Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567 www.elsevier.

com/locate/renene

Technical note

Calculation of the polycrystalline PV module temperature using a simple method of energy balance
M. Mattei, G. Notton*, C. Cristofari, M. Muselli, P. Poggi
` Laboratoire Systemes Physiques de l 0 Environnement, Universite de Corse Pascal Paoli, UMR CNRS 6134, Route des Sanguinaires, F-20000 Ajaccio, France Received 9 July 2004; accepted 7 March 2005 Available online 13 May 2005

Abstract The performance of a photovoltaic module is studied versus environmental variables such as solar irradiance, ambient temperature and wind speed. Two types of simplied models are studied in this paper: a PV module temperature model and a PV module electrical efciency model. These models have been validated utilizing experimental data from two experiments: a 850 Wp grid connected photovoltaic system and a p-Si module with eight temperature sensors integrated into the module. Both models have been coupled to determine the PV array output power versus the three meteorological parameters. This simple model using a simple energy balance and neglecting the radiation effects is in good agreement with the experimental data. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy balance; Photovoltaic module; Temperature estimation

1. Introduction It is well-known that most of the solar radiation absorbed by a photovoltaic (PV) panel is not converted to electricity but contributes to increase the temperature of the module, thus reducing the electrical efciency. This fact leads many researchers to develop hybrid PV/thermal collectors (PV/T) which generate electric power and simultaneously produce hot water [13] or hot air [3,4]. The photovoltaic cells are in thermal contact with a solar heat absorber and the excess heat

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C33 4 9552 4152; fax: C33 4 9552 4142. E-mail address: gilles.notton@univ-corse.fr (G. Notton).

0960-1481/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2005.03.010

554

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

generated by the photovoltaic cells serves as an input for the thermal system. During the operation, a heat carrier uid removes heat from the absorber and PV cells. These cooled cells then operate at a low and stable temperature and their electrical production increases because their efciency is decreasing with the temperature. The collected heat can be used as preheated water or air. The rst step consists in knowing the behaviour of the PV module alone without the absorber, the glass and the insulation. We want to study the inuence of meteorological parameters on the PV temperature and on the electrical efciency.

2. Temperature inuence on PV module performances 2.1. Some consideration and literature review Two important parameters of the IV curve for a PV module are the short-circuit current Icc and the open-circuit voltage VCO. Icc and VCO change with the incident solar irradiance f and with the ambient air temperature Ta. The short-circuit current is about proportional to the incident solar irradiance and the open-circuit voltage increases just a little when the solar irradiance increases. On the other hand, it is important to note that VCO decreases with increasing module temperature which leads to a noticeable decrease in the available maximum electrical power, in spite of a small increasing of the short-circuit current ICC [5]. Andreev et al. [6] calculated that the photocurrent increases with the temperature at 0.1% 8CK1 due to the decreasing of the gap of the solar cell and that the open-circuit voltage decreases at K2 mV 8CK1 between 20 and 100 8C due to a reduction of the gap but also due to an increasing of the saturation current. These two effects lead to a decrease for the maximum available power equal to 0.35% 8CK1. Nolay [7] estimated the same reduction at about 0.5% 8CK1. More recently, this inuence has been estimated between K0.3 and K0.5% 8CK1 [811]. It is obvious that these inuences on Icc and VOC have some consequences on the electrical efciency of the PV cell or module. The relative temperature coefcient of crystalline silicon solar modules is in the range 0.40.6% 8CK1 according to Moshfegh et Sandberg [12]. With a 13% absolute conversion efciency this corresponds to an absolute temperature coefcient between 0.031 and 0.046% 8CK1. Therefore, a reduction by 20% will give an increase in efciency between 0.6 and 1%. Del Cueto [13] studied the performances of several photovoltaic modules using various technologies: crystalline silicon (c-Si), Polycrystalline silicon (pc-Si), Cadmium Telluride (CdTe), and Copper Indium Diselenide (CIS). He noted that for all c-Si, poly c-Si and CIS modules, the changes in efciency due to temperature dependence appear to be in the range of absolute 12% over a temperature change span of 30 8C. The dependences in % 8CK1 of the module efciency are given in Table 1 for these technologies [13]. We note that all these data found in the literature are in good agreement. For a a-Si module, the temperature coefcients of the efciency are typically lower at K0.1% 8CK1 (against K0.4% 8CK1 for c-Si and CIS) [14].

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567 Table 1 Effect of the temperature on the module efciency according to Del Cueto [13] Module type % 8CK1 c-Si c-Si c-Si pc-Si pc-Si CIS CdTe

555

K0.496

K0.388

K0.427

K0.401

K0.431

K0.484

K0.035

All these effects must be considered in any model for photovoltaic module efciency. The most known model is given by the following equation: h Z hr 1 K bTc K Tr C g Log f (1)

where hr is the reference module efciency at a PV cell temperature Tr of 25 8C and at a solar irradiance f on the module equal to 1000 W mK2. g and b are, respectively, the solar irradiance and temperature coefcients for the PV module. Tc is the PV cell temperature which depends on the environmental conditions. Generally, these parameters (Tr,hr,b,g) are given by the photovoltaic manufacturer, but g and b depend on the material used for the PV module. Evans [15] suggested to use for the silicon bZ 0.0048 8CK1 and gZ0.12 and for a CIS module bZ0.006 8CK1. Most often this equation is seen with gZ0 [16]. In a comparative study concerning the performances of photovoltaic/thermal solar air collectors, Hegazy [4] used, on the basis of the study of Bergene et al. [1], Eq. (1) for the efciency of the PV module taking for g and b the respective values of 0 and 0.004 8CK1, the reference efciency being taken equal to 12.5%. This formulation (Eq. (1)) has been also used with gZ0 in a study of a PV/thermal collector [17]. Another formulation has been used by Sandnes and Rekstad [18], the efciency depends linearly of the temperature: h Z hr K mTc K Tr (2)

the temperature coefcient m has been calculated for a 41 Wp module. They found for m equals to 0.07 and 0.1% 8CK1 for serial and parallel combinations, respectively. These values are higher than the values found by Saidov et al. [19] with mZ0.05% 8CK1 for a silicon module. We remark that for gZ0 Eq. (2) is identical to Eq. (1) with mZbhr. In the above two models, Eqs. (1) and (2), the cell temperature appears, thus to be an important parameter to study. 2.2. Experimental verication of the efciency formulations In this section, we want to verify Eqs. (1) and (2) which allow the calculation of the PV module efciency versus the PV module temperature. Although the inuence of the solar irradiance has been neglected in these two Eqs. (1) and (2), it must be kept in mind that the inuence of the solar radiation is integrated in the cell temperature because it depends strongly on the amount of solar irradiance. We have a photovoltaic system connected to the electrical grid with a PV array composed of ten 85 Wp crystalline BP585F modules connected to a 700 W Sunny Boy 1000 inverter.

556
0.14

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

0.135

experimental efficiency calculated efficiency using Eq. (1) Calculated efficiency using Eq. (2)

0.13

Electrical efficiency

0.125

0.12

0.115

0.11

0.105

0.1 1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136 151 166 181 196 211 226 241 256 271 286 301 316 331 346 361 376 391 406 421 436 451 466

Time (minutes)
Fig. 1. Comparison of the two models of efciency with experimental data.

We collected each minute ve data: PV array voltage and current, solar irradiance, ambient and module temperature. We calculated the experimental efciency and compared it with efciency estimated using Eqs. (1) and (2) taking as cell temperature the temperature measured at the backside of the PV module as it is often realized in such a case [11,13]. We took as values for the coefcients hrZ0.125, TrZ25 8C, bZ0.0044 8CK1 and mZ 0.05% 8CK1. Obviously, if we have taken mZbhr, the two curves should be identical. The experimental efciency and the two modelled ones are presented in Fig. 1 for a particular day (2001, April 21). The model corresponding to Eq. (1) gives better results. The other model does not follow the variation of the efciency. From Eq. (1), we calculate the electrical power produced by the PV array and we present in Fig. 2 the result of this model for a particular day (2001, April 29). We note that the model is a good accordance with the experimental data. We calculated, on the basis of 1 month, the mean bias error (MBE), the root mean square error (RMSE) and the correlation coefcient (CC) for the efciency and electrical power model (Table 2). We consider that the performances of the model are satisfying considering the simplicity of the model and the low number of parameters used.

3. Cell temperature 3.1. Some models of cell temperatures This temperature inuences the IV characteristics and consequently the electrical efciency of the PV module.

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

700

557

600

PV Array Electrical Power (W)

500

400

Experimental electrical power produced by the PV array Modelled electrical power produced by the PV array

300

200

100

0 1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721

Time (minutes)
Fig. 2. Experimental and modelled PV array electrical power.

The most common manner to determine the cell temperature Tc consists in using the Normal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT) [7]. The value of this parameter is given by the PV module manufacturer. Tc is then dependent on the ambient temperature Ta and on the solar irradiance f according to Eq. (3): Tc Z Ta C NOCT K 20 + C f 800 (3)

This simple method yields satisfying results if the PV modules are not roof-integrated. A complete denition of NOCT and the conditions of determination of this parameter are presented in Refs. [20,21]. NOCT is calculated for a wind speed at a PV module height of nZ1 m sK1, an ambient temperature TaZ20 8C and a hemispherical irradiance fZ 800 W mK2. NOCT depends strongly of the type of encapsulation of the PV module. An energy balance on a PV module has been realized with some hypothesis: we neglect the difference of temperatures between photovoltaic cells and the cover (glass); we consider that the temperature is uniform in the panel; the radiative exchanges are considered as negligible.
Table 2 Values of statistical parameters for efciency and electrical power models MBE Efciency Electrical power K0.0160 K0.0132 W RMSE 0.033 35 W CC 0.856 0.882

558

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

For a solar irradiance f, the part crossing the glass is tf where t is the transmittance of the cover system for beam and diffuse radiation and the part absorbed by the photovoltaic cells is atf with a the absorption coefcient of the cells. The energy losses are: the losses due to the electrical power produced by the photovoltaic cells: hf the thermal losses from the collector to the surroundings: UPV(TcKTa). The energy balance is: atf Z hf C UPV Tc K Ta such a model has been used by Furler et al. [22] and Sandnes and Rekstad [18]. If we add Eq. (1) with gZ0 in Eq. (4), we obtain: Tc Z UPV Ta C fat K hr K bhr Tr UPV K bhr f UPV Ta C fat K hr K mTr UPV K mf (5) (4)

or if we introduce Eq. (2) in Eq. (4), we obtain: Tc Z (6)

According to Furler et al. [22], (at)/UPVZ0.0325 8C m2 WK1 and according to Sandnes et Rekstad [18] (at)Z0.9 and UPVZ28.8 W 8CK1 mK2, the two values of UPV are in a good agreement. However, the prediction of UPV can be improved by taking into account the effect of wind speed which is a meteorological variable inuencing this loss coefcient UPV. Several correlations are available to compute UPV versus the wind speed v. A study performed by Jones and Underwood [23] reveals a considerable range of values for the forced convection coefcient; for a wind speed of 1 m sK1 the value of hc is 1.2 W mK2 8CK1 [24], 5.8 W mK2 8CK1 [25], 9.1 W m2 8CK1 [26] or 9.6 W mK2 8CK1 [27]. Because of the wide discrepancies in the value for hc, it is difcult to choose a particular value. Dufe and Beckman [28] suggest for hc to use the expression given by McAdams [29] for at plates exposed to outside winds: hc Z 5:67 C 3:86v Nolay [7] used the following relation: hc Z 5:82 C 4:07v (8) (7)

According to Cole and Sturrock [30], the convective surface heat transfer coefcient is strongly dependent upon the wind direction and whether the subject surface is on windward or leeward side and can be expressed by: hc Z 11:4 C 5:7v for a windward surface hc Z 5:7 for a leeward surface (10) (9)

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

559

UPV is the heat exchange coefcient corresponding to the total surface area of the module, i.e. two times the surface area corresponding to hc because the heat is lost by the two faces of the photovoltaic module (lateral surfaces are neglected), thus, UPV Z 11:34 C 7:72v if Eq. (7) is used; UPV Z 11:64 C 8:14v if Eq. (8) is used; UPV Z 17:1 C 5:7v (13) (12) (11)

if Eqs. (9) and (10) are used. For a wind speed equal to 1 m/s, the respective values of UPV are UPVZ19.06 mK2 8CK1 from Eq. (11), 19.78 W mK2 8CK1 from Eq. (12), 22.8 W mK2 8CK1 from Eq. (13) and UpvZconstantZ28.8 W mK2 8CK1 [18,22] without taking into account the wind speed. Barker and Norton [31] proposed a formulation for the energy balance established by Ingersoll [32] and taking all the heat transfers including radiative one and differentiating the heat transfer coefcients according to the exchange surface. This model uses an important number of coefcients and a correlation table is needed to determine some parameters. 3.2. Presentation of the tested photovoltaic module The photovoltaic module tested is a Photowatt PWX 500 using multi-crystalline technology with a thickness of 0.2 mm. The encapsulation of cells is made between two sheets of tempered glass with high transmittance. The dimension of the module is 1042 mm!462 mm!39 mm. The peak power at a junction temperature equal to 25 8C is 49 W at G10%. Eight thermal sensors have been integrated into the module during its manufacturing: the rst one measures the temperature on the back surface of the glass cover (no. 1), the second one measures the temperature of the back surface of the module (no. 8) and the other six sensors measure the temperature on six points on the back surfaces of cells (no. 2no. 7). The positions of the temperature sensors are presented in Fig. 3. 3.3. Evolution of the different temperatures A temperature sensor was faulty, just ve temperatures on the back surfaces of the PV cells have been measured. We wanted to observe the difference of temperature between the ve points of measurements on the photovoltaic module, thus we plotted in Fig. 4 the evolution of these ve temperatures and the average temperature (calculated from these values) for three consecutive days. We note that the temperature gradient in the PV module is very low. This fact conrms the second assumption used in the energy balance, i.e. the temperature is uniform in the photovoltaic panel. Thus, we can consider an average temperature of the photovoltaic

560

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

Temperature sensor n1 Temperature sensors n2 to n7 Temperature sensor n8

Glass cover

Photovoltaic cells

Back glass

Temperature sensor

Fig. 3. Presentation of the photovoltaic module and position of the temperature sensors.

module and it is this temperature which has been used to validate the photovoltaic cell temperature. 3.4. Estimation of the module temperature for a wind speed of 1 m/s From the experimental values measured for a wind speed equal to 1 m/s, we calculated the optimal values for (at) and UPV. We found (at)Z0.81 and UPVZ28.9 W mK2 8C. In the literature, we found for (at), 0.855 for Photowatt [33], 0.81 for Hegazy [34], 0.875 for

Fig. 4. Evolution of the cells temperature in the PV module.

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

700 45 40 35

561

600

Solar irradiance (W/m2)

500

Estimated temperature using NOCT method Estimated temperature using energy balance and a constant Upv Estimated temperature using energy balance and Upv calculated by Eq. (11) Estimated temperature using energy balance and Upv calculated by Eq. (12) Estimated temperature using energy balance and Upv calculated by Eq. (13) Estimated temperature using optimal calculated values Solar irradiance Ambient temperature Measured PV module temperature

400

25 20 15

300

200 10 100 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Acquisition number

Fig. 5. Verication of the PV module temperature models for a wind speed of 1 m/s.

Brogren et al. [35] and 0.9 for Sandnes and Rekstad [18]. Thus, we see that your optimal value is in accordance with the literature. We estimated the PV module temperature using the models presented in Section 3.1: NOCT model (Eq. (3)) Model based on the energy balance using respectively for UPV the Eq. (11) [28], Eq. (12) [7] and Eq. (13) [30], Model based on energy balance and your optimized values of (at) et UPV value and we compared these estimated values with the average module temperature calculated from measured temperatures. The comparison between experimental and modelled temperature for a wind speed equal to 1 m/s is illustrated in Fig. 5. The values of the statistical coefcients calculated for this comparison between experimental data and the ve models are given in Table 3. It appears that the best results are obtained for the model based on the energy balance and your optimal coefcient but the second is the model using a constant value for UPV. The model taking into account the wind speed and being the more appropriate is the model using for UPV the correlation of Cole and Sturrock [30]. The classical formulation using the NOCT leads to satisfying results. We want to test these models whatever the value of the wind speed is. 3.5. Validation of the models for variable wind speeds We calculated, from experimental data and for all wind speeds, the optimal values for the thermal coefcient UPV considering for the optimal value of (at) the previous calculated value equal to 0.81.

Temperatures (C)

30

562

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

Table 3 Values of the statistical coefcients for various models (wind speed of 1 m/s) NOCT Energy balance Constant UPV MBE (8C) RMSE (8C) MBE/average value of temperature RMSE/average value of temperature CC 2.41 3.03 0.137 0.172 0.949 1.37 2.19 0.078 0.124 0.964 UPV Eq. (11) 4.06 4.78 0.230 0.271 0.938 UPV Eq. (12) 3.72 4.38 0.211 0.249 0.942 UPV Eq. (13) 2.99 3.57 0.169 0.202 0.948 Optimised UPV and at 0.61 1.96 0.035 0.111 0.973

Two expressions have been found for UPVZaCbv: the rst one considering that the expression of UPV have to verify the previous optimal value found for vZ1 m sK1, i.e. UPVZ28.9 W mK2 8CK1. This constraint implies to have aCbZ28.9. the second expression without this constraint. The rst expression is: UPV Z 26:6 C 2:3v with for vZ1 m/s UPVZ28.9 W mK2 8CK1 the second expression is: UPV Z 24:1 C 2:9v (15) (14)

with for vZ1 m/s UPVZ27 W mK2 8CK1. During several consecutive days, we observed the evolution of the PV module temperature and we estimated it using the models previously described. We plotted, in Fig. 6., as an example for 2 days (12/02 and 12/03), the evolution of the ambient temperature, of the solar irradiance, of the wind speed at the PV module level and of the module temperature. On the same gure, the modelled module temperatures are also presented. The module temperature estimated respectively by the NOCT model and by the energy balance usOg a constant thermal coefcient do not follow the variation of the experimental PV module temperature, the inuence of the wind is consequently not negligible. The validation of these models have been established on the basis of 10 days of data collected each minute and the values of the statistical coefcients are presented in Table 4. The NOCT model is not in accordance with experimental data because this model has been conceived only for particular environmental conditions. The models based on the energy balance and taking into account the variation of the wind speed lead to better performances excepted for the model using the Dufe and Beckman correlation [28].

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

563

Fig. 6. Evolution of the various meteorological parameters and comparison between modelled and experimental PV module temperature.

It is obvious that the simulation using our optimized coefcients for (at) and UPV, (respectively Eq. (14) and Eq. (15)) gives the best result. The performance of the model using the energy balance with the heat transfer coefcient calculated by the Cole and Sturrock correlation [30] is in good accordance with the experimental data as previously noted for a constant wind speed equal to 1 m sK1. We must keep in mind that the energy balance for the PV module used to determine Eq. (5) did not take into account radiative transfer but only convective one (natural and forced). We note that such a simple model gives satisfying results.

Table 4 Values of the statistical coefcients for various models (variable wind speed) NOCT Energy balance Constant UPV MBE (8C) RMSE (8C) MBE/average value of temperature RMSE/average value of temperature CC 2.90 3.93 0.256 0.347 0.973 2.28 3.03 0.202 0.267 0.976 UPV Eq. (11) 2.10 3.47 0.186 0.306 0.954 UPV Eq. (12) 1.95 3.32 0.173 0.293 0.954 UPV Eq. (13) 1.99 2.76 0.176 0.244 0.976 UPV Eq. (14) 1.39 2.26 0.123 0.200 0.986 UPV Eq. (15) 1.49 2.24 0.131 0.198 0.986

564

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

4. Combination of the two modellings We combined the best simplied modelling of the photovoltaic module temperature with the best modelling of the electrical efciency. Thus, we introduced Eq. (5) for Tc and Eq. (15) for UPV into Eq. (1) and we computed the PV array output power which is compared with the experimental electrical power. We present in Fig. 7 a comparison, during 1 day, between the modelled and experimental PV array output power and we plotted the essential meteorological parameters. The agreement between the modelled and experimental electrical power is good and allows to study the inuence of meteorological parameters on the electrical power produced by a photovoltaic panel. As reported in Section 2, the PV array output power decreases with the temperature. This decreasing was estimated at K0.35% 8CK1 by Andreev et al. [6], K0.5% 8CK1 by Nolay [7], between K0.3 and K0.5% 8CK1 by Krauter et al. [11], between K0.4 and K0.6% 8C K1 for Moshfegh and Sandberg [12] and between K0.388% and K0.496% 8CK1 for m-Si PV modules and between K0.401 and K0.431% 8CK1 for p-Si modules according to Del Cueto [13]. We found with our model a decrease between 0.401% 8CK1 (vZ10 m sK1, fZ 250 W mK2 and TaZ1 8C) and 0.563% 8CK1 (vZ1 m/s, fZ650 W mK2 and TaZ50 8C). These results are in accordance with the literature. The inuence of the wind speed takes place in the heat transfer coefcient value. We plotted the PV array output power for a given ambient temperature and a given solar

20 18
Solar irradiance ambient temperature Wind speed PV array ouput power (Estimated) PV array output power (Experimental)

1200

Temperature (C) - Wind speed (m/s)

1000

16 14

800
12 10 8

600

400
6 4

200
2 0 0 6:55 7:40 8:25 9:10 9:55 10:40 11:25 12:10 12:55 13:40 14:25 15:10 15:55 16:40 17:25 18:10 18:55 19:40 20:25

Time
Fig. 7. Verication of the PV array output power model for one particular day.

Solar irradiance (W/m2) - PV output power (W)

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

565

Electrical PV array output power per m2 (W/m2)

80

70
T= 20 C, E= 250W/m T=40C, E=250W/m T=40C, E=650W/m

60

T= 20 C, E= 650W/m

50

40

30

20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Wind speed (m/s)

Fig. 8. Inuence of the wind speed on the PV module production.

irradiance versus the wind speed in Fig. 8. This inuence is felt particularly for low wind speeds, because after about 10 m/s the impact of an increase of the wind speed seems to be less important.

5. Conclusion Some models of module temperature are proposed, the rst one using the notion of NOCT and the other ones using an energy balance on the PV module taking into account the heat convective coefcient. The ve last models differ by the value of the heat transfer coefcient taken constant or estimated versus the wind speed by three different correlations found in the literature. The estimated module temperatures have been compared with experimental data of a PV module specially equipped of thermal sensors. Statistical parameters have been computed to determine the validity of each model. The best model is based on the energy balance and uses for the heat transfer a relation calculated from experimental data, the coefcient (at) has been also optimised with a value of 0.81. With this optimised model the root mean square error is 2.24 8C, i.e. a relative RMSE of 19.8%. The same methodology using the correlation of Cole and Sturrock [30] gave satisfying results (RMSEZ2.76 8C). This error is not very low but we must keep in mind that this model is a very simplied model. In the same way, we tested two models of PV modules electrical efciency taking into account the module temperature. A grid connected photovoltaic system installed in our laboratory allows us to compare these models with experimental results. We found good

566

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

performances for the rst model and we decided to couple it with the model of module temperature. Thus, we determined the PV array output power for various ambient temperatures, solar irradiances and wind speeds. The inuence of these environmental parameters have been compared with the literature and the results obtained by the model are in accordance with previous works.

References
[1] Bergene T, Lovik O. Model calculations on a at-plate solar heat collector with integrated solar cells. Solar Energy 1995;55(6):45362. [2] Huang BJ, Lin TH, Hung WC, Sun FS. Performance evaluation of solar photovoltaic/thermal systems. Solar Energy 2001;70(5):4438. [3] Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Nousia TH, Souliotis M, Yianoulis P. Hybrid photovoltaic/thermal solar systems. Solar Energy 2002;72(3):21734. [4] Hegazy AA. Comparative study of the performances of four photovoltaic/thermal solar air collectors. Energy Conversion Manage 2000;41:86181. ` ` [5] Buchet E. Etude du dimensionnement et developpement dun logiciel daide a la conception de systemes de production denergie utilisant la conversion photovoltaque de lenergie solaire. MS Thesis, University of Saint Jerome, Marseille, France; 1988. [6] Andreev VM, Grilikhes VA, Rumyantsev VD. Photovoltaic conversion of concentrated sunlight. London: Wiley; 1967 [ISBN: 0471967653]. ` [7] Nolay P. Developpement dune methode generale danalyse des systemes photovoltaques. MS Thesis, Ecole des Mines, Sophia-Antipolis, France; 1987. [8] Emery K, Burdick J, Caiyem Y, Dunlavy D, Field H, Kroposki B, et al. Temperature dependance of photovoltaic cells, modules and systems. In: Proceeding of the 25th IEEE PV specialists conference, Washington, USA; 1319 May 1996, p. 12758. [9] King DL, Eckert PE. Characterizing (rating) the performance of large photovoltaic arrays for all operating conditions. In: Proceeding of the 25th IEEE PV specialists conference, Washington, USA; 1319 May 1996, p. 13858. [10] Wilshaw AR, Bates JR, Pearsall NM. Photovoltaic module operating temperature effects. In: Proceeding of Eurosun96, Munich, Germany; 1996, p. 9404. [11] Krauter S, Araujo RG, Schroer S, Hanitsch R, Salhi MJ, Triebel C, Lemoine R. Combined photovoltaic and solar thermal systems for facade integration and building insulation. Solar Energy 1999;67(46):23948. [12] Moshfegh B, Sandberg M. Flow and heat transfer in the air gap behind photovoltaic panels. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 1998;2:287301. [13] Del Cueto JA. Comparison of energy production and performance from at-plate photovoltaic module technologies deployed at xed tilt. In: Proceeding of the 29th IEEE PV specialists conference, New Orleans, USA; 2024 May 2002. [14] Photon International. Market survey on solar modules; February 2004, p. 4655. [15] Evans DL. Simplied method for predicting photovoltaic array output. Solar Energy 1981;27(6):55560. [16] Evans DL, Florschuetz LW. Cost studies on terrestrial photovoltaic power systems with sunlight concentration. Solar Energy 1977;19:255. [17] Garg HP, Adhikari RS. Conventional hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) air heating collector: steady-sate simulation. Renewable Energy 1997;11(3):36385. [18] Sandnes B, Rekstad J. A photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector with a polymer absorber plate, experimental study and analytical model. Solar Energy 2002;72(1):6373. [19] Saidov MS, Abdulnabi ZM, Bilyalov RR, Saidov AS. Temperature characteristics of silicon solar cells. Appl Solar Energy 1995;31(6):848. [20] ASTM. Standard test methods for electrical performance of nonconcentrator terrestrial photovoltaic modules ad arrays using reference cells, standard E1036. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1998.

M. Mattei et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 553567

567

[21] Myers DR, Emery K, Gueymard C. Revising and validating spectral irradiance reference standards for photovoltaic performance. In: ASES/ASME solar 2002 conference proceeding, Reno, Nevada; 1520 June 2002. [22] Furler G, Beckman WA, Klein SA. Modeling of a photovoltaic powered refrigeration system. Personal communication; 1994. [23] Jones AD, Underwood CP. A thermal model for photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy 2001;70(4):34959. [24] ASHRAE. ASHRAE handbook: fundamentals 1989. [25] Anis WR, Mertens RP, Van Overstraeten R. Calculation of solar cell operating temperature in a at plate PV array. In: Proceeding of the 5th PV solar energy conference; 1983, p. 5204. [26] Schott T. Operational temperatures of PV modules. In: Proceeding of the 6th PV solar energy conference; 1985, p. 3926. [27] Pratt AW. Heat transmission in buildings. London: Wiley; 1981. [28] Dufe JA, Beckman WA. Solar energy thermal processes. London: Wiley; 1974 [ISBN 0-471-22371-9]. [29] McAdams WC. Heat transmission. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954. [30] Cole RJ, Sturrock NS. The convective heat exchange at the external surface of buildings. Building Environ 1977;12:20714. [31] Barker G, Norton P. Predicting long-term performance of photovoltaic arrays using short-term test data and an annual simulation tool. NREL Report, CP-550-33601 presented at the Solar 2003 Conference: Americas Secure Energy, Austin, Texas; 2003. [32] Ingersoll JG. Simplied calculation of solar cell temperatures in terrestrial photovoltaic arrays. J Solar Eng 1986;108:95101. [33] Photowatt SA. Personnal communication; 2000. [34] Hegazy AA. Comparative study of the performances of four photovoltaic/thermal solar air collectors. Energy Conversion Manage 2000;41:86181. [35] Brogren M, Nostell P, Karlsson B. Optical efciency of a PV-thermal hybrid CPC module for high latitudes. Solar Energy 2000;69(Suppl):17385.