the
performance of a 20 kWp installed capacity solar photovoltaic power plant by taking
in to consideration the installation, operational performance and economic aspects.
Skoplaki et al. (2008) proposed a simple semi-empirical explicit correlation based
on solar irradiance, ambient temperature, and wind speed for PV cell temperature and
the corresponding efficiency for modules of arbitrary mounting. The average deviation
of predicted temperature values from experiment was less than 3 ℃ over the wind
speed range of 1–15 m/s. Furthermore, recent investigations by Hornung et al. (2012)
of Fresnel lens concentrator optics have shown that optical efficiency and module
performance depend on lens temperature. Brano et al. (2012) validated experimentally
a five-parameter model capable of analytically describing the I-V characteristic of a
silicon photovoltaic module for each generic condition of operative temperature and
solar irradiance. The results showed that the model was capable to evaluate the
operating current with a high degree of accuracy, even during days perturbed by
highly variable conditions of solar irradiance. In another study, Ahmad et al. (2003)
introduced a theoretical analysis of the performance of PV modules under different
meteorological conditions and design parameters. To verify the program, an
experimental setup consisting of six identical PV modules, oriented at different tilt
angles were installed and a comparison between the experimental and theoretical
results was made and good agreement was found.
Kurnik et al. (2011) performed outdoor testing of PV module performance under
different mounting and operational conditions. The results demonstrated that the
module’s relative temperature difference was almost equal to the conversion
efficiency, regardless of the given irradiance, wind speed and mounting conditions.
Carr and Pryor (2001) compared the performance of five different PV module types in
temperate climate of Perth, Western Australia. These values were compared with the
manufacturers’ values, and monitored over time for the modules in the field.
Padmavathi and Daniel (2013) presented the performance analysis of a 3 MW grid
connected SPV plant located in Karnataka State, India as per International Electro-
technical Commission (IEC) Standard 61724, using measured data. Annual average
energy generated was found to be 1372 kWh/kWp of the installed capacity.
Performance of the plant was reported to be satisfactory in comparison with that
reported from other countries. Charabi and Gastli (2013) studied the effect of
temperature and dust in siting large PV power plant using Fuzzy logic and GIS-based
spatial multi-criteria evaluation and recommended the usage of Concentrated
Photovoltaics (CPV) technology for large solar plants.
Alonso et al. (2004) estimated the performance of PV module throughout the year
based on Nominal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT) calculations. NOCT values
were obtained based on the fact that difference between the ambient and the module
912 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

temperature was independent of ambient temperature and linearly proportional to

irradiance above 400 W/m2. Trinuruk et al. (2009) used the nominal operating cell
temperature (NOCT) model and the Sandia National Laboratory temperature prediction
model (SNL) for the prediction of PV module’s temperatures for building integrated
photovoltaic system in the tropical climatic conditions of Thailand. It was found that
SNL model gave better results of temperature prediction than those of the NOCT
model. Gxasheka et al. (2005) investigated the effect of temperature and irradiance on
the performance parameters and found the dependence of efficiency on irradiance
intensity. Villalva et al. (2009) presented a comprehensive approach to model and
simulate the performance of PV arrays. This method found the best equation for the
single diode including the effect of series and parallel resistances. The model was
validated with experimental data of commercial PV arrays. Abdullah et al. (2002)
investigated the feasibility of implementing grid-connected PV systems in the Kuwaiti
climate. The five-parameter PV model, which is applicable to both crystalline and
amorphous PV modules, was used to determine the performance of the solar modules.
De Soto et al. (2006) proposed a model for evaluating the PV array performance
obtained using the values of short circuit current (Isc), the open circuit voltage (Voc) and
the maximum power point voltage (Vmp) and current (Imp) at standard rated conditions.
The simultaneous solution of the equations was performed by means of a nonlinear
equation solver. The resistances Rs and Rsh were considered constant, and light
generated current (IL) was assumed to be linearly proportional to the solar irradiance.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not only one of the largest oil producing country
but also a big consumer of fossil fuels for electricity generation. To conserve fossil
fuel and to contain the environmental pollution the government of Saudi Arabia is
planning to diversify its sources of energy to meet its increasing loads in the near
future. Accordingly, on October 01, 2011, Saudi Electricity Company inaugurated its
first 500 kW PV power plant at Farasan Island near Gizan Weblink-2 (2013). In
another ground breaking development, Saudi Aramco connected a 10 MW PV power
plant to power its research and development building in December 2011. It is one of
the world’s largest PV parking lots with 4,450 parking spaces covered with Solar
Frontier’s CIS modules. Recently Saudi Aramco inaugurated another 3.5 MW PV
power plant at King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC) in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on 19th January 2013, Weblink-3 (2013). To add, King Abdullah
University of Science and Technology (KAUST) has also connected a 2 MW PV
power plant to supplement its energy needs of academic buildings.
The use of photovoltaic (PV) technology in the Kingdom is about to see its future
due to high intensity of solar radiation throughout the year and renewable energy
implementation program of the government. The PV modules of the power generation
system convert solar energy into direct current (DC). The cost of producing electricity
for residential applications has dropped dramatically and PV panels are becoming
more economically viable. Saudi Arabia is characterized by hot and dry summer with
cool and slightly wet winter. The average summer temperature is about 35 ℃, but
readings of up to 45–50 ℃ are not unusual Rehman and El-Gebeily (2010) whereas in
winter the average temperature varies from 8–20 ℃. The use of PV technology is
likely to face few challenges in its adaptation to the local environment predominantly
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 913

because of high ambient temperature Alajlan and Smiai (2013). Adinoyi and Said
(2013) reported that power output from a PV panel decreased by about 50% when
these were left unclean for a period of over six months in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore the solar tracker improved power output and helped in reducing the
adverse effect of dust accumulation by about 50% at off-peak time. From the above
search, it is clear that high direct normal radiation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
combined with extreme high ambient temperature in the summer season represents a
major challenge for the PV systems. It is reported by Alshakhs (2014) that a recent
study conducted in Dhahran on polycrystalline PV module revealed that the module
efficiency decreases from 11.6% to 10.4% when the module temperature increases
from 38 to 48 ℃, which corresponds to the temperature coefficient of –0.11 ΔE/℃.
In this paper, the electrical performance evaluation of a solar PV module for climatic
conditions of Dhahran is studied. A detailed electrical model was developed to estimate
the performance of a PV module using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) software. EES
is a widely used commercial software program which is able to solve systems of non-
linear equations. The program provides flexibility in formatting the equations fairly well.

2. ELECTRICAL MODEL
To describe a PV module as a power source, it is necessary to determine the main
parameters that assist in studying its performance. Back surface module temperature
is easy to measure, but it cannot be used in array performance characterization due to
the temperature difference between the back surface and the cell itself. Therefore, cell
temperature based on module short circuit current and the open circuit voltage with the
calculated value referenced to a known temperature when the module is in thermal
equilibrium is used. The present five parameter model estimates the main electrical
parameters such as short circuit current, open circuit voltage, maximum power output
and electrical efficiency. A PV module is a nonlinear device and can be represented
by its I-V characteristic curve. There are many mathematical models which describe
I-V curve. One of them is the famous five parameter photovoltaic model proposed by
De et al. (2006) and Duffie and Beckman (2006). Figure 2 represents the equivalent
circuit for an individual PV cell. At a fixed temperature and solar radiation, the I-V
characteristic of this model is given by a well-established and widely used Eq. (1):
⎡ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ V + IRs
I = I L − I o ⎢exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ − (1)
⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦ Rsh

where I and V represent the current and voltage at the load condition. The circuit
requires that five parameters be known and they are: light generated current (IL), diode
reverse saturation current (I0), series resistance (Rs), shunt resistance (Rsh), and ideality
factor (a). The five parameters in the model are obtained using I-V characteristics of
a module at reference condition supplied by the manufacturer and other known PV
characteristics. Measurements of PV electrical characteristics are made at standard
reference condition: incident radiation of 1000 W/m2, a cell temperature of 25 ℃, and
a spectral distribution corresponding to an air mass of 1.5. Since the five parameters
are to be determined; five different conditions need to be known. The methodology
914 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Figure 2. Equivalent circuit of an individual solar cell.

Figure 3. Typical I-V and P-V curves for a PV module.

adopted here is to know three I-V points on the I-V curve (i.e. short circuit current,
open circuit voltage and maximum power point) as shown in Figure 3.
The information needed is defined in Table 1, De et al. (2006). At short circuit
conditions, the voltage is zero and the current is Isc, ref and is given by Eq. (2) as follows:

Table 1. Conditions known at three I-V points on the curve.

Conditions Parameters

At short circuit current I = I sc, ref , V = 0

At open circuit voltage I = 0, V = Voc , ref

At short circuit condition [dI /dV ] sc = −1/Rsh, ref

At the maximum power point I = I mp , ref , V = Vmp, ref

At the maximum power point [d ( IV )/dV ] mp = 0

ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 915

⎡ ⎛I R ⎞ ⎤ I sc, ref Rs, ref

I sc, ref = I L , ref − I o, ref ⎢exp ⎜⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ −
sc, ref s , ref
⎟ ⎥ (2)
⎢⎣ ⎝ aref ⎠ ⎦ Rsh, ref

At open-circuit conditions the current is zero and the voltage is Voc so that:
⎡ ⎛V ⎞ ⎤ Voc, ref
I L, ref = I o, ref ⎢exp ⎜⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ +
oc, ref
⎟ ⎥ R (3)
⎢⎣ ⎝ aref ⎠ ⎦ sh, ref

The measured I-V pair at maximum- power conditions can be substituted into Eq. (1),
resulting in
⎡ ⎛ Vmp, ref + I mp, ref R ⎞ ⎤ ⎡V +I R ⎤
I mp, ref = I L, ref − I o, ref ⎢exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ − ⎢ mp, ref mp, ref s , ref ⎥
s , ref
(4)
⎢ ⎜ aref ⎟ ⎥ ⎢⎣ Rsh, ref ⎥⎦
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦

At short circuit conditions the derivative of current with respect to voltage is given
by Eq. (5) as given in Duffie and Beckman (2006):

1
[ dI /dV ]sc = − (5)
Rsh, ref

At maximum power point conditions the derivative of power with respect to

voltage is zero Ref. [30]. A brief derivation of Eqs. (5) and (6) is given in the annexure
A and B respectively.

⎛ I o, ref ⎞ ⎛V +I R ⎞ 1
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ exp ⎜⎜ mp, ref mp, ref s, ref ⎟⎟ +
I mp, ref ⎝ aref ⎠ ⎝ aref ⎠ R sh, ref
= (6)
Vmp, ref ⎛ I o, ref Rs, ref ⎞ ⎛V + I mp, ref Rs, ref ⎞ ⎛ Rs, ref ⎞
1 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ exp ⎜⎜ mp, ref ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ aref ⎠ ⎝ aref ⎠ ⎝ Rsh, ref ⎠

Firstly, solving these simultaneous equations from (2) to (6) gives the value of five
parameters (aref, IL, ref, Io, ref, Rs, ref and Rsh, ref), at the reference conditions. The ideality
factor which is assumed to be dependent on the cell temperature is related to reference
condition by Eq. (7), (Duffie and Beckman 2006):

a T
= c (7)
aref Tc, ref

The light current for any operating conditions is related to its reference conditions
by Eq. (8) as given in Duffie and Beckman (2006),

S ⎡
IL = I + μ I sc (Tc − Tc, ref )⎤⎦ (8)
Sref ⎣ L, ref
916 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

S
Where is the ratio of absorbed radiation S to the absorbed radiation at reference
Sref
condition Sref, given by Eq. (9) and obtained from Duffie and Beckman (2006):

S ⎛G G ⎛ 1 + cos β ⎞ G ⎛ 1 − cos β ⎞⎞
= M ⎜⎜ b Rb K τα, b + d K τα, d ⎜ ⎟+ ρ g K τα, g ⎜ ⎟⎟⎟ (9)
Sref ⎝ Gref Gref ⎝ 2 ⎠ Gref ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠

M = ∑ ai ( AM )
i
(10)
0

Where AM is the air mass at sea-level reference condition which is equal to 1.5. For
mono-crystalline silicon cells the value of a0, ….. a4 are 0.935823, 0.054289, –0.008677,
0.000527 and –0.000011, (Duffie and Beckman 2006). K��, b = (��)b/(��)n is the
incidence angle modifier at the beam incidence angle. K��, d and K��, g are the incidence
angle modifier at effective incidence angle for isotropic diffuse and ground-reflected
radiation. The diode reverse saturation current is related to reference conditions by
Eq. (11) as given in Duffie and Beckman (2006):

⎛ T ⎞
3 ⎛ ⎞
I 0 = I oref ⎜ c ⎟ exp ⎜ ε −
ε ⎟ (11)
⎜T ⎟ ⎜ KT KT ⎟
⎝ c, ref ⎠ ⎝ Tc , ref Tc ⎠

ε
= 1 − C (Tc − Tc, ref ) (12)
ε ref

Where � is the material energy band gap. For silicon cells, �ref = 1.12 eV and
C = 0.0002677. The following relationship is used to relate the shunt resistance (Rsh),
(which is assumed to be finite and independent of temperature but varies with the
absorbed radiation) at reference conditions to that at operating conditions:

Rsh Sref
= (13)
Rsh, ref S

The model is now complete. These equations are a set of nonlinear equations that
cannot be solved unless good initial guesses and variable limits are used. The following
guess values are used for determining the parameters, (Duffie and Beckman 2006):

aref , guess = 1.5 KTc, ref N /q (14)

I o, ref , guess = I sc, ref exp (−Voc, ref /aref , guess ) (15)

I L , ref , guess = I sc, ref (16)

ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 917

The series resistance is assumed to be independent of both temperature and solar

radiation so that:
Rs = Rs , ref (17)

Once the values of reference parameters are obtained, Equations (7–17) are used to
find the parameters at any operating condition. In order to estimate the maximum
power point (MPP) from the model, the following equations are used:

⎡ I ⎛V + I R ⎞ 1 ⎤
⎢ o
exp ⎜ mp mp s ⎟ + ⎥
I mp ⎢ a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh ⎥
=⎢ (18)
Vmp ⎛ V + I R ⎞⎥
⎢1 + Rs + I o Rs exp ⎜ mp mp s ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣ Rsh a ⎝ a ⎠ ⎥⎦

The general I-V equation at the MPP must also be satisfied:

⎡ ⎛ Vmp + I mp R ⎞ ⎤ ⎡V + I R ⎤
I mp = I L − I o ⎢exp ⎜⎜ s ⎟ − 1⎥ − ⎢ mp mp s ⎥
⎟ ⎥ ⎣ (19)
⎢⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦ Rsh ⎦

The simultaneous solution of the Equations (18) and (19) yields the MPP current
and voltage, further, the maximum power output can be obtained as:

Pmp = I mpVmp (20)

In estimating the PV module performance, the temperature dependance of the

maximum power point efficiency (ηmp ) is an important parameter and is given by,

I mpVmp
ηmp = (21)
GT Am

An attempt is made to verify the measured back surface temperature with the
empirically-based thermal model developed by King et al. (2004) and it is given by:

Tbs = GT [ exp( x + yv )] + Ta (22)

Where x and y are empirically determined coefficients which depend on the type of
mounting. For rack mounted modules the values of x and y are taken as –3.47
and –0.0594 respectively. It is to be noted that the back surface temperature does not
intervene in the calculation of the efficiency.

3. THE NOMINAL OPERATING CELL TEMPERATURE (NOCT)

CONDITIONS
The module efficiency will vary from zero to the maximum module efficiency depending
on how close to the maximum power point the module is operating. The loss coefficient
918 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

UL will includes losses by convection and radiation from top and bottom and by
conduction through frame work to the ambient temperature. NOCT is defined as the cell
or module temperature that is reached when the cells are mounted in a normal way at a
incident solar radiation level of 800 W/m2, a wind speed of 1.0 m/s, an ambient
temperature of 20 ℃ and no-load operation (that is, with ηc = 0), (Duffie and Beckman
2006). The cell temperature at any ambient temperature for a PV module is obtained from:

TC − Ta GT U L , NOCT ⎛ ηc ⎞
= ⎜1 − ⎟ (23)
TNOCT − Ta, NOCT GNOCT U L ⎝ (τα ) ⎠

The (��) in the last term of Eq. (23) is estimated to be 0.9. An approximation of the
U 9.5
ratiois L, NOCT given by .
UL (5.7 + 3.8 v )

4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
In order to verify the present electrical model, the performance characteristics of a PV
module (monocrystalline silicon type, 230 W rated power) have been investigated
experimentally under the climatic conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Figure 4 shows
the experimental test setup connecting different components to the PV module. The
module is mounted at an inclination of 30o. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the complete
experimental setup. The electricity produced by the module is stored in two batteries
(each of 12 V and 80 Ah) connected in series. During the operation, a maximum power
point tracker (MPPT) was used to modulate the power output from the solar panel at a
given irradiance to ensure that maximum electrical power is extracted. The controller

Figure 4. Experimental setup showing the testing of PV module.

ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 919

Figure 5. A schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

Table 2. Accuracy/Sensitivity of the instruments used.

Instrument Used Accuracy/sensitivity

Sunsaver MPPT Current: 1%; Voltage: 2%
Pyranometer 30.1 μV per W/m2
Hygro Thermo-Anemometer 2% ±0.2 m/sec
Thermocouple Thermometer ±1 ℃

Table 3. Specifications of the PV module used

(from the manufacturer’s nameplate).

Solar PV module parameters Value

Module type SUN POWER SPR-230WHT-U
Maximum Power (Pmp) 230 Watts
Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) 41 V
Maximum Power Current (Imp) 5.61 A
Maximum Power point efficiency(ηmp) 18.5%
Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) 48.7 V
Short Circuit Current (Isc) 5.99 A
Area of the module (A) 1.24 m2
Temperature co-efficient of Short- 3.5 mA/K
circuit current (μIsc)
Number of solar cells 72 (mono crystalline type)

features a smart tracking algorithm that maximizes the energy harvest from the PV
panels and also provides load control to prevent over discharge of the battery.
A pyranometer was used to capture the global solar irradiance in W/m2.Wind speed
was recorded through an hygro thermo-anemometer. Temperature measurements are
920 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

significant in this study and therefore T-type thermocouples were used for measuring
the front and back surface temperature of the panel. The accuracy and operating ranges
of the instruments used are given in Table 2. The experiments were conducted from
9:00 am to 4:00 pm with hourly measurements of front and back surface temeperature
of the panel, maximum power output (i.e current and voltage), and climatic data which
includes solar intensity, wind speed and ambient temperaturein the month of May
2011. The specifications of the module measured at standard test conditions:
(Irradiance 1000 W/m2, cell temperature 25℃) is given in Table 3.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To verify the electrical model, the results obtained from the simulation program using
EES software are compared to that obtained from measurements using the above
experimental setup. The results obtained for hourly variation of back surface
temperature, maximum power point current, voltage, maximum power output and
efficiency of the panel are shown in Figures 6–12. Further, in order to compare the
computed results with the experimental measurements, a correlation coefficient (r)
and root mean square percent deviation (e) has been evaluated by the following
equations (24 and 25) taken from Joshi et al. (2009) and depicted in Figures 6–12.

e=
⎡
( ) ⎤2
∑ ⎢100 × X sim, i − Xexp. i /X sim, i ⎥
⎣ ⎦
(24)
n

r=
n (∑ X ⋅ X ) − (∑ X ) ⋅ (∑ X )
exp sim exp sim
(25)
n ⋅ (∑ X ) − (∑ X ) ⋅ n ⋅ (∑ X ) − (∑ X )
2 2
2 2
exp exp sim sim

The results reported here were conducted in the month of May, 2011 which was
consistently clear day. Figure 6 shows the diurnal variation of solar radiation intensity

Figure 6. Hourly variation of ambient temperature and solar radiation intensity

with best fit lines.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 921

Figure 7. Hourly variation of measured top and back surface temperature of the PV
module with best fit lines.

Figure 8. Hourly variation of measured and computed module back

surface temperature.

Figure 9. Hourly variation of measured and computed maximum power point current.
922 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Figure 10. Hourly variation of measured and computed maximum power

point voltage.

Figure 11. Hourly variation of measured and computed maximum power output.

and ambient temperature throughout the day from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm for Dhahran. The
maximum values of ambient temperature and global radiation recorded were 43 ℃ and
880 W/m2, respectively, on a clear day. As seen from this figure, the maximum solar
radiation intensity corresponded to maximum ambient temperature at 12:00 hours.
For a set of experiments conducted, Figure 7 shows the hourly variation of top and
back surface temperatures of the PV module as well as the wind speed. The maximum
value of wind speed recorded was 2.5 m/sec at 11:00 am. Temperature effects are the
result of an inherent characteristic of crystalline silicon cell based modules as the front
and the back surface gets heated up with the irradiance which results in increase of cell
temperature. The operating temperature of the module depends on the equilibrium
maintained between the heat generated by the module and the heat lost to surrounding
environment. The maximum module temperatures in the front and back surfaces were
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 923

Figure 12. Hourly variation of measured and computed maximum power

point efficiency.

observed to reach 52.6 ℃ and 49.4 ℃ respectively at solar noon. The average
temperature difference on both surfaces varies around 2.5% throughout the day.
Figure 8 shows the measured and computed back surface temperature of the
module. The module temperature shown here is the average of four thermocouples on
the back surface. It is observed from Figure 8 that there is a fair agreement between the
experimental and numerical values with correlation coefficient of r = 0.99 and root
mean square percent deviation of e = 2.35%. Figure 9 shows the comparison of
numerical and experimental values of maximum power point current. There is a fair
agreement between them with correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 and root mean square
percent deviation of e = 4.05%. Figure 10 shows the comparison of numerical and
experimental values of maximum power point voltage. There is a fair agreement
between them with correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 and root mean square percent
deviation of e = 3.1%.
Figure 11 shows the comparison between the experimental and numerical results of
maximum power output from the module. Solar radiation intensity is a primary factor
affecting the output power of the PV module. The results are in good agreement with
each other. Maximum power output is around 12 noon when the sun is at its zenith due
to the solar intensity being highest at that time. The maximum power obtained from the
module is around 180 W at 12 noon when compared to its rated peak power at 230 W i.e.
about 22% performance reduction. The loss in power is due to optical losses, ohmic
losses and heat losses from the module to the surroundings. It is observed from Figure 11
that there is a fair agreement between the experimental and numerical values with
correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 and root mean square percent deviation of
e = 5.22%. Figure 12 shows the comparison between experimental and numerical
results of electrical efficiency of the module. The maximum efficiency is observed to
be 17.2% of an average intensity of solar radiation and it can be observed that there is
a fair agreement between them with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.98 and root mean
square percent deviation of e = 5.2%.
924 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

6. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of Si-based module has been evaluated over a short period of time
under climatic conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The following conclusions are
drawn from the present experimental numerical study:
A detailed mathematical model is developed to calculate the performance
parameters of a PV module.
● The developed model is capable of predicting the output parameters such as cell
temperature, maximum power point current, voltage, power and efficiency.
● The values computed from the mathematical model are found in good agreement
with the experimental data recorded.
● Increase in the solar irradiance provides higher power output but at the cost of
reduction in the module efficiency. Absorption of solar radiation increases the
temperature of PV cells resulting in a drop of electrical efficiency.
● The increase in the temperature of the PV module is always associated with the
reduction in the efficiency. The power reduction depends on the temperature
coefficient of the particular type of PV module and this is mostly provided by the
supplier.
● To increase the operating electrical efficiency of PV systems, an obvious method
is to cool (in the form of air cooling and water cooling) the temperature of the
cells by incorporating a cooling mechanism. There has been considerable amount
of research in this area by employing cooling ducts to the system as well as by
creating hybrid PV and thermal (PV/T) systems, which could produce hot water
in addition to electricity. In both cases, a heat carrier fluid would remove the heat
from the cells thus cooling them and allowing their electrical efficiency to
increase.
● The major challenge for the improvement of PV module in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia is the development of suitable uniform cooling mechanism for the climatic
conditions prevailing in the Kingdom. PV modules with less sensitive to
temperature effects will be more effective.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author(s) would like to acknowledge the support provided by King Abdulaziz City
for Science and Technology (KACST) through the Science & Technology Unit at
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM) for funding this work
through project No. 10-ENE1376-04 as part of the National Science, Technology and
Innovation Plan.

NOMENCLATURE
A area(m2)
a ideality factor
e root mean square percent deviation
G incident solar radiation (W/m2)
K Boltzmann’s constant (1.381 × 10–23 J/K)
K�� incidence angle modifier
M air mass modifier
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 925

N number of cells in series

n number of experiments
P power (W)
PV photovoltaic
q elementary charge
Rb geometric factor
R resistance
r correlation coefficient
S solar absorbed flux (W)
T temperature (K)
V circuit voltage(V)
V wind speed(m/s)
X experimental or simulated value of parameter
Greek symbols
�� product of effective transmittivity and absorptivity
B Slope
E semiconductor band gap energy (eV)
H efficiency (%)
ρ density (kg/m3)
ρg ground reflectance
μIsc temperature coefficient of short circuit current (A/K)
Subscripts
A Ambient
a, NOCT ambient at NOCT
B beam component
bs back surface
bt beam radiation on tilted surface
C Cell
D diffuse component
el Electrical
exp experimental
G Ground
I ith parameter
L light
m module
mp maximum power point
N on a plane normal to the direction of propagation
NOCT nominal operating cell temperature
O diode reverse saturation
ref Reference
sc short circuit
sim Simulated
oc open circuit
S Series
Sh Shunt
926 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

REFERENCES
Aaditya G., Pillai R. and Mani M., 2013. An insight into real-time performance
assessment of a building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) installation in
Bangalore (India). Energy for Sustainable Development 17(5), 431–437.
Abdullah A.H., Ghoneim A.A. and Al-Hasan A.Y., 2002. Assessment of grid-
connected photovoltaic systems in the Kuwaiti climate. Renewable Energy
26(2), 189–199.
Adinoyi M.J. and Said S.A.M., 2013. Effect of dust accumulation on the power
outputs of solar photovoltaic modules. Renewable Energy 60, 633–636.
Ahmad G.E., Hussein H.M.S. and El-Ghetany H.H., 2003. Theoretical analysis and
experimental verification of PV modules. Renewable Energy 28(8),
1159–1168.
Alajlan S.A. and Smiai M.S., 1996. Performance and development of PV-plant for
water pumping and desalination for remote area in Saudi Arabia. Renewable
Energy 8(1), 441–446.
Alonso M.C., Garcia and Balenzategui J.L., 2004. Estimation of photovoltaic module
yearly temperature and performance based on nominal operation cell
temperature calculations. Renewable Energy 29(12), 1997–2010.
Alshakhs M., 2013. Challenges of solar PV in Saudi Arabia: Submitted as coursework
for PH240, Stanford University, Fall 2013, assessed on 7 March 2014.
Belgacem B.G., 2012. Performance of submersible PV water pumping systems in
Tunisia. Energy for Sustainable Development 16(4), 415–420.
Brano V.L., Orioli A. and Ciulla G., 2012. On the experimental validation of an
improved five-parameter model for silicon photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells 105, 27–39.
Carr A.J. and Pryor T.L., 2004. A comparison of the performance of different PV
module types in temperate climates. Solar Energy 76(1), 285–294.
Charabi Y. and Gastli A., 2013. Integration of temperature and dust effects in siting
large PV power plant in hot arid area. Renewable Energy 57, 635–644.
De Soto W., Klein S.A. and Beckman W.A., 2006. Improvement and validation of a
model for photovoltaic array performance. Solar Energy 80(1), 78–88.
Dubey S. and Tay A.A.O., 2013. Testing of two different types of photovoltaic–
thermal (PVT) modules with heat flow pattern under tropical climatic
conditions. Energy for Sustainable Development 17(1), 1–12.
Duffie J.A., and Beckman W.A., 2006. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 3rd
Edition. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 928.
Gxasheka A.R., Van Dyk E.E. and Meyer E.L., 2005. Evaluation of performance
parameters of PV modules deployed outdoors. Renewable Energy 30(4), 611–620.
Joshi A.S., Tiwari A., Tiwari G.N., Dincer I. and Reddy B.V., 2009. Performance
evaluation of a hybrid photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) (glass-to-glass) system.
International Journal Thermal Science 48(1), 154–164.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 927

King D.L., Boyson W.E. and Kratochvil J.A., 2004. Photovoltaic array performance
model, Sandia National Laboratories Report, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87185 and Livermore, California 94550, United States: SAND2004-3535.
Kumar K.A., Sundareswaran K. and Venkateswaran P.R., 2014. Performance
study on a grid connected 20 kWp solar photovoltaic installation in an
industry in Tiruchirappalli (India). Energy for Sustainable Development 23,
294–304.
Kurnik J., Jankovec M., Brecl K. and Topic M., 2011. Outdoor testing of PV module
temperature and performance under different mounting and operational
conditions. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 95(1), 373–376.
Hornung T., Steiner M. and Nitz P., 2012. Estimation of the influence of Fresnel lens
temperature on energy generation of a concentrator photovoltaic system. Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells 99, 333–338.
Kim J.P., Lim H., Song J.H., Chang Y.J. and Jeon C.H., 2011. Numerical analysis on
the thermal characteristics of photovoltaic module with ambient temperature
variation. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 95(1), 404–407.
Padmavathi K. and Daniel S.A., 2013. Performance analysis of a 3 MWp grid
connected solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy for Sustainable
Development 17(6), 615–625.
Rehman S. and El-Gebeily M., 2010. Variation of meteorological parameters over
Saudi Arabia (1990-2006). World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development 7(2), 191–216.
Roney J.M., 2012. World solar power topped 100,000 Megawatts in 2012,
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/world-solar-power-topped-
100000-megawatts-2012.html (Accessed on August 06, 2013).
Skoplaki E., Boudouvis A.G. and Palyvos J.A., 2008. A simple correlation for the
operating temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells 92(1), 1393–1402.
Tiba C. and Ricardo E. D. A., 2012. Siting PV plant focusing on the effect of local
climate variables on electric energy production-Case study for Araripina and
Recife. Renewable Energy 48, 309–317.
Trinuruk P., Sorapipatana C. and Chenvidhya D., 2009. Estimating operating cell
temperature of BIPV modules in Thailand. Renewable Energy 34(11),
2515–2523.
Villalva M.G., Gazoli J.R., and Filho E.R., 2009. Comprehensive approach to
modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics 24(5), 1198–1208.
Weblink2: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/saudi-inaugurates-
first solar-power-plant_100004550/#ixzz2Iur6Dtvq (Accessed on January
25, 2013).
Weblink3: Aramco launches largest PV plant in Saudi Arabia, Published in The Saudi
Gazette on 19-01-2013.
928 Performance evaluation of a PV module under climatic
conditions of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

ANNEXURE-A
Derivation of Eq. (5) is given below
The 5 parameter equation is

⎡ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ V + IRs
I = I L − I o ⎢exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ − (A1)
⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦ Rsh

The derivative of current with respect to voltage is:

dI d ⎡ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ 1 d ⎛ IRs ⎞⎤
= −I0 ⎢exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ − ⎢ + ⎜ ⎟⎥ (A2)
dV dV ⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦ ⎢⎣ Rsh dV ⎝ Rsh ⎠⎥⎦

The derivative in the first term is simplified and rearranged as

⎛ V + IRs ⎞
exp ⎜ ⎟
d ⎛ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎞ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎡ dI ⎤
⎜ exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎟ = ⎢⎣ Rs + 1⎥ (A3)
dV ⎝ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎠ a dV ⎦

d ⎛ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎞
Now substituting the term ⎜ exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎟ we get,
dV ⎝ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎠

⎡ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞
⎢ I 0 exp ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ I 0 exp ⎜ ⎟
dI ⎢ ⎝ a ⎠ R ⎝ a ⎠ 1
1+ Rs + s ⎥ = − − (A4)
dV ⎢ a Rsh ⎥ a Rsh
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Solving for dI at short circuit conditions gives

dV

⎛ I sc, ref Rs , ref ⎞

I 0, ref exp ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ aref ⎠ 1
− −
⎡ dI ⎤ aref Rsh, ref 1 (A5)
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ = =−
dV sc ⎡ ⎛I R ⎞ ⎤ Rsh, ref
⎢ I 0, ref exp ⎜⎜ sc, ref s, ref ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ aref ⎠ Rs , ref ⎥
⎢1 + Rs, ref + ⎥
⎢ aref Rsh, ref ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 33 · Number 6 · 2015 929

ANNEXURE-B
Derivation of Eq. (6) is given below:
The derivative of power with respect to voltage is equal to zero, results in

dP d ( IV ) dI
=0; = 0; I + V =0
dV dV dV

dI d ⎡ ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ 1 d ⎛ IRs ⎞⎤
= −I0 ⎢exp ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ − ⎢ + ⎜ ⎟⎥ (B1)
dV dV ⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦ ⎢⎣ Rsh dV ⎝ Rsh ⎠⎥⎦

Further derivation of the term dI and rearrangement results in,

dV

I0 ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ 1
−exp ⎜ ⎟−
dI a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh
= (B2)
dV I ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ Rs
1 + 0 exp ⎜ ⎟ Rs +
a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh

dI dI
Now substituting this value of in the equation I + V = 0 results in
dV dV

⎛ I ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ 1 ⎞
⎜ − 0 exp ⎜ ⎟− ⎟
⎜ a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh ⎟=0
I +V (B3)
⎜ I ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ Rs ⎟
⎜ 1 + 0 exp ⎜ ⎟ Rs + ⎟
⎝ a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh ⎠

Upon rearrangement, this equation results in

⎛ I0 ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ 1 ⎞
⎜ exp ⎜ ⎟+ ⎟
I ⎜ a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh ⎟
= (B4)
V ⎜ I0 ⎛ V + IRs ⎞ Rs ⎟
⎜ 1 + exp ⎜ ⎟ Rs + ⎟
⎝ a ⎝ a ⎠ Rsh ⎠

Thus, at maximum power point condition,

⎛ I 0, ref ⎛ Vmp, ref + Imp, ref Rs, ref ⎞ 1 ⎞

⎜ exp ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎟
I mp, ref ⎜ aref ⎝ a ref ⎠ R sh, ref ⎟
=⎜ ⎟ (B5)
Vmp, ref ⎜ I 0, ref Rs, ref ⎛ Vmp, ref + Imp, ref Rs, ref ⎞ R ⎟
⎜1+ exp ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + s, ref ⎟
⎝ aref ⎝ aref ⎠ Rsh, ref ⎠