OPTIMIZATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC THERMAL SYSTEM (PV/T) WITH

DIFFERENT COOLING FLOW RATES USING RESPONSE SURFACE

METHODODLOGY
M.I. Ibrahim1*, D.M Kulla2, S. Umaru3 S. Dalhatu4 & M.Z. Abdullah5
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering Federal Polytechnic Bida
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
2,3

4
Building Department, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria
5
School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Engineering Campus
14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang
*
Corresponding Author: Email address: miibrahim114@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Cooling of photovoltaic modules is an important requirement to prevent decrease in the PV

cells efficiency and a considerable reduction in their life span. Therefore, implementing a

proper cooling method can improve the electrical efficiency and minimize the rate of cell

maiming, thereby maximizing the overall life span of the PV modules. In this present work,

an experimental study was conducted for a hybrid photovoltaic thermal system using

different cooling flow rates in order to examine the effects of cooling on the PV/T system.

Response surface methodology along with central composite design (CCD) was used to

develop mathematical models, and these models were henceforth validated using analysis of

variance (ANOVA) with regression coefficient values of more 0.900 for response

variables. Design expert software was used to carry out a numerical optimization. The RSM

optimized values were 421.55% and 7.18% for the thermal and electrical efficiency. On the

other hand, the optimum values for the experimental results were 425.01% and 9.45% for the

thermal and electrical efficiencies respectively. The experimental results obtained were in

conformity with the predicted RSM model, which shows that the model can be used for

predictions at 95% confidence level.

1
Nomenclature
A Area (m2) DF Degree of freedom
solar radiation ANOVA Analysis of variance
Maximum Voltage
Coefficient Of determination
Maximum current
Useful energy
Heat removal factor Greeks
Mass flow rate
Specific heat capacity Efficiency

T Temperature Superscripts
Abbreviations Thermal
PV Photovoltaic Electrical
PV/T Photovoltaic thermal system
RSM Response surface methodology
TTL Transistor Transistor logic
DC Direct current

1.0 Introduction

The rate at which attention are focused towards renewable energy technologies is gaining

momentum on a daily basis. One of the most practical application of renewable energy is the

use of solar photovoltaic (PV) system which convert solar radiation into electricity (Hu et al.,

2016; Siecker et al., 2017). Studies have shown that only small portion of the ultraviolet

radiation that strikes PV module surface are converted into electricity; the remaining part

becomes a waste heat which hampers the performance of the PV module thereby leading to a

reduction in its electrical efficiency (Abdelrazik et al., 2018; Gaur et al., 2017; Kumar et al.,

2020; Odeh & Behnia, 2009; Siecker et al., 2018). This problem has since then created so

much concern by different scholars and enormous efforts have been expended towards

overcoming the challenge.

Most of the researches carried out in trying to proffer possible solutions to the degrading PV

efficiency problem, lead to a new system called the photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system.

2
These system combines both the PV module and a thermal collector together as a single

entity and can provide both electricity and thermal energy concurrently via a cooling medium

(Kazemian et al., 2021; Su et al., 2017). This is achieved by allowing water to pass through

copper tubes attached to the back of the PV module thereby extracting the excess heat from

the PV module. Since the thermo-physical properties of water are generally known to have

good cooling ability, the PV module tends to operate at a standard operating temperature

(STC), which thereby improves the efficiency of the system and at the same time provide

thermal energy for both industrial and residential applications respectively (Abdelrazik et al.,

2018).

Several cooling techniques have been studied by different researchers based on the type of

cooling method used in the absorber, the PV/T can be classified into the following categories:

air based, water based, combination of water/air based, heat pipe based, concentrated based,

PCM based and nano fluid-based, combination of nano fluid and PCM based PV/T

respectively (Gelis et al., 2022; Su et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2021). Also, PV/T collectors

integrate two different systems i.e., the PV module and the thermal collector into hybrid

system called PV/T system. Depending on the design and method of construction, collectors

are available in different forms ranging from flat plate collectors, heat pipe collectors,

spectrum splitting and concentrating collectors respectively (Abdelrazik et al., 2018; Yu et

al., 2021).

Moreso, both experimental numerical and analytical work are still ongoing by several

researchers to study the performance evaluation of different PV/T systems. Touafek et al.

(2009) Performed experimental study for a hybrid PV/T system and found out that the hybrid

PV/T yielded more that 80% efficiency. Jaaz et al. (2018) In their work used water jet

impingement to cool compound parabolic photovoltaic thermal system (CP PV/T), and the

results obtained showed that CP PV/T gave better electrical and thermal efficiency compared

3
to the flat plate PV/T system. Rahman et al. (2018) Carried out experimental and numerical

analysis using ANSYS software to test the efficiency of PV/T systems by using different

mass flow rates, it was observed that both the thermal and overall efficiency of the system

were achieved with an increased mass flow rate. Herrando et al. (2014) tried to asses a hybrid

PV and a solar thermal system, and based on the outcome of their work, it was concluded that

the PV/T outperformed the conventional PV. Touafek et al. (2014) developed a prototype

thermal collector using a galvanised plate, this PV/T prototype was studied experimentally

and theoretically and he claimed that it will serve as a good alternative to the other existing

types of collectors. Al-Waeli et al. (2018) conducted an experiment using three different

types PV/T systems: water based, PCM based and nano fluid-based systems. The results of

these systems were compared to that of a conventional PV using three typed of ANN model,

and the output of the model simulation was in agreement with the experimental results carried

out. Sardarabadi et al. (2017) Investigated the effects of nano fluid and Phase change

material (PCM) by using them as a coolant for a PV/T system. Based on the result obtained it

shows that the combination of these two materials increased the efficiency of the system.

Trailing behind several numerical and experimental work carried out by different scholars, a

very important mathematical as well as statistical technique for determining the relationship

between independent variables and responses of a photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system

experiment, is the use of response surface methodology (RSM). The advantage RSM has

compare to other mathematical models and algorithms such as artificial neural network

(ANN), support vector machine (SVM), genetic algorithms (GA) and ant colony optimization

(ACO), is that it provides more powerful approach in providing satisfactory and adequate

relationship between the connections of input parameters even from a limited experiment

(Elsayed & Lacor, 2011; Rejeb et al., 2020). Also, RSM can be used to solve complex

process optimization problems by appropriately superimposing response surface contours,

4
thereby giving much detail information about relevant operating factors (independent

variables) and process responses for the system performances accordingly (Gelis et al., 2022;

Mehmood et al., 2019; Myers et al., 2016; Yesildal et al., 2022). Photovoltaic thermal

system’s electrical and thermal performances as well as optimal flow rate that can provide

best cooling to the PV module, thereby enabling it to perform efficiently under a desired

operating condition can be predicted and analysed using RSM. It is an important technology

and has many application in different areas such as aerospace, automobile, biotechnology for

optimizing performances and improving the design of systems which makes it a concurrent

engineering tool (Myers et al., 2016).

From among the few studies carried out using RSM method include the work of Kazemian et

al. (2021) who developed different models to predict, electrical power, thermal power,

electrical exergy, thermal exergy and entropy generation for PV/T system incorporated with

PCM using RSM, the developed models yielded a desirability function of 0.85 implying that

the responses were accurately predicted. Also, Rejeb et al. (2020) Used RSM model to

examine the electrical and thermal efficiency behaviour of a nano-based PV/T collector.

From the model developed a strong correlation was achieved to prove that both heat transfer

coefficient and flow rate contributed to the optimal efficiencies achieved during the

experiment. Gelis et al. (2022) Experimentally investigated, the effects of using nano-fluids

on PV/T by applying RSM. The results shows that radiation, flow rate and volumetric

concentration of nano fluid strongly improve the efficiency of the system.

It is evident from the above that response surface methodology (RSM) being a very good

optimization tool has yet not been given much attention by most of the researchers for the

optimization of cooling flow rates in the photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) systems. Hence, the

main objective of this work, was to use the response surface methodology to determine the

optimum cooling flow rate for a hybrid PV/T system. An experimental study of the PV/T

5
system will be performed, using different set of transducers for the entire system’s

instrumentation. This design approach so far, to the best of authors knowledge has not been

implemented by any researcher, as such is a novel idea in the design of PV/T systems.

2.0 Materials and methods

2.1 Methodology Flow Chart

From the flow chart shown in Fig.1, a step-by-step approach for the research actualization has

been presented. Two similar conventional photovoltaic modules implemented for this work

were sourced, the specifications for the modules are presented in Table 1. A thermal collector

as shown in Fig. 4 was designed and fabricated. The fabricated collector was henceforth

retrofitted to one of the PV modules to serve as the photovoltaic thermal system. The PV/T

and the ordinary PV module were now used to conduct an experimental as discussed in the

subsequent sections.

Fig. 1: Methodology flow chart

6
2.2 Description of the (PV/T) system

The schematic diagrams for the hybrid photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) are presented in Fig. 2- 3

which comprises of the PV/T collector, supporting frame, DC pump and hose pipe for the

enabling force circulation of water into the system. The conventional photovoltaic (PV)

modules used for this experiment comprises of two identical units. A thermal collector

comprising of copper tubes as shown in Fig.4 was attached to the rear side of one the PV

modules while the other unit of PV was left without a collector. A Fibre glass material was

used to insulate the modified PV module from all edges before it was covered, in order to

avoid thermal losses. The hybrid water-based PV/T system and the conventional PV were

both mounted sided by side and was set at angle of 90 southwards based on the findings of

(Khatib et al., 2015) in the energy research center of Federal Polytechnic Bida, Niger State

Nigeria as shown in Fig.5. The experimental data for both systems were collected and tested

under the same climatic condition to enable proper validation of the experimental results.

Fig. 2: schematic view of the system set-up

7
Table 1: Specification of the PV module

Electrical Properties Specifications

maximum power (Pmax) (W) 250 W
voltage at Pmax (V) 30.4 V
current at Pmax (A) 8.22 A
open-circuit voltage (Voc) (V) 37.5 V
short-circuit current (Isc) (A) 8.74 A
cell type monocrystalline
module Efficiency (%) 15.54
dimensions (mm) 1638 (h) × 982 (w) × 40 (d)
weight (kg) 20

Fig. 3: Orthographic view of the system set-up

2.3 Experimental set-up

The experimental set-up diagram is presented in Fig.6. The PV/T system constituted several

components put together ranging from mechanical to electrical components. Table 2 shows a

detail instrumentation for the electrical components used for this experiment. Storage tanks,

supporting frames for both the PV modules and storage tank were part of the mechanical

components used as illustrated in Fig.5. The copper tube exit manifold of the thermal
8
collector was connected to a well-insulated water storage tank fabricated with a stainless-steel

material via a water hose pipe. Direct current (DC) water pump was used to supply a coolant

Fig. 4: Thermal collector

to the system by means of a forced circulation and in this case, water was used as the coolant.

The flow rate of the base fluid (water) was measured using a flow sensor attached to the exit

manifold of the copper tube which was integrated to the back of PV module. The heat

transfer fluid was circulated through the absorber copper tube manifolds to remove excess

heat from the PV panel.

Table 2: Electrical components instrumentation

Module/Device Function Technical specification

Temperature sensor temperature measurement DS18B20 (-55 to +125)
Voltage sensor voltage measurement Voltage divider network
Current sensor Current measurement ACS712 max.185 mV/A
Solar radiation sensor Radiation measurement DC 10V-30V
Flow rate sensor mass flow rate DC 5V-24V
Voltage regulator Voltage regulation Accuracy±0.05
DC brushless pump Active water flow DC 12V-20V

9
In order to have closed flow circuit for the working fluid contained in the storage tank, a

spiral type heat exchanger with a cyclic flow was used to cool the working fluid after being

heated up in the PV/T collector. This heat exchanger allows heat coming out from the outlet

copper manifolds to pass via the water inside the storage tank without the two fluids having a

direct contact. Therefore, the process of forced circulation continues until the fluid

temperature in the tank raises appreciably for domestic and other applications. The

experiment was conducted using parameters illustrated in Table 2. In the process of the

experiment quite a few numbers of modules/equipment’s were connected to the experimental

rig to obtain the real experimental data. Four temperature sensors were connected to the inlet

and outlet of the collector and PV surfaces to measure system temperatures respectively.

Also, voltage and current sensors were used to measure the load voltage and current while a

radiation sensor was used to measure solar intensity levels. The electrical structure of the

experimental set-up comprises of: battery, DC loads, charge controller, data acquisition

system. Data logger which is a software program was connected directly to a laptop computer

via USB to Serial (TTL) cable. This program transmits read command to the PV/T system,

then capture the parameters generated simultaneously from the PV/T system and then

transmit them back again to the software for further analysis.

10
Fig. 5: Experimental set-up of the PV/T system

2.4 Calculation of system performance

The performance of photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system was evaluated based on thermal and

electrical efficiency (Gelis et al., 2022; Kalateh et al., 2022; Kazemian et al., 2021; Rejeb et

al., 2020) as illustrated in equations 1-3

The useful energy of the collector was obtained by exposing the PV/T system to solar

radiation thereby measuring both inlet and outlet temperatures as shown using Eqn1 (Duffie

& Beckman, 2013)

(1)

The is the mass flow rate, is specific heat capacity of water while - denote the

11
difference between inlet and outlet temperatures of the collector respectively. While the

thermal efficiency ( ) signifies the performance of the PV/T system to generate heat and

is given as the ratio of useful heat gain to the overall incident irradiance on the PV/T

system (Aberoumand et al., 2018; Al-Waeli et al., 2018):

(2)

Where is the solar radiation intensity, is the collector area and is the amount of solar
radiation received by the PV panel.

Furthermore, the electrical efficiency of a PV module is given as the ratio of measured

output power to the overall incident solar radiation (Namjoo et al., 2011):

(3)

Where =PV panel area with and being the maximum current and voltage of the
panel respectively.
2.5 Uncertainty analysis

Several factors ranging from human errors to inherent errors of the equipment’s used during

the experimentation may affect the accuracy of the experimental results. In order to ascertain

the accuracy of the measured data it becomes imperative to eliminate such errors that may

arise. Therefore, the uncertainty equation for both thermal and electrical efficiency of the

PV/T system are estimated using the following equation (Holman, 2012; Kline, 1953).

(4)

12
Where represent the total uncertainty of the dependent variables, while the estimated

uncertainty values for the independent variables are respectively.

Table 3: Determination of uncertainty variables

Module Parameter Variable Experimental uncertainty

solar radiation sensor solar radiation ±0.50%
temperature sensor Temperature ±0.50%
voltage sensor Voltage ±0.50%
current sensor Current ±0.50%
Flow meter water flow rate ±0.06%

Therefore, estimating uncertainty values for the thermal measurement properties will be:

Similarly, uncertainty values for the electrical parameters were:

The overall value for the uncertainty now becomes:

The total uncertainty value obtained was below 5%, which implies that the data obtained

from the measuring devices were reliable and within the acceptable engineering

specifications.

2.6 Application of Response surface methodology (RSM)

13
Response surface methodology was used to develop a predictive develop that will determine

the relationship between the independent variables and the responses. It was wisely chosen

due to its flexibility and ability to be able to analyses complex interactions of the variables by

accurately approximating the values for the responses at optimum level. This second order

polynomial model is illustrated as follows (Kazemian et al., 2021; Myers et al., 2016):

(5)

Where Y represents response of the model, denotes the total number of factors and

indicates the values for linear, quadratic and interactive coefficients respectively

while is a constant which is the intercept value.

Central composite design (CCD) was done using four parameters to explore the effects of

variables on the responses. The input parameters considered in this study include: surface

temperature of PV module, useful energy of the collector, solar radiation and mass flow rate

while the responses were thermal efficiency and electrical efficiency respectively. Four

variables along with their coded and uncoded levels have been selected using the RSM design

has presented in Table 4. Similarly, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to validate the

model by establishing the interactions that exist between the process variables and the

responses respectively. Design Expert Software (version 12.0.1.0) implemented to generate

several response plots and contours that will enhance clear understanding of the interactions

between the process variables and the responses.

Table 4: Experimental values of coded and uncoded level of independent variables

Independent variables Units Symbol Coded levels

- -1 0 +1 +

14
PV surface O
C X1 28 34 40 45.81 52
Temperature
Useful energy gain J/s X2 -260 80 430 760 110
Radiation intensity W/m2 X3 -475 50 575 1100 1625
Flow rate kg/s X4 -0.008 0.036 0.09 0.144 0.196

3.0 Results and Discussion

3.1 Fitting the RSM model

Design of experiment (DOE) is a systematic series of test, in which decisive changes are

made to input certain factors during an experiment in order to identify causes of significant

changes that will result in the output responses. Thus, Response surface methodology (RSM)

which combines different statistical and numerical techniques for optimization process was

implemented in this study using design expert and ANOVA to investigate the effects of four

different parameters that affect response variables (electrical and thermal efficiency) of a

hybrid photovoltaic thermal system as presented in Table 4. A Second order coefficient of

polynomial equation were computed from the experimental data to predict the values of the

response variables. Regression equations obtained for the two response variables have been

presented in Eqn. 6-7

(6)

(7)

Thirty numbers of runs were performed for the RSM experiment using four levels of

independent variables with two responses as presented in Table 5. These experiments were

conducted using central composite designed with coded and uncoded values of independent

variables as shown in Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Table 7 shows that

15
experimental data actually represented the quadratic model, as it is obvious that coefficient of

determination for thermal and electrical efficiencies were 0.9305 and 0.9711 respectively as

presented in Table 8.

Table 5: Experimental values and their corresponding responses

C control factors Responses

Temperature Useful Energy Radiation Flow rate
(OC) (J/s) (W/m2) (kg/s) (%) (%)
1 39.00 760.00 555.12 0.036 81.46 1.21
2 40.00 753.66 452.32 0.036 104.14 1.33
3 41.50 723.51 323.82 0.036 139.64 1.42
4 40.00 711.46 380.36 0.036 116.90 1.26
5 42.00 412.00 287.84 0.036 89.46 1.57
6 43.00 155.76 1100.00 0.036 44.00 1.60
7 43.00 537.61 251.86 0.036 133.41 1.60
8 43.00 125.61 950.90 0.036 50.00 1.63
9 44.00 108.02 956.04 0.12 30.00 2.64
10 43.00 221.07 986.88 0.12 14.00 2.61
11 43.00 190.93 1007.44 0.12 11.84 5.60
12 42.38 379.84 600.00 0.12 419.88 5.94
13 42.19 416.02 500.00 0.144 421.55 5.33
14 41.56 173.34 450.00 0.144 210.78 6.69
15 46.00 406.98 169.62 0.144 149.96 3.65
16 45.81 442.15 164.48 0.144 168.01 3.83
17 44.00 442.15 133.64 0.144 206.78 3.91
18 42.00 203.49 102.80 0.144 123.72 4.67
19 41.94 406.98 97.66 0.144 260.45 4.84
20 41.75 406.98 97.66 0.144 260.45 4.60
21 41.50 341.66 97.66 0.144 218.65 4.99
22 41.38 341.66 97.66 0.144 218.65 4.91
23 41.19 346.68 92.52 0.12 234.20 5.09
24 39.75 316.54 82.24 0.12 240.56 5.40
25 39.63 316.54 77.10 0.12 256.60 5.76
26 39.50 286.39 77.10 0.12 232.16 5.57
27 39.13 281.37 71.96 0.06 244.38 6.06
28 38.00 155.76 74.00 0.06 210.44 8.89
29 37.50 125.61 75.00 0.06 190.92 10.15
30 34.00 80.00 50.00 0.06 317.69 22.32

16
Similarly, statistical analysis presented has shown that probability values were < 0.0500

which indicates that the model terms are significant since values with > 0.1000 indicates

that model terms are not significant. It is worth mentioning that both predicted and

experimental values were at close ranges as depicted in and Fig. 7, indicating the accuracy of

the developed model. Table 7 shows -values of 14.34 and 63.78 with less than 0.0001

for both thermal and electrical efficiencies which signifies that the model was reliable and

could be used for predicting both thermal and electrical efficiency with a considerable

accuracy.

Fig. 6: Thermal efficiency Versus Time

17
From the ANOVA results presented in Table 7, it is evident that the most important effects of

independent variables for the electrical efficiency, that emerges in the analysis were

whereas the values for were less significant in the interactions and as such were

discarded in the model developed as presented in Eqn. (7) of the second order polynomial

equation. Additionally, in order to measure the signal to noise ratio, adequate precision values

were calculated and values greater than 4 were obtained:14.490 and 40.138 which shows that

the developed model can be used to navigate the design space to perform predictions

accordingly.

Table 7: ANOVA Results

Source sum of squares D.F mean of square F-value P-value

2.998E+0
450.02 14 10 21415.40 45.05 14.34 63.78 0.0001 0.0001
5
1.55 1 1 6018.40 1.55 4.03 2.20 0.0631 0.1544
6018.40
1022.94 5.93 1 1 1022.94 5.93 0.6850 8.39 0.4208 0.0092
12666.15 2.51 1 1 12666.15 2.51 8.48 3.55 0.0107 0.0748
54.80 2.29 1 1 54.80 2.29 0.0367 3.24 0.8507 0.0878
<0.000
4558.27 43.11 1 1 4558.27 43.11 3.05 61.03 0.1011
1
11311.19 0.0727 1 1 11311.19 0.0727 7.57 0.1029 0.0148 0.7519
1538.72 6.37 1 1 1538.72 6.37 1.03 9.01 0.3262 0.0073
747.31 0.0945 1 1 747.31 0.0945 0.5004 0.1337 0.4902 0.7187
919.54 0.6631 1 1 919.54 0.6631 0.6158 0.9387 0.4448 0.3448
6883.86 0.6543 1 1 6883.86 0.6543 4.61 0.9262 0.0485 0.3479
5055.00 1 5055.00 3.38 0.0857
3268.45 1 3268.45 2.19 0.1597
39969.12 1 39969.12 26.76 0.0001
3341.05 1 3341.05 2.24 0.1555
Residua
22400.41 13.42 15 19 1493.36 0.7064
l
3.222E+0
Total 463.95 29 29
5

Fig. 6 presents the relationship between the experimental values versus simulated values by

applying response surface methodology. This a nonlinear graph exhibiting similar trend

18
geometry. Highest thermal efficiency of about 400% was recorded at a period when the

radiation was at its maximum and the lowest thermal efficiency recorded to be 20% when the

solar intensity was at its minimum point.

Table 8: Model summary

model R-sq R-sq (adj) R.sq(pred) Adq. prec

0.9305 0.8565 0.4139 14.4898
0.9711 0.9558 0.8561 40.1383

Fig.7: Comparison between PV/T system with cooling and conventional PV module

Fig. 7, shows the comparison between the two different photovoltaic systems used for the

experimental study. A thermal collector was retrofitted to one of the PV modules as shown in

Fig. 5 while the other PV was left ordinarily without a collector. The figure shows clearly that

temperature of the conventional PV gradually rises to over 60 0C due to an increased intensity

of solar radiation while the temperature of PV/T system with cooling method never exceeded

43 0C throughout the period of the experiment. This was as a result of heat extraction

underneath the surface of the PV module.

19
Table 9: Comparison between predict optimization values and experimental results

Numbe
r
Predicte experiment predicte experiment
d al d al
1018.2
1 43.58 760 9 0.144 421.55 425.01 7.18 9.45
2 43.16 760 878.68 0.138 471.96 450.22 6.48 8.33

Three-dimensional (3 D) response surface and contour plots for the fitted quadratic model are

shown in Fig. 8 (a)-(c). As could be observed, the two plots were presented side by

(a)

(b)

20
(c)

Fig. 8: Response surface and contours plots for as a function of (a) flow rate and T

surface (b) radiation and T surface and (c) useful energy and T surface respectively.

(a)

(b)

21
(c)

Fig. 9: Response surface and contours plots for as a function of (a) radiation and useful

energy (b) flow rate and radiation (c) flow rate and useful energy respect to input variables.

(a)

(b)

22
(c)

Fig. 10: Response surface and contours and contour plots for as a function of (a) useful
energy and T surface (b) radiation and T surface (c) flow rate and T surface.

(a
)

23
(b)

(c)
Fig. 11: Response surface and contours plots for as a function of (a) useful energy and

radiation (b) flow rate and radiation (c)flow rate and useful energy respectively.

24
(a)

(b)

Fig. 12: Diagnostic plots for (a) predicted versus actual and (b) normal plots of residuals for

both thermal and electrical efficiency.

side because simply because the contours plots which are those plots placed by the right-hand

side, assist in giving clear visualization of response surface plots by showing the complexity

of interactions existing between the control factors and responses. Fig. 8(a) shows the

combined effect of surface temperature and flow rate on the thermal efficiency of the

photovoltaic thermal system. The two independent variables had a linear effect on the

response variable. The plots indicate that maximum thermal efficiency is about 400 0C with a

corresponding increment in the amount of surface temperature as much heat is withdrawn

underneath the PV surface by heat transfer fluid. Fig. 8(b) depicts the interactive effect

between radiation and surface temperature on the thermal efficiency. The thermal efficiency

of the PV/T system is a function of radiation and surface temperature. Thus, changes in

25
surface temperature produces resulted to increase in at higher solar intensity than at

lower solar intensity. Fig. 9(c) exhibited similar physical phenomenon, since increase in

radiation improves the heat transfer coefficient by conduction between the PV and absorber

plate which ultimately lead to higher of the system.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 13: Diagnostic plots for (a) interaction (b) perturbation, for both thermal and electrical efficiency.

Fig. 9(a)-(c) shows different interactions of control factors on thermal efficiency. The

influence of useful energy and radiation on is represented in Fig. 9(a). The two factors

have significant effect on the response variable, as both variables increase with an increase in

of the system. Useful energy of photovoltaic system shows how well the collector is

performing. This implies how efficiently the collector is extracting heat underneath the PV

module via the heat transfer medium (Duffie & Beckman, 2013). Fig. 9(b) explicate the
26
Fig.14: Variation between thermal efficiency and mass flow rate

combine influence of radiation and flow rate on , increase in radiation improves heat

transfer by conduction, as such a corresponding increase in the mass flow rate will result to

more extraction of thermal energy from the surface of the PV thereby increasing the overall

thermal efficiency of the system. This was in agreement with the work carried out by

(Gelis et al., 2022; Javidan & Moghadam, 2021; Rejeb et al., 2020). Further elaboration has

been presented in Fig. 9(c) where the contour plots depicted maximum thermal efficiency at

300% and useful energy at 450 with a corresponding flow rate of 0.068 . This

implies that substantial amount of heat was extracted underneath PV surface as a result of

27
thermal conduction that was taking place between the heat transfer fluid and the absorber

plate, thereby leading to a high thermal efficiency recovery.

At this juncture, it is crucial to note that when considering Fig. 8-9 as a single entity, shows

that flow rate, solar intensity, collector heat removal factor and surface temperature of the PV

module have positive effect on thermal efficiency enhancement. Similarly, the variations in

electrical efficiency with surface temperature, with respect to useful energy, radiation and

mass flow rate were presented in Fig. 10 (a), (b) and (c) respectively. Critically observing

Fig. 10(a) shows that both PV surface temperature and useful energy exhibit an inverse

relationship with the thermal efficiency. These two factors have a negative effect on the

electrical efficiency.

Fig.15: Variation between electrical efficiency and mass flow rate

28
It can be seen from Fig 10(b) that electrical efficiency and radiation were at maximum when

the surface temperature was low. The reason being that at an initial point the surface

temperature was high but when cooling began it gradually decreases. This decrease was as a

result of the cooling effect over the PV surface temperature which thereby increases the

electrical efficiency, and is in line with the work carried out by (Deng et al., 2020; Kazemian

et al., 2021). Similarly, the effects of surface temperature and flow rate are presented in Fig.

10(c). There is an inverse relationship between the surface temperature and the electrical

efficiency. Since increase in mass flow rate of the heat transfer fluid leads to decrease in

surface temperature of the PV module which eventually improves the electrical efficiency of

the system. PV modules work optimally when its surface temperature is close to the standard

operating condition (Lupu et al., 2018; Pathak et al., 2022).

Fig.11(a)- (c) illustrates the interactive effect between radiation, useful energy and mass flow

rate on the electrical efficiency. The influence of useful energy and radiation on the electrical

efficiency is presented in Fig. 11(a) and it is seen that increase in the useful energy as a result

of increase the electrical efficiency of the PV at a higher solar intensity than at lower solar

intensity (Goswami, 2022). Also, considering Fig. 11(b) and (c), by carefully examining the

interactions taking place, it could be deduced that the rate of useful energy extracted by the

collector is directly proportional to the quantity of radiation absorbed from the PV surface

module. Basically, is expressed in terms of the amount of heat transfer coefficient carried

away in the fluid passing via the collector as presented in Eqn. (2) (Duffie & Beckman,

2013). In essence, increase in electrical efficiency of the PV/T system arises as a result of the

increased mass flow rate which conversely lead to the decrease of the PV surface

temperature. Thus, the electrical efficiency of PV is improved when surface temperature of

the PV is moderated by cooling with a considerable amount of solar radiation.

29
Moreso, probability plots with strong coefficient of determination values have been

presented in Fig. 12(a). Thus, it was observed that a strong correlation exists between the

RSM predicted output and the experimental results. Accessing model fitness, values are

pertinent indicators to be considered, where values of close to 1 indicate the best fitness

(Zhang et al., 2022). Fig. 12(b) illustrate the probability plots for both and , which

displays how the residuals have been evenly distributed along the straight line with their

deviations very close to the straight line. This implies that there is a strong accuracy in the

developed model.

Nevertheless, in order to examine critical interactive effects between the operating variables

and the response variables, perturbation and interaction plots were also presented in Fig.

13(a) and (b) respectively. By carefully observing the thermal efficiency plots, it could be

observed that solar intensity, surface temperature of the PV module, useful energy and flow

rate respectively were the most influential factors that enhancing the thermal efficiency of the

PV/T system since all these factors increase with a corresponding increase in the thermal

efficiency. Conversely, only radiation and flow rate were noted to be increasing as electrical

efficiency increases. Both temperature and useful energy were observed declining while the

electrical efficiency was increasing. Interestingly, this inverse relationship could be attributed

to the fact that there is always a decrease in the electrical output efficiency each time PV

surface is overheated due to exposure to intense solar radiation (Siecker et al., 2017).

Thus, the best way to proffer possible solution to problem above is by introducing a heat

transfer cooling fluid that can withdraw this excess heat which has risen and accumulated

inside the collector. Therefore, when cooling fluid is introduced, gradually the excess heat

will be unleashed out and both useful energy as well as the surface temperature will steadily

decrease which will correspondingly increase the electrical efficiency.

30
The optimal values obtained for the two response variables have been depicted in Fig. 14 and

15 respectively. Numerical optimization was performed using the design expert software to

determine the optimum values for both thermal and electrical efficiencies. The optimum

values suggested by the software were 421.55% with a mass flow rate of 0.144 kg/s for the

thermal efficiency as shown in Fig. 15, while 7.18% with a corresponding mass flow rate of

0.144 kg/s for the electrical efficiency as illustrated in Fig. 16. These values when compared

to values obtained after conducting additional experiment were found to be in agreement as

presented in Table 9.

3.2 Optimization of operating variables

Design expert software was used to produce three-dimensional response surface plots and

contours to visualize complex interactions of operating variables on response variables. To

achieve these, several plots were generated by varying useful energy, radiation and flow rate

within experimental ranges while keeping temperature constant as illustrated in Fig. 9 – 12.

Numerical optimization was henceforth executed in order determine the optimum operating

conditions for PV/T system using the optimization tool encamped inside the design expert

framework. Therefore, in-order to obtain maximum thermal and electrical efficiencies,

minimum level of surface temperature, maximum flow rate, useful energy and radiation were

selected respectively. Sixty-nine different solutions containing different levels of operating

parameters were found and two solutions with the maximum desirability value were selected

as the optimized operating condition for the photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system.

3.3 Authentication of RSM Model

The optimized operating variables which were obtained for both electrical and thermal

efficiencies via RSM optimization approach were further explored by conducting another two

different experiments for authentication purposes. This was purposely done in order to be

31
able to compare the RSM model results with the experimental result as presented in Table 8

which were found to be similar as compared to the work of (Gelis et al., 2022; Kazemian et

al., 2021; Rusdi et al., 2019). Thus, for the RSM model, optimum values suggested for both

thermal and electrical efficiencies were 421.55% and 7.18% for the initial optimization while

471.96% and 6.48% for the second numerical optimization. Similarly, the optimum values for

both thermal and electrical efficiencies were 425.01% and 9.45% for the first experiment

conducted while 450.22% and 8.33% for the second experimental respectively. The

experimental results obtained were highly in agreement with the predicted RSM model,

which shows that the model can be used for similar response predictions.

4.0 Conclusion

In this paper, an experimental work for a water-based PV/T system was conducted using

different sets of transducers for the entire system’s instrumentation. Concisely, some of the

salient results and achievements explored from this work are hereby summarized below:

 Thermal and electrical efficiencies of the water-based PV/T system were

modelled and analyzed using RSM with four deferent sets of independent

variables.

 The values for the two models developed were 0.9305 and 0.9711 which

shows that the mathematical model was reliable and can be used for predictions

with reasonable accuracy at 95% confidence level.

 Optimum values were obtained through numerical optimization, with 43.5 0C,

760 J/s, 1018.29 W/m2 and 0.144 kg/s being suggested values for surface

temperature, useful energy, solar radiation and mass flow rate respectively.

 Experimental confirmation test was carried out under two optimum optimization

variables and were authenticated, access and verified by comparing the predicted

32
 values alongside with the experimental results.

 The predicted values were well in conformity with the experimental results which

therefore attest to the veracity and accuracy for the predicted models.

referenc
e therm elect total eff
1 35.33 12.77 48.1
2 61.3 61.3
3 7.5 51.6 59.1
4 9 30 39
5 11.6 58.6 70.2
6 45 13 58
7 11 51 62
8 10.4 55 65.4
9 10.15 45 55.15

References

Abdelrazik, A. S., Al-Sulaiman, F., Saidur, R., & Ben-Mansour, R. (2018). A review on recent
development for the design and packaging of hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar
systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 95, 110-129.
Aberoumand, S., Ghamari, S., & Shabani, B. (2018). Energy and exergy analysis of a photovoltaic
thermal (PV/T) system using nanofluids: An experimental study. Solar Energy, 165, 167-177.
Al-Waeli, A. H., Sopian, K., Kazem, H. A., Yousif, J. H., Chaichan, M. T., Ibrahim, A., Mat, S., & Ruslan,
M. H. (2018). Comparison of prediction methods of PV/T nanofluid and nano-PCM system
using a measured dataset and artificial neural network. Solar Energy, 162, 378-396.
Deng, H., Yang, X., Tian, R., Hu, J., Zhang, B., Cui, F., & Guo, G. (2020). Modeling and optimization of
solar thermal-photovoltaic vacuum membrane distillation system by response surface
methodology. Solar Energy, 195, 230-238.
Duffie, J. A., & Beckman, W. A. (2013). Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes (Fourth ed.).
Elsayed, K., & Lacor, C. (2011). Modeling, analysis and optimization of aircyclones using artificial
neural network, response surface methodology and CFD simulation approaches. Powder
technology, 212(1), 115-133.
Gaur, A., Ménézo, C., & Giroux, S. (2017). Numerical studies on thermal and electrical performance
of a fully wetted absorber PVT collector with PCM as a storage medium. Renewable Energy,
109, 168-187.
Gelis, K., Celik, A. N., Ozbek, K., & Ozyurt, O. (2022). Experimental investigation into efficiency of
SiO2/water-based nanofluids in photovoltaic thermal systems using response surface
methodology. Solar Energy, 235, 229-241.
Goswami, D. Y. (2022). Principles of solar engineering: CRC Press.
Herrando, M., Markides, C. N., & Hellgardt, K. (2014). A UK-based assessment of hybrid PV and solar-
thermal systems for domestic heating and power: system performance. Applied Energy, 122,
288-309.
Holman, J. P. (2012). Experimental methods for engineers.

33
Hu, J., Chen, W., Yang, D., Zhao, B., Song, H., & Ge, B. (2016). Energy performance of ETFE cushion
roof integrated photovoltaic/thermal system on hot and cold days. Applied Energy, 173, 40-
51.
Jaaz, A. H., Sopian, K., & Gaaz, T. S. (2018). Study of the electrical and thermal performances of
photovoltaic thermal collector-compound parabolic concentrated. Results in Physics, 9, 500-
510.
Javidan, M., & Moghadam, A. J. (2021). Experimental investigation on thermal management of a
photovoltaic module using water-jet impingement cooling. Energy Conversion and
Management, 228, 113686.
Kalateh, M. R., Kianifar, A., & Sardarabadi, M. (2022). Energy, exergy, and entropy generation
analyses of a water-based photovoltaic thermal system equipped with clockwise counter-
clockwise twisted tapes: An indoor experimental study. Applied Thermal Engineering,
118906.
Kazemian, A., Khatibi, M., & Ma, T. (2021). Performance prediction and optimization of a
photovoltaic thermal system integrated with phase change material using response surface
method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 290, 125748.
Khatib, T., Mohamed, A., Mahmoud, M., & Sopian, K. (2015). Optimization of the tilt angle of solar
panels for Malaysia. Energy sources, part A: Recovery, utilization, and environmental effects,
37(6), 606-613.
Kline, S. J. (1953). Describing uncertainty in single sample experiments. Mech. Engineering, 75, 3-8.
Kumar, R. R., Samykano, M., Pandey, A., Kadirgama, K., & Tyagi, V. (2020). Phase change materials
and nano-enhanced phase change materials for thermal energy storage in photovoltaic
thermal systems: A futuristic approach and its technical challenges. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133, 110341.
Lupu, A., Homutescu, V., Balanescu, D., & Popescu, e. A. (2018). A review of solar photovoltaic
systems cooling technologies. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering.
Mehmood, T., Ahmed, A., Ahmed, Z., & Ahmad, M. S. (2019). Optimization of soya lecithin and
Tween 80 based novel vitamin D nanoemulsions prepared by ultrasonication using response
surface methodology. Food chemistry, 289, 664-670.
Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., & Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2016). Response surface methodology:
process and product optimization using designed experiments: John Wiley & Sons.
Namjoo, A., Sarhaddi, F., Sobhnamayan, F., Alavi, M., Mahdavi Adeli, M., & Farahat, S. (2011). Exergy
performance analysis of solar photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) air collectors in terms of exergy
losses. Journal of the Energy Institute, 84(3), 132-145.
Odeh, S., & Behnia, M. (2009). Improving photovoltaic module efficiency using water cooling. Heat
Transfer Engineering, 30(6), 499-505.
Pathak, S. K., Sharma, P. O., Goel, V., Bhattacharyya, S., Aybar, H. Ş., & Meyer, J. P. (2022). A detailed
review on the performance of photovoltaic/thermal system using various cooling methods.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101844.
Rahman, S., Sarker, M., Mandal, S., & Beg, M. (2018). Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a
Stand-Alone PV/T System to Improve its Efficiency. Sch J Appl Sci Res, 1, 28-33.
Rejeb, O., Ghenai, C., Jomaa, M. H., & Bettayeb, M. (2020). Statistical study of a solar nanofluid
photovoltaic thermal collector performance using response surface methodology. Case
Studies in Thermal Engineering, 21, 100721.
Rusdi, M., Abdullah, M., Chellvarajoo, S., Aziz, A., Abdullah, M., Rethinasamy, P., Veerasamy, S., &
Santhanasamy, D. G. (2019). Stencil printing process performance on various aperture size
and optimization for lead-free solder paste. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 102(9), 3369-3379.

34
Sardarabadi, M., Passandideh-Fard, M., Maghrebi, M.-J., & Ghazikhani, M. (2017). Experimental
study of using both ZnO/water nanofluid and phase change material (PCM) in photovoltaic
thermal systems. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 161, 62-69.
Siecker, J., Kusakana, K., & Numbi, B. (2018). Economic analysis of photovoltaic/thermal systems with
forced circulation under optimal switching control. Paper presented at the 2018 International
Conference on the Domestic Use of Energy (DUE).
Siecker, J., Kusakana, K., & Numbi, e. B. (2017). A review of solar photovoltaic systems cooling
technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 192-203.
Su, D., Jia, Y., Lin, Y., & Fang, G. (2017). Maximizing the energy output of a photovoltaic–thermal
solar collector incorporating phase change materials. Energy and Buildings, 153, 382-391.
Touafek, K., Haddadi, M., & Malek, A. (2009). Experimental study on a new hybrid photovoltaic
thermal collector. Applied solar energy, 45(3), 181-186.
Touafek, K., Khelifa, A., & Adouane, M. (2014). Theoretical and experimental study of sheet and
tubes hybrid PVT collector. Energy Conversion and Management, 80, 71-77.
Yesildal, F., Ozakin, A. N., & Yakut, K. (2022). Optimization of operational parameters for a
photovoltaic panel cooled by spray cooling. Engineering Science and Technology, an
International Journal, 25, 100983.
Yu, Q., Chen, X., & Yang, H. (2021). Research progress on utilization of phase change materials in
photovoltaic/thermal systems: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
149, 111313.
Zhang, S., Jing, J., Qin, M., Zhang, W., Shan, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2022). Experimental study and models of
the settling of sand in heavy oil. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 110930.

35