Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Enhanced models for the evaluation of electrical efficiency of PV/

T modules
Cristina Ventura, Giuseppe Marco Tina *, Antonio Gagliano, Stefano Aneli
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, Elettronica e Informatica, University of Catania, Catania 95125, Italy

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

Keywords: Recently increasing attention has been paid on photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar systems as these systems allow
Photovoltaic/thermal to generate heat and electricity simultaneously. Thermal and electrical performance of PV/T modules are
Electrical efficiency coupled, so it is crucial to monitor both efficiencies to decide the optimal operating point. In this context, this
Photovoltaic/thermal module cell temperature
paper aims to investigate numerically and experimentally the electrical energy performance of PV/T modules
Cooling fluid temperature
Unglazed photovoltaic/thermal panels
suitable to be used for online monitoring and control purposes.
This study proposes a novel methodology for the evaluation of the electrical efficiency of PV/T modules as a
function of the temperature of the cooling fluid, the solar radiation and the solar incidence angle.
The proposed methodology is based on the calculation of the cell temperature of the PV/T module, which is in
turn a function of the temperature of the cooling fluid and the specific features of the PV/T module. Models
proposed in the literature for the evaluation of the electrical efficiency for PV modules have been redrafted,
adapting them to PV/T modules.
The proposed methodology has been validated using the experimental data carried out on an unglazed pilot
PV/T plant located in Catania (Italy).
The comparison between the calculated data by the developed redrafted models and observed data gives rises
to a normalized Root Mean Square Error (nRMSE) of 9.73%. It is worth noticing that the accuracy of the models
increases taking into consideration of the dependence of the electrical efficiency from the solar incidence angle
(nRMSE equal to 8.99%).

temperature heat and electricity. PV module electrical efficiency can be

1. Introduction
International directives have stimulated research aiming for new
technologies to pave the way toward sustainable buildings with high
thermal and electrical efficiency, also known as the NZEB plan (Yama­
shita et al., 2020).
In this context, to satisfy the electric energy demand photovoltaic
(PV) systems are used, while solar thermal (ST) systems are used for
producing thermal energy.
In some circumstances (e.g. multi-storey buildings), there is not
enough space where install both PV and ST system (Gagliano et al.,
2019).
At present, only 10–20% of the incident solar radiation is converted
into electricity by PV modules, depending on the cell technology, while
more than 50% of incident solar radiation is dissipated as heat.
Solar thermal collectors can be combined with photovoltaic cells to
form hybrid energy generating units that simultaneously produce low
improved by removing the excess heat.
Different solutions can be adopted to cool the PV module that can be
classifies as active or passive methods. An overview of the different
cooling strategies are reported in (Grubišić-Čabo et al., 2016). A recent
experimental study has investigated tree different active cooling tech­
nologies, based on spray cooling and forced ventilation (Lee, 2020). In
August, the spray cooling system reached the efficiency of 14.3%
compared to the 12.7% of the reference module.
Photovoltaic – thermal (PV/T) collectors allow to convert solar en­
ergy into electricity and heat in a single component allowing, poten­
tially, to increase the overall efficiencies.
There is also an increase in the efficiency of electricity production
since the surplus of thermal energy is carried out by a cooling fluid
(Gagliano et al., 2019).
Review papers (Al-Waeli et al., 2017) (Brahim and Jemni, 2017) of
2017 have provided a systematic analysis of the historical and recent
trend in PV/T technology, concluding that the use of PV/T collectors can

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cristina.ventura@dieei.unict.it (C. Ventura), giuseppe.tina@unict.it (G.M. Tina).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.06.018
Received 9 December 2020; Received in revised form 27 May 2021; Accepted 8 June 2021
Available online 20 June 2021
0038-092X/© 2021 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Nomenclature Tcell,PVT Cell temperature of a PV/T panel [K]

TMin Inlet temperature [K]
A Collector area [m2] TMout Outlet temperature [K]
a1, a2 Thermal heat losses coefficient W/m2 K and [W/m2 K2] TSTC Temperature in Standard Test Conditions [K]
AC Total PV cell area [m2] UL Collector overall heat loss coefficient [W/m2 K]
AM Air mass [–] VMPP Voltage at Maximum Power Point in STC [V]
AMSTC Air mass in in Standard Test Conditions [–] Kb IAM for direct radiation [–]
APV PV module area [m2] Kd IAM for diffuse radiation [–]
b0,el Constant for electrical IAM [–] U Wind speed in the PV/T plane [m/s]
b0,th Constant for thermal IAM [–] UPipeFluid Heat transfer coefficient between the pipe and the fluid
Cp Specific heat [J/kg K] [W/m2K]
e Euler’s number [–] UAbspipe Heat transfer coefficient between the absorber and the pipe
EL Long-wave irradiance [W/m2] [W/m2 K]
F’ Collector efficiency factor [–] UAbsFluid Heat transfer coefficient between the absorber and the
FR Collector heat removal factor [–] fluid [W/m2 K]
G Irradiance [W/m2]
Gabs Amount of solar irradiance available for the PV/T collector Greek symbols
[W/m2] А Absorptance [–]
GSTC Irradiance in Standard Test Conditions [W/m2] αPV Temperature coefficient of the power at MPP [/K]
IMPP Current at Maximum Power Point in STC [A] βPV Solar radiation coefficient of the power at MPP [m2/W]
M Mass flow rate [kg/s] γPV Degradation rate [%]
PMPP Maximum power in Standard Test Conditions [W] ηel,PVT Electrical efficiency [%]
Pel Electric power [W] ηel,PVT_est Estimated electrical efficiency [%]
PRG Irradiance losses [%] ηel,PVT_meas Measured electrical efficiency [%]
PRIAM Incidence angle losses [%] ηPV,STC Electrical efficiency in STC [%]
PRT Temperature losses [%] ηth Thermal efficiency [%]
Qth Specific thermal power output of the PV/T collector [W/ ηth,0 Zero loss collector efficiency [%]
m2] Σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/m2 K4]
Tabsorber Absorber temperature [K] (τ⋅α)eff Effective transmittance-absorptance product [–]
Tamb Ambient air temperature [K] Θ Incidence angle of beam radiation [degree]
Tave Mean fluid temperature, [K] T Transmittance [–]
Tcell,PV Cell temperature of a PV panel [K]

lead to both energy and economic benefits. In recent years different
authors provided a review of proposed novelties on PV/T systems
(Razali et al., 2019; Jia et al., 2019; Das et al., 2018; Gupta and Pradhan,
2020; Abdelrazik et al., 2018; Cui et al., 2021).
Several parameters such as the type of fluid, mass flow rate, number
of covers and shape of the absorber plate affect the PV/T performance
(Moradi et al., 2013).
As regards the electrical yield of PV and PV/T modules, it strongly
depends on the temperature of the photovoltaic cells. For modeling of
PV/T performances, it is necessary to find the best possible compromise
between simplicity and detail. A most basic approximation used in many
models is to set the cell temperature equal to the average fluid tem­
perature (Cabral et al., 2019; Guarracino et al., 2019). In other models
(Florschuetz, 1979; Tonui and Tripanagnostopoulos, 2007; Battaglia
et al., 2018; Ahmed and Bawa, 2018; Hamdoon et al., 2020), the cell
temperature is set equal to the temperature of the absorber plate, based
on the assumption that the heat transfer between photovoltaic cells and
absorber is very good. In this way, the Hottel Whillier-Bliss equation can
be used, while taking into account the energy transformed into elec­
tricity. In Zondag et al. (2002), authors have developed and compared
four numerical models, a dynamic 3D model and static 3D, 2D and 1D
models. Comparing the numerical and experimental data, they found a
maximum error of 5% and that the 1D model, based on the equations of
Hottel-Whillier and Klein, was suitable for studies on the annual yield
because it presents high computational speed compared to the others. In
Bergene and Løvvik (1995) authors showed that their model (a more
detailed version of the Hottel-Willier model) was able to calculate the
efficiency of the PV/T system well. In Sandnes and Rekstad (2002) the
theoretical cell temperature is calculated as a function of storage tank
temperature, the thermal efficiency of the collector and irradiation. The
results have been compared with experimental analyzes showing a good
correlation.
Other models (Perers et al., 2012; Stegmann et al., 2011; Lämmle
et al., 2017; Jonas et al., 2018) assume that the difference in tempera­
ture between the photovoltaic cells and the heat transfer fluid is pro­
portional to the useful heat transferred to the fluid.
Finally, other models (El Fouas et al., 2020; Al-Waeli et al., 2019;
Aste et al., 2016) calculate the temperature of the cells by solving the
energy balance equation for the various layers that make up the PV/T
panel. These studies show that the results obtained in this way have an
excellent correlation with the data taken from real plants, nevertheless,
they present a high computational burden. The thermal energy har­
vesting from the PV cells to a heat carrier fluid could lead to the cooling
of the PV modules as a function of the temperature of the carrier fluid.
As the electrical efficiency of PV modules increases with decreasing
cell temperature, the PV/T collectors may lead to higher electrical
performance. Thus, it is very important to draw up effective models for
the calculation of the electrical power output of PV/T collectors.
Several studies have investigated the electrical performance of PV
modules, a review is reported in (Skoplaki and Palyvos, 2009). Other­
wise, there is a lack of study regarding the electrical efficiency of hybrid
solar panel, e.g. PV/T (Jonas et al., 2018; Shyam et al., 2015; Yazdan­
panahi et al., 2015; Aste et al., 2015; Fudholi et al., 2014; Jonas et al.,
2019; Pressani et al., 2016). Most of them calculate the electrical per­
formance of a PV/T system only considering its dependence on the PV
cell temperature.
Actually, the losses due to the solar incidence angle and to the solar
radiation, in addition to the temperature dependence, have been taken
under consideration in (Jonas et al. (2018) and (Jonas et al. (2019) to
calculate the electrical efficiency of a PV/T system.

532
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Considering the lack of models which take into account the tem­ UL = collector overall heat loss coefficient [W /m2 K];
perature of the cooling fluid for calculating the electrical efficiency of (τ⋅α) = transmittance-absorptance product without electrical output;
PV/T systems, this study proposes enhanced models which allow to Tamb = ambient air temperature [K];
determine more effectively the electrical efficiency of PV/T modules. TMin = inlet temperature [K];
One of the novelties of the proposed methodology lies in calculating G = irradiance [W/m2].
the cell temperature of the PV/T module as a function of the temperature
of the cooling fluid (that can be easily measured) and on the specific The collector heat removal factor can be calculated:
features of the PV/T module. So this procedure solves the problem of [ ( )]
ṁ∙Cp A∙UL ∙F ’
determining the PV cell temperature that in a PV/T module is highly FR = 1 − exp − (2)
A∙UL ṁ∙Cp
variable depending on the operating fluid temperature. The PV/T cell
temperature can not be effectively approximated with the backside
where:
module temperature, as it is usually done in PV systems.
This paper allows to highlight the importance of using solar radiation
ṁ = mass flow rate [kg/s];
in calculating the electrical efficiency for PV/T modules.
Cp = specific heat [J/kg K].
To our knowledge, there are no studies that have experimentally
evaluated the efficiency of PV/T systems applying the proposed meth­
If the fluid flow covers the entire back side of the absorber surface
odology to real measured data.
give place to a fin efficiency F = 1, which simplifies the expression for
The first step that has to be tackled is the evaluation of the PV cell
the collector efficiency factor F’, in accordance with the Hottel–Whillier
temperature, which is one of the fundamental variables from which the
model. F’ is a function of UL and can be expressed as:
electrical efficiency is a function, and it is usually not measured in PV/T
( )− 1
systems. So in the first part of the paper, the calculation of the PV/T cell UL
temperature from the cooling fluid temperature and ambient variables is F’ = 1 + (3)
UAbsFluid
described.
Then, considering that the literature models calculate the electrical where:
efficiency as a function of different variables (i.e. cell temperature, solar UAbsFluid = heat transfer coefficient between the absorber and the fluid [W/
irradiation, incidence angle, electrical losses), they are redrafted elab­ m2 K]
orating alternatives formulations that take into account a reduced The amount of solar irradiance available for the PV/T collector (Gabs)
number of parameters in comparison with their original formulation. is reduced since electrical energy is extracted from the solar cells:
The target is to observe which, among the developed models, allow to ( ) ( )
obtain a trade-off between the evaluation of the electrical efficiency and Ac η Ac
Gabs = (τα)eff ⋅G = G(τ) α − ηPV ⋅ = G⋅(τ⋅α)⋅ 1 − PV ⋅ (4)
the number of used parameters and to understand if the value of the A α A
parameters indicated in the datasheet of the PV modules can be used in
where:
the models or it is necessary to recalculate them. A reduced set of pa­
rameters is a crucial requirement to develop models suitable for online
(τα)eff = transmittance-absorptance product with electrical output;
monitoring and control aims.
AC = total PV cell area [m2];
Data measured on the unglazed PV/T panels installed in the campus
A = collector area [m2];
of the University of Catania (Catania, Italy) (Gagliano et al., 2019) are
ηPV = electrical efficiency of the PV/T system.
used for the comparison of the calculated electrical efficiency with those
observed experimentally.
The electrical efficiency evaluation will be discussed in Section 3.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reports the models used
Thus, the specific thermal power output of the PV/T collector, Qth,
to calculate the cell temperature of a PV/T system; Section 3 discusses
was calculated by Eq. (5):
the methodologies used to evaluate the PV/T system electrical effi­
[ ]
ciency; Section 4 illustrates the experimental results. Finally, conclu­ Qth = FR ∙ (τα)eff ∙G − UL ∙(TMin − Tamb ) (5)
sions are drawn in the last section.
The average values of the parameters, FR ∙(τα) and FR ∙UL , derived by
2. PV cell temperature the experimental conducted in (Sandnes and Rekstad, 2002) without
electrical production for PV/T collectors, for both glazed (g) and un­
Thermal heat transfer mechanisms of PV/T collectors do not differ glazed (ung), and for an unglazed thermal solar collector T, are indicated
from conventional solar collectors except for the additional energy sink, in Table 1.
the PV cells absorbing irradiance and generating electricity. These data indicate that, in comparison with the T collector,
Sandnes et al. tested experimentally the thermal and electrical per­
formances of different PV/T collectors (Sandnes and Rekstad, 2002). - covering the thermal absorber with photovoltaic cells (PV/Tung),
Essentially, the Hottel-Whillier equations for flat-plate thermal-only slightly reduces the energy absorptance and the heat loss coefficient.
collectors (Duffie and Beckman, 2013) are modified to take into account - the glass cover plate (PV/TG) reduces the heat loss to the surround­
the effects of adding PV cells to the absorber plate of a thermal collector, ings, as well as the energy absorptance of the system as a conse­
namely the Florscheutz method (Florschuetz, 1979). The modifications quence of the reflection from the glass surface.
generally take the form of modified values of the parameters which
characterize a flat plate collector in the Hottel–Whillier equation for the
collector thermal efficiency.
( ) Table 1
T − Tamb
ηth = FR ∙(τ∙α) − FR ∙UL Min (1) Average values of the parameters, FR∙(τα) and FR∙UL (Sandnes and Rekstad,
G 2002).

where: PV/Tung PV/Tg Solar collector (T)

FR ∙(τα) 0.76 0.71 0.87

FR = collector heat removal factor; FR ∙UL [W/m2 K] 16.8 8.3 18.2

533
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Moreover, the impact of wind on the heat losses is particularly
important for the unglazed collectors, as demonstrated by the observed
differences in the experimental data for the PV/Tung.
The effect on thermal efficiency of the electrical output was inves­
tigated by running the PV/T thermal systems alternating on/off cycles of
the electrical circuit.
Such analysis highlighted that the synchronous generation of heat
and electricity reduces the available solar energy for the thermal con­
version and thus thermal efficiency for the heat collector of about 10%.
Moreover, in (Sandnes and Rekstad, 2002) the effect of cooling fluid
on the average cell temperature was investigated by operating the heat
collector with cold water (Twater = 10–12 ◦ C). As a consequence, the
temperatures of the cells were reduced from 52 ◦ C to 18 ◦ C.
From the observation of the variation of the PV cell temperature
Tcell,PVT as a function of TMin, the following expression was proposed
(Sandnes and Rekstad, 2002).
Tcell,PVT = TMin +k∙ηth ∙G
where the constant k was determined by Eq. (7).
Lämmle et al. (Lämmle et al., 2016), determine the cell temperature
of the PVT module from the energy balance derived by one-dimensional
models with a single absorber and fluid node (Zondag et al., 2002);
(Fig. 1).
Thus, the mean temperature of the PV cell, which is assumed equal to
Tabsorber, is calculated by the following equation:
Qth
Tcell,PVT = Tave + (12)
UabsFluid
During stagnation, the thermal power Qth is zero and as a conse­
quence of Eq. (12) the cell temperature Tcell,PVT equals the mean fluid
temperature Tave. This is an important finding for achieving a high ac­
curacy of the electrical performance model during stagnation
conditions.
The internal heat transfer coefficient UabsFluid describes the thermal
coupling of the PV cells to the fluid. It consists of two U-values in series
and it is defined as:
(6)
( )− 1
1 1
UabsFluid = + (13)
UabsPipe UPipeFluid

k=
1 − FR
(7) UabsFluid can be either estimated from the measured collector effi­
FR UL ciency factor F’ or determined numerically. Lämmle et al. in their
Eq. (6), which is a reformulation of the mean absorber plate tem­ research have determined the values for UabsFluid and F’ for unglazed
perature as calculated by Duffie and Beckman (Duffie and Beckman, glazed and low-e glazed PV/T collector operating in MPP tracking mode
2013), can be rewritten as: (Lämmle et al., 2017) (Table 2).
The observed differences of the thermal conversion factor ηth be­
Tcell,PVT = TMin + Qth ∙k (8) tween the investigated PV/T technologies is attributed to the collector
It is worth to notice that for a PV module the cell temperature can be design which strongly influences the heat loss coefficient UL, and
calculated by the follow equation: consequently the efficiency factor F’ (Eq. (3)).
In this study the Tcell,PVT has been calculated by Eq. (12), being posed
Tcell,PV = Tamb +
G
(9) the internal heat transfer coefficient UabsFluid = 65.1 (W/m2 K) in
U0 + U1 ∙u accordance with (Lämmle et al., 2017) and the experimental carried out
For a crystalline PV module the constants assume the value U0 = on the pilot PV/T plant installed at the University of Catania (Gagliano
30.02 W/m2⋅K and U1 = 6.28 W⋅s/m3⋅K (Koehl et al., 2011), while u is et al., 2019).
the wind speed. The specific thermal power output of the PV/T collector is calculated
The cell temperature of a PV module can be calculated from the PV using the effective solar radiation that hits the absorber and thermal
module energy balance (Eqs. (10) and (11)) (Battaglia et al., 2018, efficiency of the PV/T collector, which lead to Eq. (15).
2018.). ( )
η Ac
( ) Qth = G∙ηth ∙ 1 − PV ∙ (14)
(τα)PV ∙G = ηPV ∙G + UPV ∙ Tcell,PV − Tamb (10) α A
Assuming αA∙Ac ≅ 1, the Eq. (14) can be simplified in Eq. (15).
(τα)PV − ηPV
Tcell,PV = Tamb + G∙ (11)
UPV Qth = G∙ηth ∙(1 − ηPV ) (15)
2
Under NOCT condition (800 W/ m irradiance, 20 C ambient tem­
◦
The variation of electrical efficiency with the cell temperature is also
perature and wind speed of 1 m/s) and assuming (τα)PV = 0.9, ηPV = 0, a taken into account.
value of UPV = 28.8 W/m2 K was determined in (Sandnes and Rekstad, As regard the thermal efficiency it is calculated by Eq. (16) (ISO
2002). 9806, 2013).

Tave − Tamb (Tave − Tamb )2

ηth = ηth,0 − a1 ∙ − a2 ∙ (16)
G G

where ηth,0 is the zero loss collector efficiency; a1 and a2 are the thermal
heat losses coefficients respectively of first and second order.
The PV/T collector has to operate in hybrid mode with the electrical
power tracked in maximum power point (MPP) as synchronous gener­
ation of heat and electricity has a significant impact on the thermal ef­
ficiency. Some of these coefficients may are not meaningful so they can

Table 2
Values of UabsFluid, F’ and ηth,0 for unglazed PV/T panels (PV/Tung), glazed PV/T
panels (PV/TG) and solar thermal collector.
PV/Tung PV/TG Solar collector (T)

UabsFluid (W/m2 K) 65.1 62.1 61.2

F’ 0.80 0.88 0.93
ηth,0 0.58 0.63 0.793
Fig. 1. One-dimensional models with a single absorber and fluid node.

534
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

be set to zero, depending on the collector technology. The instantaneous performance ratio due to irradiance losses PRG
can be calculated with the Eq. (24) (Heydenreich et al., 2008), which
3. PV/T system electrical efficiency considers of a current/voltage source and two loss factors equivalent to a
serial and a parallel resistance. The current I of the current/voltage
By definition, the electrical efficiency, ηel,PVT, is: source is assumed to be linear with G, while the voltage V is assumed to
be proportional to the logarithm of G. Losses in a serial resistance (P =
Pel
ηel,PVT = (17) R⋅I2) are proportional to G2, and losses in a parallel resistance (P = V2/R)
G∙APV
are proportional to ln2(G). Module efficiency is defined as Eq. (20), so
where Pel, and G are, respectively, the electric power and irradiance on irradiance losses PRG may be written as Eq. (24) (Heydenreich et al.,
the plane of the PV/T panel in a PV/T system, while APV is the PV 2008).
module area. Either DC or AC efficiency can be defined based on Pel is ( )
(ln(G + e) )2
measured. In this paper, the DC efficiency is considered. PRG = a∙G + b∙ln(G + 1) + c∙ − 1 (22)
G+1
If a PV/T panel operates at the maximum power point (MPP) and
under Standard Test Condition (STC) (TSTC = 298.15 K, GSTC = 1000 W/
with the model parameters a in m2/W, b and c dimensionless and the
m2 and AMSTC = 1.5), the STC efficiency, ηPV,STC, can be defined as
Euler’s number e.
(Skoplaki and Palyvos, 2009; Evans and Florschuetz, 1977):
Moreover, the instantaneous performance ratio due to incidence
ηPV,STC =
PMPP
(18) angle losses PRIAM can be calculated with Eq. (23) (Duffie and Beckman,
GSTC ∙APV 2013).
( )
where PMPP = IMPP ⋅ VMPP, IMPP and VMPP are the current and the voltage PRIAM = 1 − b0,el ∙
1
− 1 (23)
at MPP, respectively. cosθ
Due to natural spectral sensitivity of solar cell devices, the solar
spectrum is one among the environmental factors that strongly impact where b0,el is the constant for electrical IAM and θ the incidence angle of
on the panel’s performance (Shnishil et al., 2011). This effect depends by beam radiation.
the type of solar panel and by sensor used for the solar irradiance For PV/T systems, most often in Eq. (22) only the temperature losses
measurements (King et al., 1997; Vignola et al., 2017). are considered (PRTOT = PRT) (Al-Waeli et al., 2017) (Evans, 1981)
Therefore, accurate modelling needs to describe the dependency of (Joshi et al., 2009) (Rosa-Clot et al., 2016) (Alobaid et al., 2018).
module efficiency from (Heydenreich et al., 2008): In other cases, also the irradiance losses effects are taken into
consideration, with expressions that present a logarithmic (Eq. (24)
a) intensity of solar irradiance, (Notton et al., 2005) or a linear (Eq. (25) (Dualsun, 2019) dependence
b) module temperature, from the irradiance, G.
c) solar incidence angle, ( ( )
ηel,PVT = ηPV,STC ∙ 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC + βIPV ∙logG
)
(24)
d) solar spectrum,
e) operation history (for some thin film modules). ( ( )) ( )
ηel,PVT = ηPV,STC ∙ 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC ∙ 1 + βIIPV ∙(G − GSTC ) (25)

Therefore, the overall electrical efficiency of the PV/T collector, ηel, where αPV is the temperature coefficients at the maximum power point
PVT,can be calculated taking into account the performance ratio PRTOT
(MPP), while βIPV and βIIPV represent both the dependence of the electrical
(Jonas et al., 2019), which includes the following loss effects:
efficiency from the solar radiation at MPP. Generally, the parameters αPV
is given by the manufacturer of the PV module (Dualsun, 2019). While
• temperature PRT;
the parameter βPV can be provided by the manufacturer (e.g. (Dualsun,
• solar radiation PRG;
2019) or it can be found in literature (e.g. (Evans, 1981).
• incidence angle PRIAM.
In order to consider the PV module degradation, that leads to a
ηel,PVT = ηPV,STC ∙PRTOT (19) progressive loss of efficiency (Ndiaye et al., 2013; Huang and Wang,
2018), another coefficient, γPV, (which practically is used to reduce the
where PRTOT is calculated as: efficiency at STC) can be added in the Eqs. (19), (24) and (25), which

( ( )) ( ( ))
( ( )) (ln(G + e) )2 1
ηel,PVT = γPV ∙ηPV,STC ∙ 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC ∙ a∙G + b∙ln(G + 1) + c∙ − 1 ∙ 1 − b0,el ∙ − 1 (26)
G+1 cosθ

turn into as the following:

PRTOT = PRT ∙PRG ∙PRIAM (20)
In this study different combinations of the three loss effects have ( ( )) I
been considered to estimate the electrical efficiency of the PV/T ηel,PVT = γPV ∙ηPV,STC ∙ 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC ∙βPV ∙logG (27)
collector. ( ( )) ( )
The temperature dependence of the electrical efficiency is expressed ηel,PVT = γPV ∙ηPV,STC ∙ 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC ∙ 1 + βIIPV ∙(G − GSTC )
as (Skoplaki and Palyvos, 2009): (28)
( )
PRT = 1 + αPV ∙ Tcell,PVT − TSTC (21) Accurate quantification of power decline over time, also known as
degradation rate, is essential to all stakeholders—utility companies,
In the case of PV/T module, Tcell,PVT is calculated by Eq. (12).
integrators, investors, and researchers alike (Jordan and Kurtz, 2013).

535
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Nearly 2000 degradation rates, measured on individual modules or Table 4

entire systems, have been assembled from the literature and show a Combination of defined terms for estimating the electrical efficiency through Eq.
mean degradation rate of 0.8%/year and a median value of 0.5%/year. (29).
The majority, 78% of all data, reported a degradation rate of <1%/year. Terms Involved parameters
The three parameters (αPV, βIPV , βIIPV and γPV) have to be determined (33) 3 p and r
for each type of module. Normally the manufacturers provide a refer­ (34) 1 and 3 p, q and r
ence range for the annual degradation of the PV modules that can be (35) 2 and 3 p, m and r
used as reference calculating γPV experimentally. (36) 1, 2 and 3 p, q, m and r
(37) 3 and 4 p, r and s
In literature there is an efficiency equation that considers all terms (38) 3 and 5 p, r and u
used in Eqs. (19) and (20). In the model developed by W. Durisch (39) 3, 4 and 5 p, r, s and u
(Durisch et al., 2007), in fact, the electrical efficiency is calculated as a
function of three independent variables: module temperature, air mass
(AM) and solar irradiance. combinations.
( ( )m ) ( ( )u )
ηel,PVT = p∙ q∙
G
+
G
∙ 1 +r∙
Tcell,PVT
+s∙
AM
+
AM 4. Experimental setup
GSTC GSTC TSTC AM STC AM STC
(29) The pilot plant is installed in the campus of the University of Catania,
Italy, (Lat. 37.5256 N, Long. 15.0746 E) on the eastern coast of Sicily,
The parameters p, q, m, r, s and u have to be determined for each type
right in the center of the Mediterranean area.
of module from a specific set of outdoor measurements. Thus a huge set
The main components of the hydronic circuit are: two PV/T modules;
of data obtained under various climatic conditions need to be managed
one solar thermal tank with two heat exchangers; one water pump; ten
(Durisch et al., 2007).
temperature sensors; four flow meters; one data acquisition system;
The influences of each variables (solar radiation, cell temperature
safety components; water shut-off valves; three-way valves; one water
and air mass) on the efficiency of PV module was studied in (Hamou
chiller (Gagliano et al., 2019). Technical characteristics of the PV/T
et al., 2014).
modules are described in details in Table 5 (Gagliano et al., 2019).
The parameter p is linked with the efficiency in STC conditions
The solar circuit is closed, and the circulation of the heat transfer
(Durisch et al., 2014) and can be calculated as:
fluid is entrusted to a circulation pump, model Yonos PARA ST **/7.0
ηPV PWM 2 produced by Wilo (YonosPARA ST **/7.0 PWM2).
p= STC
(30)
(q + 1)∙(2 + r + s) The maximum flow rate allowed by the pump is 3.3 m3/h, while the

( ( )m ) ( ( )u )
ηPV G G Tcell,PVT AM AM
ηel,PVT = STC
∙ q∙ + ∙ 1 + r∙ + s∙ + (31)
(q + 1)∙(2 + r + s) GSTC GSTC TSTC AM STC AM STC

Therefore, Eq. (29) can be written as:
Moreover, Eq. (29) allows to determine αPV considering STC condi­
tions (Durisch et al., 2014).
p∙(q + 1)∙r
αPV =
TSTC
3.1. Redrafted Durisch equations for PV/T collector
The sensitivity of the Durisch’s equation (Eq. (29)), composed by five
terms, was investigated through a sensitivity analysis considering
different combinations of the above mentioned five terms (see Table 3).
In Table 3, terms constituting Eq. (29) have been numbered from 1 to
5.
Then, a set of equations for the calculations of the electrical effi­
ciency are built, each one containing a different group of the terms
present in Eq. (29).
Table 4 shows the novel equations defined (from 33 to 39), the pa­
rameters have to be calculated for each equation. It has to be pointed out
that term 3, which refers to the temperature effect, is included in all the
Table 3
Terms that constitute Eq. (29).
maximum delivery head is equal to 7.3 m of water column. The storage
tank is of Cordivari type, mod. BOLLY 2 ST (Bolly ® 2 st). The heat
exchanger, in the lower part of the solar storage tank, is connected with
the solar collector circuit, while the heat exchanger, in the upper part of
the storage tank, is connected with the chiller. The nominal heat ca­
pacity is 4.07 and 4.93 kW respectively for heating and cooling.
(32) Finally, the pipes are made of copper with diameter of 16 mm
insulated with 20 mm thick expanded elastomer cups.
Data coming from various sensors and from a weather station is used
to manage and monitor the PV/T system. Table 6 summarizes the main
features of the sensors and the weather station installed in the PV/T
system.
As the investigated system is constituted by just two modules, the
edge effect influences the performance of this test bed. The edge effect
determines a temperature mismatch between even in PV/T module
where the cooling fluid strive to equalize the PV cell temperatures.
However, when the PV cells are connected in series, the temperature
mismatch has negligible effects on the power production (Rosa-Clot
et al., 2011).
A N3300 Series Modular DC Electronic Load and an ET-7017-10
Table 5
Technical characteristics of the PV/T modules and their connection in series
(Gagliano et al., 2019).

Term 1 2 3 4 5 Isc (A) Voc (V) Impp (A) Vmmp (V) Pp (W)

G
(
G
)m
TPV AM
(
AM
)u Module M1 8.664 8.645 8.089 31.376 253.813
q∙ r∙ s∙ Module M2 8.654 8.607 8.103 31.545 255.597
GSTC GSTC TSTC AMSTC AMSTC
Series 8.55 77 8.15 61.4 500

536
C. Ventura et al.
Table 6
Main features of the sensors installed in the PV/T system.
PV/T monitoring system
Measured variable Temperature Global radiation on tilted plane
Sensor LM35DZ CM11 (Kipp&Zonen)
Measuring range 0 ÷ 100 ◦ C 0 ÷ 4000 W/m2
Accuracy ± 1.5 ◦ C ±2%
Response time <5 s
board have been used to control and acquire signals.
The uncertainties of the voltage, current, temperature, and irradi­
ance sensors and of the acquisition board have been used to calculate the
uncertainty in measured efficiency ηel,PVT, defined in Eq. (17), as shown
in (Ando et al., 2015). The obtained uncertainty value of ηel,PVT is 0.006.
5. Experimental results
5.1. PV/T temperature measurements
In this section the electrical behavior of PV/T pilot plant installed at
the University of Catania is analyzed. This PV/T plant consists of two
Dualsun™ Wave modules. The panels are connected with a 170 L of
storage tank through a serpentine heat exchanger. The tank temperature
is managed by a chiller connected to the tank through a second coil heat
exchanger (Dualsun datasheet).
The modules have been installed in 2016. In (Warranty for DualSun
product) two types of warranties for Dualsun products are indicated: a
performance warranty with respect to the photovoltaic performance and
the product warranty.
In order to analyze the electrical behavior of the system and to
compare results at different temperatures, when the fixed set-point
temperatures of the cooling fluid are reached, the chiller cools the
tank trying to maintain the set-point. This means that the system oper­
ates at almost constant temperature during the central part of the day.
Data have been measured with a time step of 1 min.
Four temperatures have been chosen as set-point: 25 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, 35 ◦ C
and 45 ◦ C. These temperatures represent the mean value “Tave” between
the inlet (TMin) and outlet (TMout) temperatures of the cooling fluid.
Table 5 indicates a difference of the Pp between the two mod­
ules<0.87%. Moreover, the power profile of the two modules for the
Fig. 2. Power of module 1 and module 2 and their difference in percentage with respect to the power of module 1 for the different analyzed set-point temperatures.
537
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544
Wind speed and direction Flowmeter Amperometer
Vantage Pro2 (Davis) WMT1SSV (Watt Ind.) T201DCH (Seneca)
0.5 ÷ 89 m/s 0.03 ÷ 1.5 m3/h 0 ÷ 50 A
±3% direction ±5% ±0.3%
±5% speed
<2 s
analysed set-point temperatures are reported in Fig. 2. Since the two
modules have almost identical power profiles, in the following only the
results derived by a single PV/T module are reported in this paper.
Fig. 3 shows the observed values for TMin, TMout, Tave, the Tcell,PVT
calculated with Eq. (12), the solar irradiation, G, and the generated
electrical power for each set-point temperature.
Data showed in Fig. 3 are referred to the above mentioned periods: a)
set-point temperature = 25 ◦ C, from 30 November to 1 December 2019
and 7 December 2019; (b) set-point temperature = 30 ◦ C (from 16 to 17
June 2019); (c) set-point temperature = 35 ◦ C (from 20 to 21 June
2019); (d) set-point temperature = 45 ◦ C (from 11 to 12 June 2019).
In Fig. 3 the grey dotted lines represent the threshold of ±6% respect
to the set-point temperatures. So only the periods for which Tave are
between these ranges are taken into account for assessing the variation
of the electrical efficiency. The value of 6% was chosen because it is a
trade-off in order to consider measures with a temperature near to the
reference one and to have a sufficient number of observations. It is worth
noticing the large difference between the average water temperature
and the PV cell temperature, this temperature drop has a relevant impact
on the PV/T electrical efficiency.
5.2. Analysis of sensitivity of the Durisch equations for PV/T collector
The results obtained using the different terms of the Durisch model
(Eq. (29)) discussed in Section 4.1 have been analyzed in order to
evaluate if it is possible to reduce the number of unknown parameters
involved in Eq. (29) using equations proposed in Table 4.
For each equation, the unknown parameters have been calculated
through the nonlinear least-squares curve fitting method considering
data of all set-point temperatures. Such calculation is performed limiting
the analysis to the value of solar irradiation G > 200 W/m2.
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Fig. 3. Inlet and outlet temperatures and their average (TMin, TMout, Tave), the outdoor temperature (Tamb) and the PV cell temperature (Tcell,PVT - Eq. (12)), irradiance
and power for the (a) set-point temperature = 25 ◦ C; (b) set-point temperature = 30 ◦ C; (c) set-point temperature = 35 ◦ C; (d) set-point temperature = 45 ◦ C.

In order to find physically acceptable solutions for the calculated
parameters, the methodology adopted includes a constrain that allows
to maintain ηPV,STC between a lower (10%) and an upper (15.4%) bound.
Fig. 4 shows an example of the efficiency calculated using all the
novel equations listed in Table 4 for two days, characterized by set-point
temperatures of 30 and 35 ◦ C, respectively.
In Fig. 4 it is possible to note that results obtained using Eq. 34,
which takes into account only the linear dependence from PV/T cell
temperature and solar radiation, gives rise to inaccurate results. In
addition, results obtained using new equations arising from Eq. (29) can
be differenced in two groups: the first one (Eqs. (33), (37), (38) and (39))
allows to provide a reliable evaluation of the electrical efficiency only
during the central part of the day, while the second group (Eqs. (29),
(31), (35), (36)) allows to simulate the efficiency with excellent accu­
racy during all day. The electrical efficiency calculated using Eq. (35).
These first considerations highlight that for obtaining acceptable results,
it is necessary to consider at least the dependence of the electrical effi­
ciency from the cell temperature and an exponential dependence from
the solar radiation.
5.3. Comparison of models used for calculating the PV/T electrical
efficiency
The electrical efficiency has been calculated using the models

538
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Fig. 3. (continued).

presented in Section 3 considering several alternatives for determining
the parameters that are used in the equations.
Firstly, the electrical efficiency is evaluated using Eq. (24) posing βIPV
= 0. Thus, both in Eqs. (24) and (25), the values of αPV and βIPV / βIIPV have
been posed αPV = − 0.0044 [/K] (Dualsun, 2019) or (Dualsun datasheet)
and βIPV = 0.000025 [/m2/W]) (Dualsun, 2019). βIIPV has been fixed equal
to βIPV . Further, for these equations, the values αPV and βIPV / βIIPV have
been estimated using a nonlinear least-squares curve fitting method. The
electrical efficiency has been calculated using Eqs. (27) and (28) using
estimated parameters by a least-squares method.
Moreover, when the electrical efficiency is calculated by Eq. (26) two
different approaches were followed: in the first approach αPV is taken
from (Dualsun, 2019) and the other parameters have been determined
by a least-squares method, while in the second approach also the value
of αPV has been estimated by a least-squares method. In both approaches,
a reduction coefficient, γ PV , has been considered. All the alternative
approaches are listed in Table 5.
The electrical efficiencies calculated by all the equations illustrated
in the Section 3, except for that one proposed in (Durisch et al., 2007),
are depicted in the upper part of Fig. 5. The lower part of Fig. 5 shows
the power and irradiance curves normalized respect to the maximum
nominal DC power (PMPP = 250 W) and GSTC, observed for each of the
investigated days.
The analysis of the data in Fig. 5 allows to point out the following
comments. Preliminarily, it has to be underline for the day with the
operational set-point temperature of 25 ◦ C, the irradiance curve exhibits
a shadow effect. Thus, this period was not used for the developed
elaboration.
The electrical efficiencies calculated using equations where the pa­
rameters αPV and βIPV are taken from the datasheet (Eq. (24) with αPV

539
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Fig. 4. Comparison of the results obtained using all the combinations listed in Table 4.

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured ηel,PVT (black star line) and ηel,PVT calculated through alternative approaches. In the second line, the normalized power and
irradiance variation.

from (Dualsun, 2019) and βIPV = 0; Eqs. (24) and (25) with αPV and βIPV or
Table 7
βIIPV from (Dualsun, 2019), are too high compared to the measured one. Statistical errors: MAE, nMAE, RMSE and nRMSE.
The results of Eq. (24), for which the two parameters are determined via
Equation MAE nMAE RMSE nRMSE
nonlinear least-squares curve fitting, indicate a reliable estimation of the [%] [%]
electrical efficiency only during the central part of the day when the set-
Eq. (24) - βIPV = 0 2.48 20.35 3.23 26.55
point temperature is 30 ◦ C or 35 ◦ C. Eq. (27) allows to achieve good
Eq. (24) - αPV and βIPV from (Dualsun, 2.48 20.40 3.24 26.59
results only during the central part of the day, except when the set-point
2019)
temperature is 25 ◦ C. The electrical efficiency calculated by Eqs. (25)
Eq. (24) – estimated αPV and βIPV 2.48 20.39 3.23 26.58
and (28), where the estimated coefficients are used, has the same shape
of the solar radiation curve. But the measured electrical efficiency curve, Eq. (25) - αPV and βII
PV from (Dualsun,
1.74 14.27 2.76 22.65
2019)
differently from the estimated one, is squashed in the central part of the
Eq. (25) – estimated αPV andβII 0.96 7.93 1.60 13.13
day, this can be since these equations do not take into account the losses PV

due to the solar radiation (Yazdanpanahi et al., 2015). Eq. (26) - αPV from (Dualsun, 2019) 0.90 7.36 1.54 12.66
Eq. (26) – estimated αPV 0.89 7.29 1.55 12.71
Eq. (26) allows to obtain results similar to the measured one both
Eq. (27) – estimated αPV, βIPV and γPV 1.27 10.43 2.08 17.06
taking αPV from (Dualsun, 2019) or estimating it. It is worth noting that
Eq. (28) – estimated αPV, βII
PV and γPV
0.96 7.93 1.60 13.13
in Eq. (26) the impact of temperature, solar radiation and incidence
Eq. (29) 0.69 5.69 1.37 11.30
angle dependence are taken into account; moreover, in this equation
Eq. (31) 0.97 6.46 1.45 11.90
both the increase of the efficiency with the increase of solar radiation Eq. (35) 0.88 7.21 1.52 12.46
and the two loss mechanisms are included. Eq. (36) 0.81 6.67 1.47 12.04
To perform a quantitative comparison among the proposed efficiency

540
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

formulation, the following errors have been considered: the mean ab­ (29), (31), (35) and (36). The lower bound (lb) and upper bound (ub)
solute errors (MAE) the normalized mean absolute errors (nMAE), the defined for each parameter have been set based on the data available in
root mean square errors (RMSE) and the normalized root mean square (Durisch et al., 2007).
errors (nRMSE). As regards the temperature coefficient, αPV, it can be calculated by
∑N ⃒⃒ ⃒ Eq. (32) using the parameters listed in TABLE 8. The value of αPV =
ηel,PVT est − ηel,PVT meas ⃒ − 0.0129 is obtained.
MAE = 1 (40)
N It is wort underline that the calculated values of αPV which appear
with the same form (Eq. (21)) in all the equations used to calculate the
MAE
nMAE = ∑N (41) electrical efficiency of a PV module, can be compared with that one
η
1 el,PVT meas
N indicated in the datasheet of the PV module.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ In Table 9 the estimated parameters which appear in Eqs. (26)–(29)
√N (
√∑ )2 are indicated. The value of αPV obtained from Eq. (26) is very similar to
√
√ ηel,PVT est − ηel,PVT meas that one indicated in the datasheet (Dualsun, 2019) (αPV = − 0.0044
RMSE = 1
(42) [/K]), while Eq. (29) give rise to an overestimation of this factor. The
N
reference value of γPV, which represents the degradation rates of the PV
RMSE module, is shown in (Warranty for DualSun product); according to the
nRMSE = ∑N (43) year of installation of the PV/T plant and the value indicated in (War­
η
1 el,PVT meas
N ranty for DualSun product); γ PV is equal to 94.2%. The higher values
calculated through Eqs. (26) and (29) can be due to the other efficiency
where ηel,PV_meas represents the measured electrical efficiency, ηel,PVT_est losses that are not considered in the equations.
the estimated one and N is the number of available samples. The values of the parameters obtained for Eq. (27) and (28) are
Table 7 shows the results of the statistical analysis. indicative since these two equations do not allow to achieve good results
Table 5 confirms that Eq. (29) shows the best results (nRMSE = in estimating the electrical efficiency of a PV/T module.
11.30%), whose parameters are calculated via the least square curve Therefore, the value of αPV provided by the manufacturer can be used
fitting method, but even very good results are achieved using Eqs. (26), in Eq. (26), while for the value of γPV it is suggested to use a lower value
(29), (31), (37) and (38). In particular, Eq. (28) gives similar results in order to take into account other losses. In the case other equations are
when αPV is taken from the datasheet (nRMSE = 12.66%) or when it is
used, the temperature and the solar radiation coefficients assume
calculated (nRMSE = 12.71%). significantly different values from the reference one.
Fig. 6 depicts, for the investigated set-point temperatures, the com­
parison among the experimental and the efficiency values calculated by
5.4. Validation of the proposed models
Eqs. (26), (29), (31), (35) and (36).
TABLE 8 reports the values of the parameters which appears in Eqs.
Finally, the developed efficiency expressions (Eqs. (26), (29), (31),

Fig. 6. Comparison between measured ηel,PVT (Eq. (17) – black star line) and ηel,PVT calculated with Eq. (26) (green line), Eq. (29) (red line), Eq. (31) (blue line), Eq.
(35) (grey line) and Eq. (36) (magenta line). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Table 8
Lower bound (lb) and upper bound (ub) and value of estimated parameters for Eqs. (29), (31), (35) and (36).
Eq. p q m r s u

Lb 0 − 1.2 0.01 − 0.5 − 1.5 0.6

Ub 30 0 1 0 0 1.5
Value Eq. (29) 19.3505 − 0.5527 0.5731 − 0.0373 − 0.3635 0.6900
Eq. (31) 22.3871 − 0.4730 0.5715 − 0.1944 − 0.5004 0.6551
Eq. 35 17.7139 – 0.2777 − 0.1460 – –
Eq. 36 30.0000 − 0.4457 0.5097 − 0.1266 – –

541
C. Ventura et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544

Table 9
Lower bound (lb) and upper bound (ub) and value of estimated parameters for Eq. (26), Eq. (27) and Eq. (28) and Eq. (29).
a b c αPV βPV γPV
[lb, ub] [lb, ub] [lb, ub] [lb, ub] [lb, ub] [lb, ub]

Eq. (26) – estimated αPV − 2.3375⋅10− 14 0.1671 − 3.7641⋅10− 14

− 0.0051 80.87
[− 1⋅10− 10, 0] (Gagliano et al., May 2019) [− 2, 0] [− 0.000044, − 0.44] [80,100]
Eq. (27) – – – − 0.0021 − 0.0105 80
[− 0.000044, − 0.44] [2.5⋅10− 7, 0.025] [80,100]
Eq. (29) – – – − 0.0070 − 3.9635⋅10− 4 99.87
[− 0.000044, − 0.44] [2.5⋅10− 7, 0.025] [80,100]
Eq. (30) – – – − 0.0129 89.8692

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured temperatures (inlet, outlet, average between inlet and outlet and ambient) and the calculated (Eq. (12)) cell temperature. In
the second line comparison between measured ηel,PVT (Eq. (17) - black star line) and ηel,PVT calculated with Eq. (26) (green line), Eq. (29) (red line), Eq. (31) (blue
line), Eq. (35) (grey line) and Eq. (36) (magenta line). In the third line, the correspondent normalized power and irradiance. Data are referred to a period between 01/
06/2019 and 08/07/2019. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(35) and (36)) have been tested using a new set of measured data the measured electrical efficiency of the studied PV/T system.
different from the set used to tune the parameters, between the 1st June
2019 and 8th July 2019. 6. Conclusion
The first row of Fig. 7 shows the variation of the inlet and outlet
temperatures (TMin and TMout), the outdoor temperature (Tamb) and the In this paper enhanced models which allow to calculate the electrical
PV/T cell temperature (Tcell,PVT), the second row shows the comparison performance of a PV/T system have been proposed. This study is con­
of the observed and calculated electrical efficiency, and the third row ducted starting from the available literature models which are
shows the normalized power and solar irradiance over the whole period commonly used for calculating the electrical efficiency of PV systems.
of the survey. These models calculate the electrical efficiency as a function of the cell
Results of the statistical analysis for data used to test the proposed temperature, solar irradiation, solar incidence angle and electrical
model are shown in Table 10. losses.
Results shown in Fig. 7 and in TABLE 10 confirm that the electrical A procedure has been defined for calculating the cell temperature of
efficiencies calculated with Eqs. (26), (29), (31), (35) and (36) using the the PV/T module as a function of the temperature of the cooling fluid
parameters reported in Table 7 allow to estimate with a good precision and on the specific features of the PV/T module.
Thus, after introducing the calculation of the PV cell temperature as a
Table 10 function of the temperature of the fluid temperature, the electrical ef­
Statistical error: MAE, nMAE, RMSE and nRMSE. Data are referred to a period ficiency models existing in literature for PV systems have been redrafted.
between 01/06/2019 and 08/07/2019. Alternatives formulations, that take into account a reduced number of
Equation MAE nMAE RMSE nRMSE variables, have been proposed in such a way that the novel formulations
[%] [%] can be suitable to be used for online monitoring and control scope.
Eq. (26) - αPV from (Dualsun, 0.69 5.84 1.14 9.73 The robustness of the redrafted models has been evaluated
2019) comparing the calculated electrical efficiency with those observed
Eq (26) – estimated αPV 0.71 6.00 1.17 9.90 experimentally on the unglazed PV/T panels installed at the campus of
Eq (29) 0.68 5.82 1.02 8.99
the University of Catania (Catania, Italy).
Eq. (31) 0.69 5.90 1.06 8.69
Eq. (35) 0.75 6.39 1.12 9.50 In order to analyze the effect of the temperature of the cooling fluid
Eq. (36) 0.65 5.51 1.03 8.77 in the electrical behavior of the PV/T system, four set-point operating
temperatures have been investigated.

542
C. Ventura et al.
To compare the investigated electrical efficiency models, statistical
errors, MAE, nMAE, RMSE and nRMSE, between measured and estimated
efficiency have been calculated.
The analysis highlighted that to have a reliable estimation of the
electrical efficiency it is not sufficient to only take into account the
temperature losses. Among the developed models, in fact, those which
consider both the proportional dependence by the solar radiation and
the power loss mechanisms associated with it, allow to obtain an
excellent evaluation of the electrical efficiency. The trustworthiness of
the models further increases adding the dependence of the electrical
efficiency from the incidence angle. Specifically, among the investigated
models, the most performing are those defined through Eq. (26) and Eq.
(29).
The model defined by Eq. (26) involves three unknown parameters in
addition to the PV temperature coefficient, that usually is indicated in
the datasheet of PV modules. Moreover, a parameter that takes into
account the degradation rate of the PV module has been added. It is
worth to evidence that the value of the calculated PV temperature co­
efficient (αPV = − 0.0051 [/K]) is very close to that one indicated in the
datasheet (αPV = − 0.0044 [/K]). Therefore, when this model is used, it is
possible to use the coefficient of temperature provided in the datasheet.
A nRMSE of 12.66%, has been obtained using the parameter taken from
the datasheet, while it is equal to 12.71% when αPV is estimated.
The second model (defined by Eq. (29)), proposed by Durisch et Al.,
involves six unknown parameters in its original formulation. An analysis
of sensitivity has been done for reducing the number of such parameters,
which underlines that dependence of the electrical efficiency from the
incidence angle can be neglected. The nRMSE varies from 11.30% for the
complete model to 12.04% obtained with this reduced model. In this
case, the power temperature coefficient is very different (αPV = − 0.0129
[/K]) respect to that one indicated in the datasheet.
To validate the obtained results, these previously mentioned models
have been tested to a new set of experimental data obtaining a nRMSE of
9.73% for the first model (Eq. (26)) and of 8.99% for the second model
(Eq. (29)).
These models will be implemented in the PV/T plant monitoring
system to verify, in real-time, the coherent of the developed
methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abdelrazik, A.S., Al-Sulaiman, F.A., 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, vol. 95. Elsevier
Ltd, pp. 110–129, 01-Nov-2018.
Ahmed, O., Bawa, S., 2018. The combined effect of nanofluid and reflective mirrors on
the performance of PV/thermal solar collector. Therm. Sci., no. 00, pp. 92–92.
Alobaid, M., Hughes, B., O’Connor, D., Calautit, J., Heyes, A., 2018. Improving thermal
and electrical efficiency in photovoltaic thermal systems for sustainable cooling
system integration. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy, Water Environ. Syst. 6 (2), 305–322.
Al-Waeli, A.H.A., Sopian, K., Kazem, H.A., Chaichan, M.T., 2017. Photovoltaic/Thermal
(PV/T) systems: status and future prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Al-Waeli, A.H.A., Chaichan, M.T., Sopian, K., Kazem, H.A., Mahood, H.B., Khadom, A.A.,
2019. Modeling and experimental validation of a PVT system using nanofluid
coolant and nano-PCM. Sol. Energy 177, 178–191.
Ando, B., Baglio, S., Pistorio, A., Tina, G.M., Ventura, C., 2015. Sentinella: Smart
Monitoring of Photovoltaic Systems at Panel Level. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 64
(8), 2188–2199.
Aste, N., Leonforte, F., Del Pero, C., 2015. Design, modeling and performance monitoring
of a photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) water collector. Sol. Energy 112, 85–99.
Aste, N., Del Pero, C., Leonforte, F., Manfren, M., 2016. Performance monitoring and
modeling of an uncovered photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) water collector. Sol. Energy
135, 551–568.
Battaglia, M., Zenhäusern, D., Brunold, S., 2018. Extended Hottel-Whillier Models for
uncovered PVT collectors. EuroSun 2018.
543
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544
Bergene, T., Løvvik, O.M., 1995. Model calculations on a flat-plate solar heat collector
with integrated solar cells. Sol. Energy 55 (6), 453–462.
“Bolly ® 2 st.” [Online]. Available: https://www.cordivari.it/downloads/3336/1441/19
Scheda Tecnica Bolly 2 ST - Rev. 31-2020.pdf.
Brahim, T., Jemni, A., 2017. Economical assessment and applications of photovoltaic/
thermal hybrid solar technology: a review. Sol. Energy 153, 540–561.
Cabral, D., Gomes, J., Karlsson, B., 2019. Performance evaluation of non-uniform
illumination on a transverse bifacial PVT receiver in combination with a CPC
geometry. Sol. Energy 194, 696–708.
Cui, Y., Zhu, J., Zoras, S., Zhang, J., 2021. Comprehensive review of the recent advances
in PV/T system with loop-pipe configuration and nanofluid. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 135. Elsevier Ltd, p. 110254, 01-Jan-2021.
Das, D., Kalita, P., Roy, O., 2018. Flat plate hybrid photovoltaic- thermal (PV/T) system:
a review on design and development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 84. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 111–130, 01-Mar-2018.
“Dualsun datasheet.” [Online]. Available: https://news.dualsun.com/wp-content/
uploads/DualSun-EN-Datasheet-Wave.pdf.
Dualsun, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://task60.iea-shc.org/.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, fourth ed.
Durisch, W., Bitnar, B., Mayor, J.C., Kiess, H., hang Lam, K., Close, J., 2007. Efficiency
model for photovoltaic modules and demonstration of its application to energy yield
estimation. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells.
Durisch, W., Mayor, J., Lam, K., Dittmann, S., Chianese, D., 2014. Climate Impacts on the
Efficiency of a p-Si PV Module and Annual Output under Real Working Conditions.
24nd EPVSEC, Hambg., no. May 2014, 2009.
El Fouas, C., Hajji, B., Gagliano, A., Tina, G.M., Aneli, S., 2020. Numerical model and
experimental validation of the electrical and thermal performances of photovoltaic/
thermal plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 220, 112939.
Evans, D.L., 1981. Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output. Sol.
Energy 27 (6), 555–560.
Evans, D.L., Florschuetz, L.W., 1977. Cost studies on terrestrial photovoltaic power
systems with sunlight concentration. Sol. Energy.
Florschuetz, L.W., 1979. Extension of the Hottel-Whillier model to the analysis of
combined photovoltaic/thermal flat plate collectors. Sol. Energy 22 (4), 361–366.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Yazdi, M.H., Ruslan, M.H., Ibrahim, A., Kazem, H.A., 2014.
Performance analysis of photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collectors. Energy
Convers. Manag. 78, 641–651.
Gagliano, A., Tina, G.M., Nocera, F., Grasso, A.D., Aneli, S., 2019. Description and
performance analysis of a flexible photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar system. Renew.
Energy 137, 144–156.
Gagliano, A., Tina, G.M., Aneli, S., Nižetić, S., 2019. Comparative assessments of the
performances of PV/T and conventional solar plants. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 304–315.
Grubišić-Čabo, F., Nižetić, S., Tina, M.G., 2016. Photovoltaic panels: a review of the
cooling techniques. Trans. Famena 40 (1), 63–74.
Guarracino, I., Freeman, J., Ramos, A., Kalogirou, S.A., Ekins-Daukes, N.J., Markides, C.
N., 2019. Systematic testing of hybrid PV-thermal (PVT) solar collectors in steady-
state and dynamic outdoor conditions. Appl. Energy 240, 1014–1030.
Gupta, S.K., Pradhan, S., 2020. A review of recent advances and the role of nanofluid in
solar photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system. Mater. Today Proc.
Hamdoon, O.M., Alomar, O.R., Salim, B.M., 2020. Performance analysis of hybrid
photovoltaic thermal solar system in Iraq climate condition. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog.
17, 100359.
Hamou, S., Zine, S., Abdellah, R., 2014. Efficiency of PV module under real working
conditions. Energy Procedia.
Heydenreich, W., Müller, B., Reise, C., 2008. Describing the World with three
Parameters: A new Approach to PV Module Power Modelling. In: Proceedings of the
23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, pp.
2786–2789.
Huang, C., Wang, L., 2018. Simulation study on the degradation process of photovoltaic
modules. Energy Convers. Manag.
ISO 9806, 2013. ISO 9806:2013 Solar energy - Solar thermal collectors - Test methods.
Jia, Y., Alva, G., Fang, G., 2019. Development and applications of photovoltaic–thermal
systems: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 102. Elsevier
Ltd, pp. 249–265, 01-Mar-2019.
Jonas, D., Frey, G., Theis, D., 2018. Implementation and Experimental Validation of a
Photovoltaic-Thermal (PVT) Collector Model in TRNSYS. In: EuroSun 2018.
Jonas, D., Lämmle, M., Theis, D., Schneider, S., Frey, G., 2019. Performance modeling of
PVT collectors: implementation, validation and parameter identification approach
using TRNSYS. Sol. Energy 193, 51–64.
Jonas, D., Lämmle, M., Theis, D., Schneider, S., Frey, G., 2019. Performance modeling of
PVT collectors: Implementation, validation and parameter identification approach
using TRNSYS. Sol. Energy 193 (July), 51–64.
Jordan, D.C., Kurtz, S.R., 2013. Photovoltaic degradation rates - an Analytical Review.
Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 21 (1), 12–29.
Joshi, A.S., Tiwari, A., Tiwari, G.N., Dincer, I., Reddy, B.V., Jan. 2009. Performance
evaluation of a hybrid photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) (glass-to-glass) system. Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 48 (1), 154–164.
King, D.L., Kratochvil, J.A., Boyson, W.E., 1997. “Measuring solar spectral and angle-of-
incidence effects on photovoltaic modules and solar irradiance sensors. In:
Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.
Koehl, M., Heck, M., Wiesmeier, S., Wirth, J., 2011. Modeling of the nominal operating
cell temperature based on outdoor weathering. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95 (7),
1638–1646.
Lämmle, M., Kroyer, T., Fortuin, S., Wiese, M., Hermann, M., 2016. Development and
modelling of highly-efficient PVT collectors with low-emissivity coatings. Sol.
Energy 130, 161–173.
C. Ventura et al.
Lämmle, M., Oliva, A., Hermann, M., Kramer, K., Kramer, W., 2017. PVT collector
technologies in solar thermal systems: a systematic assessment of electrical and
thermal yields with the novel characteristic temperature approach. Sol. Energy 155,
867–879.
Lee, N., et al., 2020. Hybrid floating solar photovoltaics-hydropower systems: benefits
and global assessment of technical potential. Renew. Energy 162, 1415–1427.
Moradi, K., Ali Ebadian, M., Lin, C.-X., 2013. A review of PV/T technologies: effects of
control parameters. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 64, 483–500.
Ndiaye, A., Charki, A., Kobi, A., Kébé, C.M.F., Ndiaye, P.A., Sambou, V., 2013.
Degradations of silicon photovoltaic modules: a literature review. Sol. Energy.
Notton, G., Cristofari, C., Mattei, M., Poggi, P., 2005. Modelling of a double-glass
photovoltaic module using finite differences. Appl. Therm. Eng.
Perers, B., Kovacs, P., Olsson, M., Pettersson, M.P.U., 2012. A tool for standardized
collector performance calculations including PVT. Energy Procedia 30, 1354–1364.
Pressani, M., Sommerfeldt, N., Madani Larijani, H., 2016. Investigation Of PV/Thermal
Collector Models For Use With Ground Source Heat Pumps In Transient Simulations.
In: 11TH ISES EUROSUN 2016 CONFERENCE.
Razali, N.F.M., Fudholi, A., Ruslan, M.H., Sopian, K., 2019. Review of water-nanofluid
based photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) systems. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 9 (1),
134–140.
Rosa-Clot, M., Rosa-Clot, P., Tina, G.M., 2011. TESPI: Thermal Electric Solar Panel
Integration. Sol. Energy 85 (10), 2433–2442.
Rosa-Clot, M., Rosa-Clot, P., Tina, G.M., Ventura, C., 2016. Experimental photovoltaic-
thermal Power Plants based on TESPI panel. Sol. Energy.
Sandnes, B., Rekstad, J., 2002. A photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector with a polymer
absorber plate. Experimental study and analytical model. Sol. Energy 72 (1), 63–73.
Shnishil, A.H., Chid, S.S., Yaseen, M.J., Alwana, T.J., 2011. Influence of air mass on the
performance of many types of PV modulus in Baghdad. Energy Procedia.
544
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 531–544
Shyam, Tiwari, G.N., Al-Helal, I.M., 2015. Analytical expression of temperature
dependent electrical efficiency of N-PVT water collectors connected in series. Sol.
Energy, 114, 61–76.
Skoplaki, E., Palyvos, J.A., 2009. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic
module electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations. Sol.
Energy.
Stegmann, M., Bertram, E., Rockendorf, G., Janßen, S., 2011. Model of an unglazed
photovoltaic thermal collector based on standard test procedures. In: 30th ISES
Biennial Solar World Congress 2011, SWC 2011.
Tonui, J.K., Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., 2007. Air-cooled PV/T solar collectors with low
cost performance improvements. Sol. Energy 81 (4), 498–511.
Vignola, F., Peterson, J., Chiu, C.Y., Dooraghi, M., Sengupta, M., Mavromatakis, F., 2017.
Comparison of pyranometers and reference cells on fixed and one-Axis tracking
surfaces. In: ASES SOLAR 2017 - 46th Annual National Solar Conference, 2017, pp.
118–127.
“Warranty for DualSun products.” [Online]. Available: https://academy.dualsun.com/
hc/en-us/articles/360005303619.
Yamashita, D.Y., Vechiu, I., Gaubert, J.P., 2020. A review of hierarchical control for
building microgrids. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Yazdanpanahi, J., Sarhaddi, F., Mahdavi Adeli, M., 2015. Experimental investigation of
exergy efficiency of a solar photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collector based on
exergy losses. Sol. Energy 118, 197–208.
*“YonosPARA ST **/7.0 PWM2.” [Online]. Available: https://www.heizungslabel.de/
sites/default/files/data/DOMA/files_public/Yonos_PARA_15_7.pdf.
Zondag, H.A., de Vries, D.W., van Helden, W.G.J., van Zolingen, R.J.C., van
Steenhoven, A.A., 2002. The thermal and electrical yield of a PV-thermal collector.
Sol. Energy 72 (2), 113–128.