Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Performance modelling of photovoltaic modules under actual operating

conditions considering loss mechanism and energy distribution
Tao Ma a, *, Zichang Guo b, Lu Shen a, Xing Liu c, Zhenwu Chen c, Yong Zhou c, Xiaochun Zhang c, *
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
b
School of Environmental and Biological Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China
c
Shenzhen Urban Transport Planning Center Co., LTD, Shenzhen, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• A coupled model is developed to simu­

late PV performance under actual
conditions.
• The electrical-thermal performance is
validated through experiments.
• Loss mechanism and energy distribution
of PV module is investigated in detail.
• Potential solutions are provided for
better PV thermal regulation and effi­
ciency improvement.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Performance prediction and efficiency improvement are two major focuses in the research area of solar photo­
Photovoltaic (PV) modelling voltaic (PV) applications. However, the uncertainty of environmental factors and the complexity of the photo­
Performance prediction electric conversion mechanism pose a grand challenge to accurately predict the dynamic performance of PV
Thermal management
modules under actual operating conditions. Besides, without a clear understanding of the relationship between
Efficiency improvement
Loss mechanism
energy loss processes and operation conditions, it is hard to suggest specific measures for efficiency improve­
Five-parameter model ment. In this paper, a coupled model, which consists of an electrical model, a thermal model and an energy loss
Thermal resistance model model, is developed to predict the electrical-thermal performance and quantify the power loss of crystalline
silicon PV modules under actual operating conditions. To validate the coupled model, a series of experiments
were implemented, demonstrating that the calculated results agree very well with the simulated ones despite
sunny or cloudy days. The study demonstrates that, on a typical sunny day, the energy loss occurring in the solar
cell and from cell to module accounts for 71.1% and 14.6% respectively, and more than 60%of those losses will
be dissipated as heat, which has a negative impact on solar PV performance. Finally, on account of various loss
mechanisms, different mitigation measures, such as how to reduce thermalization loss, are suggested for PV
temperature control and efficiency enhancement.

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: tao.ma@connect.polyu.hk (T. Ma), XC_Zhang_sutpc@126.com (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117205
Received 10 March 2021; Received in revised form 7 May 2021; Accepted 26 May 2021
Available online 10 June 2021
0306-2619/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Nomenclature Tgroud Temperature of the ground (◦ C)

εs Sky emissivity
Abbreviations Pv Water vapor partial pressure (Pa)
PV Photovoltaic Cp Specific heat of the material (J/(kg. ◦ C))
STC Standard test condition αg Absorption coefficient of the glass
NOCT Nominal operating cell temperature αEVA Absorption coefficient of the EVA film
EVA Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer ρ Density of the material (kg/m3)
CTM Cell to module Rcon Contact thermal resistance between the layers (K/W)
PFD Photon flux density t Timestep (s)
SRH Shockley Read Hall Qtotal Total heat source (J)
SQ Shockley and Queisser Pincident Total incident irradiance (W/m2)
Poptical Reflection and absorption loss (W/m2)
Symbols and Subscript Pentering Rest of incident irradiance (W/m2)
VOC Open circuit voltage (V) R(λ) Global reflection coefficient
ISC Short circuit current (A) α(λ) Global transmission coefficient
VMMP Voltage at MPP (V) Rtotal Weighted optical loss coefficient
IMMP Current at MPP (A) Eg Bandgap of the semiconductor material (eV)
FF Fill factor (%) Ephoton Photon energy (kWh/m2)
Iph Photocurrent (A) Qsub Sub-bandgap loss (kWh/m2)
cosnI0 Reverse saturated current (A) Qth Thermalization loss (kWh/m2)
Rs Series resistance (Ω) Qspetrum Spectrum-mismatch loss (kWh/m2)
Rsh Shunt resistance (Ω) Qseries Series resistance loss (kWh/m2)
m Diode ideality factor Qshunt Shunt resistance loss (kWh/m2)
I Net current (A) Vshunt Voltage of the shunt path (V)
ID Dark current (A) Jshunt Current of the shunt path (A)
Ish Leakage current (A) ERE External radiative efficiency (%)
K Boltzmann’s constant (1.381E − 23 J/K)
EQE External quantum weighted average efficiency (%)
Tc Cell temperature (◦ C)
c Speed of light (2.998*E8 m/s)
Ta Ambient temperature (◦ C)
h Planck constant (6.63*E-34 J/s)
G Solar irradiance (W/m2)
Ωemit Solid angle of emission
Idiff Reverse saturation diffusing current (A)
Ωabs Solid angle of absorption
Irad Radiative current (A)
Qnrrj Current drop loss by non-radiative recombination (kWh/
Iscr Space charge region current (A)
m2)
Rcs Series resistance of the cell (Ω)
Qnrrv Voltage drop loss by non-radiative recombination (kWh/
Rcsh Shunt resistance of the cell (Ω)
m2)
Vt Diode thermal voltage (V)
QCarnot Carnot loss (kWh/m2)
q Elementary charge (1.6 × 10-19C)
Qangle Angle mismatch loss (kWh/m2)
Ns Number of cells included in a module
Ts Sun temperature (5800 K)
α Temperature coefficient of the short circuit current (%/◦ C)
Pin Reflection loss in interconnection (kWh/m2)
β Temperature coefficient of the open-circuit voltage (%/◦ C)
Aborder Area from module edge to cell edge (m2)
δ Thickness of the layer (mm)
Acell spacing Area between cells (m2)
λ Thermal conductivity of the layer (W/(m.K))
Acell Area of silicon wafer (m2)
A Area of the layer (m2)
Amod Total module area (m2)
Ri-j Conduction thermal resistance between the layer i and
Pcell Actual output power of individual solar cell (m2)
layer j (K/W)
Np Number of parallel cells in a module
u Ambient wind speed (m/s)
Qin Resistive loss in interconnection (kWh/m2)
APV Cell area (m2)
ρribbon Conductivity of the ribbon
Amodule Module area (m2)
Reff Equivalent resistance in the interconnection (Ω)
Rcon,g Convection thermal resistance of glass (K/W)
Pmodule-output Module output power (W)
Rcon,b Convection thermal resistance of back sheet (K/W)
Δt Time interval (s)
hrad,g Radiative heat coefficient of glass (W/(m2.K))
tmax Last data collection point
hrad,b Radiative heat coefficient of back sheet (W/(m2.K))
R2 Coefficient of determination
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8 W⋅m− 2⋅K− 4)
yi Measured data
Tg Temperature of the glass (◦ C)
fi Simulated data
Tsky Temperature of the sky (◦ C)
y Arithmetic mean of the measured data
Tb Temperature of the back sheet (◦ C)

1. Introduction
The burning of traditional fossil fuel is considered the main culprit
when it comes to climate change and global warming, and the only hope
of cutting down carbon dioxide emissions is to find a sustainable and
clean solution to generate electricity and power our society [1]. This is
perhaps the most important reason for developing renewable energy,
such as solar energy, which is becoming commonplace in our society.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) has attracted substantial supports from both the
government and citizens [2–4]. According to a recent report from In­
ternational Renewable Energy Agency, the cumulative global capacity
of PV installation has reached to 714 GW while ten years ago it was only

2
T. Ma et al.
15 GW [5]. Moreover, solar energy is now beginning to offer competitive
and even lower prices concerning the electricity from fossil fuel [6,7].
In the research field of PV systems and applications, performance
modelling/prediction and efficiency promotion are always the two
major focuses [8,9]. However, the advancement of this research is
confronted with practical obstacles. Firstly, the PV device has different
operating performance between standard test condition (STC) and
actual conditions, because of the complicated environmental factors,
including solar irradiance, cloud distribution, ambient temperature and
surrounding wind speed [10,11]. On a sunny day, the irradiance and
output electricity are quite stable while on the cloudy or rainy day, the
situation certainly becomes more complicated [12,13]. Moreover, the
working mechanisms of the PV device is complex and fantastic. As the
main form of energy transmission in the circuit, the status of the carries
during the generation, transportation and recombination process affect
the final performance of the PV device. Furthermore, its electrical per­
formance always interacts with the thermal performance, which also has
a close relationship with the energy loss processes of the PV device,
revealing that the base of the performance promotion is to figure out the
loss generation in the whole photoelectric conversion process.
In this context, different methods to simulate PV performance and
quantify losses in PV devices have emerged [10,14–16]. The single-point
efficiency model is a simplified mathematical model to calculate the
energy yield of a PV system [17]. The only inputs are the area of the PV
array, the efficiency at STC and the total irradiance in the plane of array,
it can get the results quickly while its output is quite rough without high
precision [10]. Therefore, more models with high complexity and ac­
curacy have been developed, in which the equivalent circuit model is the
most widely used one [18]. Based on the number of unknown parame­
ters, this model can be classified into the three-parameter model, four-
parameter model, five-parameter model and seven-parameter model
[19,20]. Mihet-Popa et al. [21] put forward a single-diode four-param­
eter model to predict the electrical performance under STC and imple­
mented this model in MATLAB/Simulink. Ma et al. [22,23] developed a
five-parameter model of crystalline silicon PV modules on the basis of
the data provided by the manufacturer, and the simulated curve has a
very good agreement with the measured curve [10]. Attivissimo et al.
[24] described a theoretical approach to evaluate the uncertainty on the
shunt and series resistances of the seven-parameter model. This method
had high accuracy but required a complex finite element model and
much computation time. Moreover, some research has been conducted
in the field of thermal energy storage and thermal management of solar
panels in real operation conditions [25–29].
Regarding the thermal performance modeling, the nominal oper­
ating cell temperature (NOCT) model [30] and Sandia model [31] are
the most commonly used models at present. Besides, Vogt et al. [32]
used the finite element method and ray-tracing simulation to simulate
complex multi-physical heat sources in solar PV modules. Tina et al.
[33] established empirical formulas for temperature prediction of PV
modules based on ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction,
total irradiance and relative humidity, and tracked module temperature
and maximum power point through the model. Those models provide
references for PV temperature simulation, while the mechanism behind
PV temperature rise was not clear in the literature.
Some research has also been conducted on the loss process and heat
generation of the PV module. Yang et al. [34] and Zhang et al. [35]
analyzed the optical loss of PV module and some approaches were
employed to weaken these losses, while the thermal loss was not
mentioned. Besides, the below band-gap and thermalization losses were
investigated by Nelson et al. [36], the five intrinsic loss processes were
studied and qualified by Louise et al. [37]. The literature reveals that
intrinsic loss is the dominant one but in real PV modules, other loss
mechanisms have obvious impacts on efficiency.
Based on the above literature review, although substantial studies
have been conducted to simulate the module performance and loss
process, it is a pity that, at present, there is no empirical formula to
3
Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205
describe the profile of the solar spectrum at each certain moment. There
is rare research on the coupling analysis of PV electrical-thermal per­
formance under actual operating conditions. Besides, the available
research has limited discussion about the relationship between the
electrical performance and its energy loss process, and the relationship
between thermal performance and heat generation and dissipation. In
this context, a coupled model that combines an electrical model, a
thermal model and an energy loss model is developed in this paper, to
simulate PV output performance and its energy distribution under actual
operating conditions. The intermittence of environmental factors and
photoelectric conversion mechanisms are fully discussed, with solar
irradiance, ambient temperature and wind speed as inputs of the pro­
posed coupled model. Besides, the absorption and reflection of the
incident light, the transportation and recombination of carriers, the
generation and dissipation of heat are taken into consideration as well.
To verify the model in electrical and thermal performance simulation, a
series of experiments have been conducted. Furthermore, the model
could be contributed to figuring out the key factors hindering the effi­
ciency of PV modules, to provide a theoretical basis and suggestions for
developing high-efficiency PV modules.
2. Development of the coupled model
Usually, the specifications of the PV module are provided by the
manufacture under STC, while it is meaningful to understand its real
operating performance under actual operating conditions. In this
context, a coupled model is developed to simulate the electrical-thermal
performance of PV modules under actual operating conditions. This
coupled model, containing the electrical model, thermal model and
energy loss model, is introduced in great details in the following sub­
sections, the coupling and decoupling process are described in Section
2.5.
2.1. Modelling of electrical performance
The electrical model is used to describe the electrical characteristic
and power output of PV device. Currently, the five-parameter (5p)
model based on the one-diode equation is the most widely used one for
crystalline silicon PV. Such a model, which offers a good compromise
between accuracy and simplicity, has been studied in the authors’ pre­
vious research [10,23,38,39], and it can also establish the link between
the specification parameters provided by the manufacturer and five vital
parameters. Therefore, the 5p model is also employed in the current
study.
A solar cell can be modelled by an equivalent circuit with a current
source, an anti-parallel diode (D), a shunt resistance (Rsh) and a series
resistance (Rs). According to the above five-parameter model, the I-V
curve can be obtained, and the main characteristic parameters can be
observed easily, such as the short-circuit current (ISC), open-circuit
voltage (VOC), working voltage at maximum power point (VMMP), cur­
rent at maximum power point (IMMP) and fill factor (FF), as presented in
I
Rs
IdId
G Iph
Iph
Rsh V
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit diagram of the five-parameter model.
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Fig. 1. The net output current (I) under actual operating condition is the
difference between photocurrent (Iph), dark current (ID) and leakage
current (Ish), as expressed in Eq. (1):
I(V) = Iph (V) − ID (V) − Ish (V) (1)

When the solar cell is in the heat equilibrium state, Id could be

expressed based on the well-known Shockley diode equation [40]:
[ ( ) ]
qV
Id (V) = Io exp − 1 (2)
KTc

where K is the Boltzmann’s constant.

Besides, the cell temperature (Tc) could be determined as:
TNOCT − 20
Tc = Ta + G (3)
800

where TNOCT and Ta are the nominal operating cell temperature (oC) and
ambient temperature (oC), respectively, which can be obtained from the
PV module’s specification; G is the solar irradiance.
Therefore, when the solar cell is in heat non-equilibrium state, Id can
be further depicted as:
ID (V) = Idiff (V) + Irad (V) + Iscr (V) (4)

where Idiff, Irad and Iscr refer to reverse diode saturation diffusing current,
radiative current and space charge region current, respectively.
These three reverse saturation current play different roles in different
types of p-n junction. For the silicon solar cell, the recombination in the Fig. 2. The relationship between the parameters under different opera­
space charge region is very low, so Irad can be neglected [41]. As other tion conditions.
mechanisms lead to reverse saturation current, the ideality factor n is
employed to improve the Shockley diode equation, as expressed intrinsic parameters, the five vital parameters can be considered as the
[ ( ) ]
below:ID (V) ≈ Io exp q(V+I⋅R cs )
− 1 (5) information carrier of operation condition, and can be determined using
nKTc
the same procedure proposed in Ref. [38]. With consideration of the
1 KTc dln[ID ] influence of operating condition, the characteristic parameters under
= (6) non-STC can be eventually determined.
n q dV
Actually, a single solar cell is rarely used as a power source, and
where Rcs is the series resistance of the cell and n is the ideality factor. usually, they are connected in series and parallel to make a PV module,
In the real solar cell, the ideality factor usually ranges from 1 to 2. to provide considerable power output. Therefore, a PV module’s power
When Iscr is the leading reverse saturation, n can be considered as 2, and output under STC could be modelled as [38]:
when Idiff is the dominator, n can be taken as 1. [ (
V + I⋅Rs
) ]
V + Rs ⋅I
Meanwhile, the leakage current can be expressed as:Ish (V) = V+R cs I (9)
Rcsh (7)
I(V) = Iph (V) − I0 exp − 1 −
Vt ⋅Ns Rsh
where Rcsh is the shunt resistance of the cell.
Then, the current I and can be depicted in Eq. (8), to describe the where Rsh and Rs are the module shunt and series resistance, respec­
relationship between voltage and current of a PV device according to the tively, and are proportional to the number of cells included in a module
well-known five-parameter model [10,38] (Ns).
[ ( ) ] Therefore the five vital parameters under STC can be determined
V + I⋅Rcs V + Rcs I
I(V) = Iph (V) − I0 exp − 1 − (8) based on Eq. (9). In considering the effect of solar irradiance and
Vt Rcsh
ambient temperature in actual various operation conditions, the Vt, I0,
Iph, Rsh and Rs can be described as Eqs. (10)–(14) [23].
where Vt = n K Tc/q is the diode thermal voltage, and q is the elementary
charge. Tc
Vt = Vt,ref (10)
For a PV device, the actual performance and working efficiency are Tref
subjected to the real operating condition, thus it is necessary to gener­
( )3 [ ( )]
alize the model to other conditions with different solar radiation in­ Tc q⋅Eg 1 1
I0 = I0,ref exp − (11)
tensity and ambient temperature. The calculation procedure and the Tref K Tref Tc

relationship of characteristic parameters between STC and actual

operating conditions (or non-STC) are illustrated in Fig. 2. Based on the G ( ( ))
Iph = Iph,ref + α⋅ Tc - Tref (12)
parameters under STC provided by the manufacture, the five vital pa­ Gref
rameters could be determined using the five-parameter model and
Gref
calculation procedure proposed in Ref. [23,38]. The five vital parame­ Rsh = Rsh,ref (13)
G
ters imply the information of the intrinsic parameters of carriers,
including carriers’ concentration, lifetime and migration length. Those Rs = Rs,ref (14)
intrinsic parameters usually vary with the operation condition. For
example, the carriers’ concentration and lifetime mainly depend on where the subscript “ref” refers to the parameters under STC; α is the
solar radiation intensity and cell temperature, respectively. Since it is temperature coefficient of the short circuit current (A/◦ C).
very challenging and almost impossible to calculate or measure these Vt,ref , I0,ref, Iph,ref, Rs,ref and Rsh,ref can be obtained as below (Eqs. (15)–

4
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

(19)): temperature profile and is closely related to real working efficiency.

For heat conduction, it refers to the heat transfer of two adjacent
βTref − Voc,ref
Vt, ref = Ns Tref α qE N
(15) layers in the PV module and can be defined as:
Iph,ref
− 3Ns − KTgrefs
δi δj
( ) Ri− j = + (20)
2λi ⋅Ai 2λj ⋅Aj
− Voc,ref
I0,ref = Isc,ref exp (16)
Ns Vt, ref where the subscript ‘i’ and ‘j’ refers to the layer i and j; Ri-j is the con­
duction thermal resistance between the layer i and layer j; λ is the
Iph,ref ≈ Isc,ref (17) thermal conductivity; A is the area of this layer; δ is the thickness.
For heat convection, the convection thermal resistance is only the
(VMPP,ref − IMPP,ref Rs,ref )(VMPP,ref − Ns Vt, ref ) function of ambient wind speed (u) and the cell area (APV). Then, the
Rsh,ref = (18)
(VMPP,ref − IMPP,ref Rs,ref )(Isc,ref − IMPP,ref ) − Ns Vt, ref IMPP,ref convection thermal resistance of glass (Rcon,g) and back sheet (Rcon,b) can
[ ( ) ] be approximately expressed as [45]:
Vmp,ref + Imp,ref Rs,ref Vmp,ref + Imp,ref Rs,ref
Imp,ref = Iph,ref − I0,ref exp − 1 − 1
Ns Vt, ref Rsh,ref Rcon,g = Rcon,b = (21)
(3.0u + 2.8)⋅APV
(19)
Furthermore, the main heat radiation mechanism involves energy
where β is the temperature coefficient of the open-circuit voltage (V/◦ C). exchange between the glass and space, along with that between the back
Based on the above procedure, the I-V characteristic curve of PV sheet and the ground, which can be depicted in Eq. (22) and (23)
module could be plotted, and the maximum power point and the actual respectively [46]:
conversion efficiency could be obtained under real operating conditions. Erad,g = hrad,g ⋅A⋅(Tg − Tsky ) = εg ⋅σ⋅(Tg4 − Tsky
4
) (22)
However, the operating solar cell temperature in the above model is
determined roughly using TNOCT, such a method may bring some error in
Erad,b = hrad,b ⋅A⋅(Tb − Tgroud ) = εb ⋅σ⋅(Tb4 − Tgroud
4
) (23)
the thermal and electrical performance of the solar cell. Hence, to better
simulate the electrical-thermal performance, a reliable thermal model
where hrad,g, hrad,b, εg and εb are the radiative heat coefficient and
embedded with an electrical model is required.
emissivity of glass and back sheet, respectively, σ is the Stefan-
Boltzmann constant, Tg, Tsky, Tb and Tgroud are the temperature of the
2.2. Modelling of thermal performance glass, sky, back sheet and ground, respectively. For simplification, Tgroud
can be considered as [47]:
As mentioned above, the thermal model in consideration of electrical
performance should be developed to accurately simulate the tempera­ Tground = Ta (24)
ture distribution of the PV device. The thermal resistance model is a There are some methods proposed in the literature to calculate
simple and precise tool for thermal simulation, and is considered as an effective sky temperature Tsky, the following one is applied in the present
alternative to a detailed physical model in the system-level thermal study [48]:
analysis [42]. ( )0.25
The heat transfer network in the thermal resistance model is pre­ Tsky = εs Ta 4 (25)
sented in Fig. 3. The typical structure of the solar cell can be divided into
glass, upper EVA layer, silicon wafer, lower EVA and back sheet. When εs = 0.21 + 0.22lnPv (26)
the PV module is exposed to solar irradiance, some photons will be re­
flected by the glass or inactive interconnection area (e.g. the blank area where εs is the sky emissivity and Pv is the water vapor partial pressure in
between cells and the area from the module boundary to cell boundary) mbar.
due to the multilayer reflection, while parts would be converted to After clarifying the three heat transfer mechanisms, the energy bal­
electricity [43,44]. Except for reflection loss and electricity output, the ance equation of each layer can be obtained from Eqs. (27)–(31):
rest is considered as the heat source, leading to an increase in cell
temperature. Those heat can also be transferred to the glass and back (a) The glass:
sheet via heat conduction, and then dissipated into the environment
through radiation and convection heat transfer. Considering the above
heat transfer mechanism, each layer of PV module has a similar

Fig. 3. Thermal resistance network of a PV module.

5
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

dTg TEVA1 − Tg Tg − Ta Tg − Tsky 2.3. Modelling of energy loss and distribution

Cp,g ⋅δg ⋅ρg ⋅ ⋅APV = αg ⋅G⋅APV + − −
dt REVA1− g + Rcon1 Rconv,g Rrad,g
(27) Based on Eq. (1), the reduction of the photocurrent or accumulation
of dark current and leakage current would weaken the net current,
which leads to a decrease in power output. The relationship between
characteristic parameters and loss processes is discussed in this section.
(b) The upper EVA: For a PV device, the received solar radiation is the only energy input,
deducting the available electricity output, the rest of the energy leaves
dTEVA2 TPV − TEVA2 TEVA2 − Tted
Cp,EVA2 ⋅δEVA2 ⋅ρEVA2 ⋅ ⋅APV = αEVA1 ⋅G⋅APV − the device or is lost due to different mechanisms. In our previous
dt RPV− EVA2 +Rcon3 REVA2− ted +Rcon4
research, the energy loss model was studied [49]. As shown in Fig. 4,
(28)
losses happen in the whole solar energy conversion process, including
generation, transportation and recombination of carriers [50,51]. The
loss from cell to module (CTM) refers to the interconnection reflection
(c) The silicon wafer: and resistance are the two main loss factors. Based on the above energy
distribution and loss mechanism, a comprehensive energy loss model of
Cp,PV ⋅δPV ⋅ρPV ⋅
dTPV
⋅APV = Qtotal ⋅
TPV − TEVA1
−
TPV − TEVA2
(29) a typical PV module under the actual operating condition is expressed as
dt RPV− EVA1 + Rcon2 RPV− EVA2 + Rcon3 follows [49].

2.3.1. Modelling of energy loss in the cells

(d) The lower EVA:

(a) losses in carriers’ generation process
dTEVA1 TPV − TEVA1 TEVA1 − Tg
Cp,EVA1 ⋅δEVA1 ⋅ρEVA1 ⋅ ⋅APV = − (30)
dt RPV− EVA1 + Rcon2 REVA1− g + Rcon1 There are two main kinds of losses in the carriers’ generation process,
i.e. transmission/reflection loss and spectral mismatch loss. The reflec­
tion and absorption loss usually exists in the interface between air and
glass, glass and EVA thin, and EVA thin and silicon wafer, if a general
(e) The back sheet: solar cell is considered. The hemispheric global reflection and trans­
mission can be obtained from the optical simulation program OPAL 2 or
dTb TEVA2 − Tb Tb − Ta Tb − Tground
Cp,b ⋅δb ⋅ρb ⋅ ⋅APV = − − (31) measured by a spectrometer [52]. After considering the reflection and
dt REVA2− b + Rcon4 Rconv,b Rrad,b
absorption losses in solar cell, the rest of the incident photons is sup­
where t is the time step, Cp, δ, ρ and T are the specific heat, thickness, posed to be absorbed by the silicon wafer, as expressed in Eq. (32) and
density, thermal resistance and temperature of the material while the Eq. (34).
subscript “g”, “EVA1”, “PV”, “EVA2” and “b” refers to the glass, upper Poptical (λ) = Pincident (λ)⋅R(λ)⋅α(λ) (32)
EVA film, silicon wafer, lower EVA film and back sheet of the solar PV
module. αEVA and αg are the absorption coefficient of EVA layer and the Poptical = Pincident ⋅R(λ)⋅α(λ) (33)
glass. Rcon1, Rcon2, Rcon3 and Rcon4 are the contact thermal resistance
between the layers. Pentering = Pincident − Poptical (34)
It should be noted that in Eq. (29) Qtotal is the total heat generated in
the cell, which is calculated based on the energy balance model dis­ where Pinciden, Poptical and Pentering is the total incident irradiance, reflec­
cussed in the next subsection. tion and absorption loss and the rest of incident irradiance, respectively.
R(λ) and α(λ) is the global reflection and transmission coefficient,
respectively, and R(λ), α(λ) are the weighted average coefficient.
It is widely acknowledged that not every incident photon can pro­

Fig. 4. The breakdown and distribution of total incident energy [49].

6
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

duce photocurrents. According to the photon energy (Ephoton) and

Vshunt + Ishunt ⋅Rs Eg Ns
bandgap (Eg) of the semiconductor material, it could be divided into two Qshunt = ⋅ ⋅ (39)
Rsh q A mod ule
cases:
where Rsh is the shunt resistance of the solar cell; Vshunt and Jshunt are the
(1) The photons with low energy (Ephoton＜Eg) would be absorbed voltage and current of the shunt path, respectively.
through the parasitic process [53]. The bandgap corresponds to
the minimum average energy of the intrinsic excitation. Photons (c) losses in carriers’ recombination process
with energy lower than bandgap could still excite the electrons to
jump the valence band, while these electrons do not have enough The generated carriers could also be recombined to some extent,
energy to arrive at the conduction band. This part of electrons through different mechanisms such as radiation, Auger, and Shockley
would become excitons and form pairs of exciton-hole pairs. Read Hall (SRH) recombination. Such a process has been discussed in
Then, these excitations would transport repeatedly in the circuit great detail in the authors’ previous study [49] and other studies
until absorbed by the lattice along the way, with the thermal [54,55].
energy released as a result. Therefore, the energy carried by low For radiative recombination, the loss from photon emission is usually
energy photons can be regarded as the internal heat source of the neglected. Then, the current reduction loss (Qnrrj) and voltage drop loss
solar cell. (Qnrrv) resulting from non-radiative recombination is expressed as [53]:
(2) The photons with high energy (Eg＜Ephoton) can excite electron-
∫
hole pairs. Indeed, only the part of energy equivalent to the 1 2Ωemit ∞ EQE⋅E2 Ns
Qnrrj = Eg ( − 1)⋅ 2 3 ⋅ ( ) dE⋅ (40)
chemical potential energy between the conduction and valence ERE c ⋅h Eg E− q⋅VMPP A mod ule
exp − 1
band (Δμ) would be converted into electricity, i.e. the elementary K⋅Tc

charge q multiplied by the voltage at maximum power point

VMPP. The surplus energy (Ephoton- Eg) is transferred to heat Qnrrv = IMPP ⋅
k⋅Tc
⋅ln(
1
) (41)
eventually, and the other part (Ephoton − q⋅VMPP ) would be q ERE
contributed to thermodynamic losses, including Carnot and
angle-mismatch losses [54]. where ERE refers to the external radiative efficiency, EQE refers to
external quantum weighted average efficiency, c is the speed of light
Thus, in the carrier’s generation process, the loss caused by photons (2.998 × 108 m/s), h is Planck constant (6.63 × 10-34 J/s), Ωemit means
with low energy is called sub-bandgap loss (Qth), while that due to the solid angle of emission, and Tc is the cell temperature and can be
photons with excessive energy is called thermalization loss (Qsub). These achieved by the thermal resistance model, depicted in Section 2.2.
two losses are both embodied in the spectrum-mismatch loss (Qspectrum)). The Carnot loss (QCarnot) and angle-mismatch loss (Qangle) can then be
The sub-bandgap loss and thermalization loss can be expressed by Eq. expressed as [37]:
(35) and Eq. (36) respectively: Eg Tc Ns
∫ Eg QCarnot = IMPP ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (42)
q TS A mod ule
Qsub = Pentering (E)⋅PFD(E)dE (35)
0 ( )
K⋅Tc Ωemit
∫ Qangle = IMPP ⋅ ⋅ln (43)
∞ q Ωabs
Qth = Pentering (E)⋅PFD(E)dE − Pentering (Eg )⋅PFD(Eg )⋅Eg (36)
where q is the elementary charge, Ωabs is the solid angle of absorption,
Eg

and Ts is sun temperature (5800 K).

Qspectrum = Qth + Qsub (37)

where PFD(λ) is the photon flux density.
These two equations can be used to calculated spectral mismatch loss
under STC. However, the irradiance spectrum distribution with time
cannot be achieved easily, therefore the spectrum-mismatch loss cannot
be directly calculated based on the above equations. Alternatively, it can
be obtained from the point of view of energy balance, i.e. the difference
between incident energy and power output could be considered as the
total loss. Once other loss terms are determined, the remaining part can
be considered as the spectrum-mismatch loss.
2.3.2. Modelling of energy loss from cell to module
The loss from cell to module should be considered as well, majorly in
two parts: reflection loss and resistive loss in interconnection. However,
it is challenging to calculate the resistive loss for different PV modules
because the number of series-connected cells and the property of each
module is various. Therefore, based on the literature, the resistive loss in
interconnection is considered as 3% [56].
2.4. Energy balance modelling

(b) losses in carriers’ transportation process Finally, from the perspective of energy balance, the module’s power
output (Pmodule-output) can be depicted as:
After being generated, the carriers could lose kinetic energy to atoms
P mod ule− = Pincident − Qtotal − Poptical − Pin (44)
and lattice in their transportation process, the heat is thus generated and
output

named as series resistance loss (Qseries), defined as below: where Qtotal is:
Ns
Qseries = 2
IMPP ⋅Rs ⋅ (38) Qtotal = Qspectrum + Qnrrj + Qnrrv + Qseries + Qshunt + QCarnot + Qangle + Qin
A mod ule
(45)
where Rs is the series resistance of the solar cell, can be calculated from This Eq. (45) is also used to calculate the total heat generation in Eq.
the five-parameter model that is introduced in Section 2.1; Amodule is the (29) in Section 2.3.
module area.
Similarly, the shunt resistance loss (Qshunt) is induced by the leakage
2.5. Model coupling and calculation process
current, expressed as:
The electrical model, thermal model and energy loss model are
developed in the above sections. However, the models are coupled

7
T. Ma et al.
because there are some parameters linked between them, on the basis
that the cell temperature Tcell, the output of the thermal model, are the
inputs of the electrical model, then the four parameters produced from
the electrical model are employed for energy losses calculation, which
will, in turn, generate the total heat Qtotal for thermal model calculation
[39]. In this section, a comprehensive and coupled model is developed to
predict its thermal-electrical performance and figure out the energy
distribution of the PV module, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 illustrates the model decoupling and iteration process. After
loading the environmental data and characteristic parameters, the five
vital parameters under STC are obtained from the electrical model at the
initial time point (i = 0). Based on the energy loss model and the
assumed initial PV temperature (Tj0 ) from the NOCT model, Qtotal can
then be obtained, which is further applied in the thermal resistance
model to calculate the new temperature profile (Tji + 1 ). The subscript j
means different layers in the solar cell. With the new cell temperature,
the calculation of the electrical model and PV energy distribution will be
repeated, thus the temperature updated again and a new cycle starts.
After iterations, the thermal and electrical parameters are finalized
until the difference between Tji and Tji + 1 is smaller than 10-6. Ulti­
mately, PV module’s performance, including power output, heat gen­
eration and power losses, at each time interval and long term can be
determined.
3. Experiments and model validation
To validate the coupled model, a series of experiments were con­
ducted based on a real PV system installed in a rooftop of a building,
which is located in the campus of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. As
shown in Fig. 7, the PV system includes PV modules, inverters, and data
collection systems such as pyranometer, anemometer, thermocouples,
load and data logger. The rated power output and efficiency of the PV
module is 225Wp and 15.98%, respectively.
The main instruments and their specifications are provided in
Table 1. To validate the electrical-thermal model, the performance of PV
module on a sunny day (1st Aug 2019) and a cloudy day (4th Aug 2019)
was taken as an example to study in detail. The operating data is
collected from 5:00 to 19:00 and the time interval for measurement is 5
min.
The validation of electrical performance was conducted by
comparing the simulated results from the coupled model with the real
operating data from the existing PV system. Fig. 8 depicts the solar ra­
diation distribution and PV power output during two typical days. It can
be observed that in both cases, the curve of calculated power output
follows the measured data reasonably, and a close relationship with
solar radiation are also illustrated. However, on the sunny day, there are
some gaps between the curve of solar irradiance and the curve of power
output at noon, although the units are not same, which mainly results
Fig. 5. Schematic of the integrated coupled model under generation conditions.
8
Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205
from the high operating temperature during that period.
To qualify the performance accuracy of this coupled model, the co­
efficient of determination R2 is employed, and the definition can be
found from the reference [57]. The R2 values of power output on the
sunny day and cloudy day is 0.9783 and 0.9609 respectively, indicating
that the superior performance of the coupled model in electrical per­
formance simulation. Furthermore, R2 value on a cloudy day is a little
lower than that on the sunny day, because solar radiation on the cloudy
day fluctuated greatly, thus leading to some error in measurement.
To verify the reliability of the coupled model in thermal perfor­
mance, the environmental data, including ambient temperature, wind
speed and solar radiation, on the sunny day and cloudy day were
collected. Besides, six thermocouples were arranged at different posi­
tions of the PV panel backside to collect the real-time PV temperature.
Fig. 9 presents the profile of ambient temperature, measured and
calculated PV temperature. PV temperature is much higher than
ambient temperature because of intrinsic heat generation, as discussed
in Section 2.3. Since the sky temperature, which is important in radia­
tive heat transfer, is calculated by an empirical formula, some difference
might exist when the irradiance is low, leading to some error between
measured and calculated PV temperature. Besides, R2 value of PV tem­
perature on the sunny day and cloudy day is 0.9723 and 0.9578,
respectively.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Thermal and electricity performance
The calculated PV temperature and conversion efficiency are pre­
sented in Fig. 10. It is obvious that the curve of PV efficiency is contrary
to the cell temperature. Taking the sunny day as an example, as the cell
temperature rises in the morning, its efficiency began to decline and
reached the minimum efficiency at about 11% at noon. That is because
the spontaneous emission recombination rate accelerates with dark
current density increasing when cell temperature rises. On the other
hand, the high temperature can reduce the bandgap of silicon semi­
conductors, meaning more incident photons can be captured to excite
photon-carrier, and a higher photo-generated current could go through
the external circuit. However, the increase in photo-generated current is
much lower than that of the dark current, as a result the rising of cell
temperature usually results in a drop in power output and efficiency.
The results of this research verify that some thermal management and
cooling techniques are necessary to achieve high efficiency. Obviously,
before proposing reliable cooling solutions, it is necessary to understand
the solar energy conversion mechanism and quantify the energy distri­
bution of PV modules, especially heat generation, which would be
analyzed in the next subsection.
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Fig. 6. Flow chart of model decoupling and iteration process.

9
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of experimental devices.

distribution of solar spectrum at a certain time, thus the energy distri­

Table 1
bution and losses cannot be directly calculated. In this study, from the
The key experimental instruments and their specifications.
point of view of energy balance mentioned in Section 2.3, the energy
Experiment Model Specification Measurement distribution of the PV module is modelled.
equipment error
The daily energy distribution profile on the sunny day and the cloudy
Solar TBQ-2 Sensitivity: 7 ~ 14 <5% day are presented in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12, respectively. The accumulated
Pyranometer μV/(W⋅m− 2); values and proportion of all losses are summarized in Table 2. It can be
Output signal: 0 ~
20 mV
seen from Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 that the sum of power output and all losses
Thermocouples PT 100 Temperature range: ±0.2 ◦ C is the whole incident solar irradiance at each moment. Although the
− 50 to 200 ◦ C electricity yield of the PV module on the sunny day is 3 times more than
Data logger DAM3232 data Power supply – that on the cloudy day, the average efficiency is similar on these two
acquisition voltage: DC 12/24 V
days, i.e. 14.29% on the sunny day and 14.68% on the cloudy day.
controller Temperature range:
− 40 to 85 ◦ C Based on the results in Table 2, the losses due to emission and shunt
resistance can be negligible when compared to other losses. Thus, the
four fundamental loss mechanisms in the solar cell under actual oper­
4.2. Quantification of daily energy distribution ating condition can be grouped into spectrum-mismatch, optical, Carnot
and non-radiative recombination loss. Besides, the inactive area reflec­
The peak wavelength of the solar spectrum fluctuates greatly with tion loss and interconnection resistance loss occur from cell to module,
time in a day. The spectral distribution of sky light is usually very stable hindering the efficiency of PV modules. On the sunny day, the energy
on the sunny day, while on the cloudy and rainy days the spectral dis­ loss happened in carrier’s generation, transportation and recombination
tribution is quite different, due to high proportion of long wavelength process, and cell to module process, is 47.69%, 1.05%, 22.34% and
[58]. Up to now, there is no unified empirical formula to describe the 14.60%, respectively. As a result, the optical loss and inactive area

Fig. 8. Daily irradiance and power output: (a) sunny day; (b) cloudy day.

10
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Comparison of ambient temperature, measured and simulated back sheet temperature: (a) sunny day; (b) cloudy day.

Fig. 10. Comparison of calculated cell temperature and conversion efficiency (a) sunny day; (b) cloudy day.

Fig. 11. Daily energy distribution trend diagram on the sunny day.

11
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Fig. 12. Daily energy distribution trend diagram on the cloudy day.

caused by series resistance in the solar cell and the interconnection of PV

Table 2
module is approximately 1.3% and 5.4%, respectively.
Energy distribution of the PV module in two typical days.
The results demonstrate that limiting heat sources and reducing heat
Energy distribution Parameters Sunny day (1st Cloudy day (4th generation through cooling techniques can contribute to efficiency
and losses Aug 2019) Aug 2019)
promotion. More specific mitigation solutions are provided in the next
(kWh/ (%) (kWh/ (%) section.
m2) m2)

Total incident energy pincident 8.089 100.00 2.419 100.00 5. Mitigation solutions for efficiency promotion
Loss in carriers’ poptical 0.838 10.36 0.248 10.25
generation process Qspectram- 3.020 37.36 0.948 39.19
The maximum efficiency of the silicon solar cell can be calculated as
mismatch
Loss in carriers’ Qseries 0.085 1.05 0.011 0.46 30% at the optimum bandgap of 1.1 eV, based on the Shockley-Queisser
transportation Qshunt 0 0 0 0 (SQ) efficiency limit [59]. To improve PV efficiency, there are majorly
process two solutions, i.e. maximize the efficiency of single-junction cell within
Loss in carriers’ pemission 0 0 0 0
SQ limit, or break the SQ limit using new technical measures, such as the
recombination Qnrrj 0 0 0 0
process Qnrrv 0.787 9.73 0.245 10.13 multi-junction cell and hot carriers cell [60–63]. Based on the two
Qcarnot 0.176 2.17 0.050 2.08 improvement targets, some potential solutions are proposed to reduce
Qangle- 0.844 10.43 0.241 9.96 losses, as summarized in Table 3.
mismatch Table 3 presents that, to reduce energy loss and heat generation, the
Loss from cell to pinacive 0.936 11.57 0.248 10.25
process of carriers’ generation, transportation and recombination are
module process Qresistance 0.245 3.03 0.073 3.00
Power output poutput 1.156 14.29 0.355 14.68 the major concerns in improving the conventional single-junction solar
Total heat source Qtotal 4.534 63.76 1.568 64.82 cell:

(1) As to the carriers’ generation process, the loss mainly results from
reflection loss leaves the PV module, with rest converting into heat, as
the reflection and absorption, which accounts for about 10% of
summarized in Fig. 13.
the total incident energy. Treatments on cell surface or solar
Fig. 13 depicts the source of daily heat generation in the two days. It
concentration are two potential approaches to generate more
can be found that spectrum-mismatch loss, including thermalization and
photons [64,65].
sub-bandgap loss, accounts for more than half of the total heat genera­
(2) During the carriers’ transportation process, the series resistance
tion, followed by the angle-mismatch loss and non-radiative recombi­
loss is mainly caused by material degradation, improper contact
nation loss. The heat generation due to Carnot loss is about 3.8%, which
or partial shadow [66]. Material degradation and improper
results from the high cell temperature directly. The heat generation

Fig. 13. Composition of daily total thermal source generation: (a) the sunny day; (b) the cloudy day.

12
T. Ma et al. Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205

Table 3 energy. To explore such potential energy and achieve the so-called full-
The improvement targets, loss mechanism, and potential mitigation solution. spectrum utilization of solar energy, the two potential solutions are
Improvement Energy loss Loss mechanism Potential mitigation discussed as follows:
targets process solutions

Maximize the Carriers’ Reflection and • Texture surface or • For the photons with energy lower than the bandgap, they cannot
efficiency of generation absorption use light-trapping excite the pair of electron-hole and thus would be absorbed by
single-junction structure parasitic process, the adoption of the intermediate band, multiple-
cell within SQ • Concentrate quantum-well, or up-conversion structure could reuse these pho­
limit incident light
Carriers’ Series resistance • Avoid aging and
tons, converting them to electricity [70,71].
transportation improper contact • For the photons with energy higher than the bandgap, the thermal­
of materials ization loss could be diminished using the down-conversion device
• Avoid shadow and [72]. The hot carrier solar cell and impact ionization solar cell could
hot spot problem
also use the excess kinetic energy to enhance the open-circuit voltage
Carriers’ Non-radiative • Minimize impurity
recombination recombination of semiconductor and photo-generated current, respectively [73,74]. Besides, semi­
material conductor materials with different bandgaps, such as tandem solar
• Reduce operating cells, can also effectively utilize a broadband spectrum, weakening
temperature the spectral mismatch loss [75].
Carnot • Reduce operating
temperature
Angle-mismatch • Increase The solutions mentioned above could also be integrated to achieve
absorption solid better results. However, the complexity and cost of manufacture should
angle also be considered. A promising and sustainable kind of solar cell should
• Reduce operating
achieve a trade-off between efficiency and these factors.
temperature
Break SQ limit Carriers’ Sub-bandgap • Introduce
using some new generation intermediate band 6. Conclusions
technical • Introduce multi-
measures quantum-well To model the dynamic electrical-thermal performance of PV modules
• Adopt up-
under actual operating conditions, a comprehensive coupled model is
conversion
structure developed in this study. The five-parameter electrical model, thermal
• Adopt tandem resistance model and energy loss model are integrated, considering the
structure intermittency of environmental factors and complexity of the conversion
Thermalization • Adopt tandem
mechanism. In this coupled model, the five-parameter is used to calcu­
structure
• Adopt a down- late the electrical performance of the PV module, and the thermal
conversion resistance could achieve the temperature distribution with the total heat
structure source established from the energy loss model. A series of experiments
• Develop hot on typical days were also conducted for validation, showing good
carrier solar cell
agreement. The coupled model is further employed to examine PV
• Develop impact
ionization solar thermal-electrical performance and quantify energy distribution and
cell losses of the PV module. Taken a typical sunny day as an example, the
energy loss in carrier’s generation, transportation and recombination
process, and cell to module process accounts for 47.7%, 1.0%, 22.3%,
electrode contact could increase local resistance. Besides, if the and 14.6% of total incident energy. More than 60% of the incident solar
PV module is partially shaded, the blocked cell would fail to work energy is dissipated as heat, and the spectrum-mismatch loss, including
properly, leading to increased series resistance in the circuit. sub-bandgap and thermalization loss, takes up more than 50% of total
Therefore, when the PV module works in the real condition, it is heat generation. Based on the models and simulation results, some po­
necessary to avoid material degradation and improper contact, tential mitigation solutions, such as tandem structure, down-conversion
and it also needs to pay attention to the shading of surrounding structure or hot carrier solar cell, are also suggested for photovoltaic
buildings or trees. thermal management and efficiency enhancement.
(3) According to Eqs. (41)–(43), thermal management of solar cells
using some active or passive cooling methods, such as water CRediT authorship contribution statement
cooling and natural ventilation, could effectively reduce energy
loss in the recombination process of carriers [67]. Also, mitiga­ Tao Ma: Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Funding
tion in angle-mismatch loss and non-radiative recombination loss acquisition, Writing - original draft. Zichang Guo: Investigation, Visu­
cannot be ignored. The non-radiative recombination was not alization, Writing - original draft. Lu Shen: Methodology, Investigation,
considered in SQ limit calculation for ideal solar cell [68], while Software, Data curation, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Xing
it exists in real solar cells. Based on Eq. (40), the purification of Liu: Investigation, Visualization. Zhenwu Chen: Investigation. Yong
cell material could make the ERE close to 100%, thus reducing Zhou: Investigation. Xiaochun Zhang: Funding acquisition, Writing -
non-radiative recombination loss. Moreover, according to Eq. review & editing.
(43), the reduction of angle-mismatch loss could be achieved by
enlarging the absorption solid angle, the bifacial PV module is a Declaration of Competing Interest
typical example to increase the absorption angle [69].
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Loss mitigation in a cell could enhance the efficiency of a single-
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
junction cell but could not break the SQ limit. To achieve high conver­ the work reported in this paper.
sion efficiency, more electron-hole pairs should be generated. As
mentioned earlier, the loss in carriers’ generation process mainly results
from sub-bandgap and thermalization loss, about 37.4% of total incident

13
T. Ma et al.
Acknowledgment
The authors would appreciate the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) through Grant
51976124, and Shenzhen Technology Innovation Commission (STIC)
through the Grant No. JSGG20180504165907910.
References
[1] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L. A feasibility study of a stand-alone hybrid solar–wind–battery
system for a remote island. Appl Energy 2014;121:149–58.
[2] You J, Dou L, Yoshimura K, Kato T, Ohya K, Moriarty T, et al. A polymer tandem
solar cell with 10.6% power conversion efficiency. Nat Commun 2013;4:1446.
[3] Swanson RM. A vision for crystalline silicon photovoltaics. Progr Photovolt 2006;
14:443–53.
[4] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L. Development of hybrid battery–supercapacitor energy storage
for remote area renewable energy systems. Appl Energy 2015.
[5] IRENA. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021; 2021.
[6] Yan J, Yang Y, Elia Campana P, He J. City-level analysis of subsidy-free solar
photovoltaic electricity price, profits and grid parity in China. Nat Energy 2019;4:
709–17.
[7] Zhang Y, Ma T, Elia Campana P, Yamaguchi Y, Dai Y. A techno-economic sizing
method for grid-connected household photovoltaic battery systems. Appl Energy
2020;269:115106.
[8] Tao C, Duan S, Chen C. Forecasting power output for grid-connected photovoltaic
power system without using solar radiation measurement. In: IEEE International
Symposium on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems; 2010.
[9] Na MS, Kim JO. Reliability evaluation of micro-grids containing PV system and
hydropower plant. Energies 2019;12.
[10] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L. Solar photovoltaic system modeling and performance
prediction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:304–15.
[11] Dupré O, Vaillon R, Green MA. Temperature Coefficients of Photovoltaic Devices;
2017.
[12] Kebir N, Maaroufi M. Predictive evaluation of cloud motion impact on a medium
voltage solar PV power system output. In: Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Conference; 2016.
[13] Kim JP, Lim H, Ju HS, Chang YJ, Jeon CH. Numerical analysis on the thermal
characteristics of photovoltaic module with ambient temperature variation. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:404–7.
[14] Huang BJ, Yang PE, Lin YP, Lin BY, Chen HJ, Lai RC, et al. Solar cell junction
temperature measurement of PV module. Sol Energy 2011;85:388–92.
[15] Mellit A, Kalogirou SA. Artificial intelligence techniques for photovoltaic
applications: A review. Prog Energ Combust. 2008;34:574–632.
[16] Piloto-Rodriguez R, Sanchez-Borroto Y, Lapuerta M, Goyos-Perez L, Verhelst S.
Prediction of the cetane number of biodiesel using artificial neural networks and
multiple linear regression. Energy Convers Manage 2013;65:255–61.
[17] Blair N, Mehos M, Christensen C. Sensitivity of Concentrating Solar Power trough
performance, cost, and financing with the Solar Advisor Model. Office of Scientific
& Technical Information Technical Reports; 2008.
[18] Makrides G, Zinsser B, Schubert M, Georghiou GE. Energy yield prediction errors
and uncertainties of different photovoltaic models. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2013;
21:500–16.
[19] Orioli A, Gangi AD. A procedure to calculate the five-parameter model of
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules on the basis of the tabular performance
data. Appl Energy 2013;102:1160–77.
[20] Siddiqui MU, Abido M. Parameter estimation for five- and seven-parameter
photovoltaic electrical models using evolutionary algorithms. Appl Soft Comput J
2013;13:4608–21.
[21] Mihet-Popa L, Koch-Ciobotaru C, Isleifsson F, Bindner H. Simulation model
developed for a small-scale PV-system in a distribution network. In: IEEE
International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence & Informatics;
2012.
[22] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L. Performance evaluation of a stand-alone photovoltaic system
on an isolated island in Hong Kong. Appl Energy 2013;112:663–72.
[23] Ma T, Gu W, Shen L, Li M. An improved and comprehensive mathematical model
for solar photovoltaic modules under real operating conditions. Sol Energy 2019;
184:292–304.
[24] Attivissimo F, Nisio AD, Savino M, Spadavecchia M. Uncertainty Analysis in
Photovoltaic Cell Parameter Estimation. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2012;61:
1334–42.
[25] Yang X, Guo J, Yang B, Cheng H, Wei P, He Y-L. Design of non-uniformly
distributed annular fins for a shell-and-tube thermal energy storage unit. Appl
Energy 2020;279:115772.
[26] Yang X, Niu Z, Bai Q, Li H, Cui X, He Y-L. Experimental study on the solidification
process of fluid saturated in fin-foam composites for cold storage. Appl Therm Eng
2019;161:114163.
[27] Yang X, Wang X, Liu Z, Guo Z, Jin L, Yang C. Influence of aspect ratios for a tilted
cavity on the melting heat transfer of phase change materials embedded in metal
foam. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2021;122:105127.
[28] Yang X, Wei P, Wang X, He Y-L. Gradient design of pore parameters on the melting
process in a thermal energy storage unit filled with open-cell metal foam. Appl
Energy 2020;268:115019.
14
Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205
[29] Kazemian A, Salari A, Hakkaki-Fard A, Ma T. Numerical investigation and
parametric analysis of a photovoltaic thermal system integrated with phase change
material. Appl Energy 2019;238:734–46.
[30] Townsend TU. A Method for Estimating the Long-Term Performance of Direct-
Coupled Photovoltaic Systems: University of Wisconsin – Madison; 1989.
[31] King DL, Kratochvil JA, Boyson WE. Photovoltaic Array Performance Model.
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories; 2004.
[32] Vogt MR, Holst H, Winter M, Brendel R, Altermatt PP. Numerical modeling of c-Si
PV modules by coupling the semiconductor with the thermal conduction,
convection and radiation equations energy procedia. 2015; 77: 215–24.
[33] Tina GM, Scrofani S. Electrical and thermal model for PV module temperature
evaluation. Electrotechnical Conference; 2008.
[34] Yang Z, Fang Z, Sheng J, Ling Z, Liu Z, Zhu J, et al. Optoelectronic Evaluation and
Loss Analysis of PEDOT:PSS/Si Hybrid Heterojunction Solar Cells. Nanoscale Res
Lett 2017;12:26.
[35] Zhang C, Cao GY, Wu SL, Shao WJ, Giannini V, Maier SA, et al. Thermodynamic
loss mechanisms and strategies for efficient hot-electron photoconversion. Nano
Energy 2019;55:164–72.
[36] Nelson CA, Monahan NR, Zhu XY. Exceeding the Shockley-Queisser limit in solar
energy conversion. Energy Environ Sci 2013;6:3508–19.
[37] Hirst LC, Ekins-Daukes NJ. Fundamental losses in solar cells. Prog Photovolt Res
Appl 2011;19:286–93.
[38] Ma T, Yang H, Lu L. Development of a model to simulate the performance
characteristics of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules/strings/arrays. Sol
Energy 2014;100:31–41.
[39] Gu W, Ma T, Shen L, Li M, Zhang Y, Zhang W. Coupled electrical-thermal
modelling of photovoltaic modules under dynamic conditions. Energy. 2019;188:
116043.
[40] Neamen AD. Introduction to semiconductor devices; 2006.
[41] Smestad GP. The physics of solar cells; 2003.
[42] Yin E, Qiang L, Xuan Y. optimization of photovoltaic thermoelectric hybrid system
through thermal resistance analysis. J Eng Thermophys 2017;143:188–202.
[43] Hanifi H, Pfau C, Turek M, Schneider J. A practical optical and electrical model to
estimate the power losses and quantification of different heat sources in silicon
based PV modules. Renew Energy 2018;127.
[44] Watmuff J, Charters W, Proctor D. Solar and wind induced external coefficients -
Solar collectors. Cooperation Mediterraneenne pour l’Energie Solaire 1977; -1:56.
[45] Watmuff J, Charters W, Proctor D. Solar and wind induced external coefficients -
Solar collectors. Cooperation Mediterraneenne pour l’Energie Solaire. 1977;-1:56.
[46] Incropera FP. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer; 1990.
[47] Soltani S, Kasaeian A, Sokhansefat T, Shafii MB. Performance investigation of a
hybrid photovoltaic/thermoelectric system integrated with parabolic trough
collector. Energy Convers Manage 2018;159:371–80.
[48] Pandey DK, Iii RBL, Paden J. Effects of atmospheric emissivity on clear sky
temperatures. Atmos Environ 1995;29:2201–4.
[49] Shen L, Li Z, Ma T. Analysis of the power loss and quantification of the energy
distribution in PV module. Appl Energy 2020;260:114333.
[50] Green MA, Keevers MJ. Optical properties of intrinsic silicon at 300 K. Prog
Photovolt Res Appl 1995;3:189–92.
[51] Polman A, Atwater HA. Photonic design principles for ultrahigh-efficiency
photovoltaics. Nat Mater. 2012;11:174–7.
[52] Mcintosh KR, Baker-Finch SC. OPAL 2: Rapid Optical Simulation of Silicon Solar
Cells. Photovoltaic Specialists Conference. 2012.
[53] Dupré O, Vaillon R, Green MA. A full thermal model for photovoltaic devices. Sol
Energy 2016;140:73–82.
[54] Kaushika ND, Rai AK. An investigation of mismatch losses in solar photovoltaic cell
networks. Energy. 2007;32:755–9.
[55] Kosten ED, Atwater HA. Limiting acceptance angle to maximize efficiency in solar
cells. Proc SPIE - Int Soc Opt Eng 2011;8124:103–12.
[56] Yang J, Kyoung Ahn Y, Ho Huh P, Nam J, Park M, Gu Kim M, et al. Research on
decrease of cell to module loss for crystalline silicon photovoltaic module; 2013.
[57] Li M, Ma T, Liu J, Li H, Xu Y, Gu W, et al. Numerical and experimental
investigation of precast concrete facade integrated with solar photovoltaic panels.
Appl Energy 2019;253:113509.
[58] Yang JY, Ahn YK, Huh PH, Nam JG, Min P, Min GK, et al. Research on decrease of
cell to module loss for crystalline silicon photovoltaic module. J Renew Sustain
Energy 2013;5:139–43.
[59] Shockley W, Queisser HJ. Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p-n junction solar
cells. J Appl Phys 1961;32:510–9.
[60] Shpaisman H, Niitsoo O, Lubomirsky I, Cahen D. Can up- and down-conversion and
multi-exciton generation improve photovoltaics? Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells
92, 1541-6.
[61] Brittberg M. Cell carriers as the next generation of cell therapy for cartilage repair:
A review of the matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure.
Am J Sports Med 38: 1259–71.
[62] Green MA, Bremner SP. Energy conversion approaches and materials for high-
efficiency photovoltaics. Nat Mater 2017;16:23–34.
[63] Smestad GP. Physics of Solar Cells. 2005.
[64] Yang KH, Yang JY. The analysis of light trapping and internal quantum efficiency
of a solar cell with grating structure. Sol Energy 2011;85:419–31.
[65] Gjessing J, Sudbo AS, Marstein ES. Comparison of periodic light-trapping
structures in thin crystalline silicon solar cells. J Appl Phys. 2011;110.
[66] Boussaid M, Belghachi A, Agroui K, Abdelaoui M, Otmani M. Solar cell degradation
under open circuit condition in out-doors-in desert region. 2016; 6: 837–42.
[67] Royne A, Dey CJ, Mills DR. Cooling of photovoltaic cells under concentrated
illumination: a critical review. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2005;86:451–83.
T. Ma et al.
[68] Green MA. Radiative efficiency of state-of-the-art photovoltaic cells. Progress in
Photovoltaics Research & Applications 20:0-.
[69] Gu W, Ma T, Li M, Shen L, Zhang Y. A coupled optical-electrical-thermal model of
the bifacial photovoltaic module. Appl Energy 2020;258:114075.
[70] Barnham KWJ, Duggan G. A new approach to high-efficiency multi-band-gap solar
cells. J Appl Phys 67: 3490.
[71] Brown AS, Green MA. Impurity photovoltaic effect with defect relaxation:
Implications for low band gap semiconductors such as silicon. J Appl Phys 96:
2603.
15
Applied Energy 298 (2021) 117205
[72] Trupke T, Green MA, Würfel P. Improving solar cell efficiencies by down-
conversion of high-energy photons. J Appl Phys 2002;92:1668–74.
[73] Ross RT, Nozik AJ. Efficiency of hot-carrier solar energy converters. J Appl Phys
1982;53:3813–8.
[74] Landsberg PT, Badescu V. Solar cell thermodynamics including multiple impact
ionization and concentration of radiation. J Phys D Appl Phys 35: 1236-40.
[75] Tucher N, Höhn O, N. Murthy J, Martinez J, Steiner M, Armbruster A, et al. Energy
yield analysis of textured perovskite silicon tandem solar cells and modules. Optics
Express. 2019; 27: A1419.