Analysis of influence of panel size on PV panel

operating temperature
Filip Grubišić Čabo, Research Assistant
Department of Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency
Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split
Postal address: R. Boskovica 32, 21000 Split, Croatia
fgrubisi@fesb.hr

Ivo Marinić Kragić, Research Assistant

Department of Numerical Modeling and Computer Application
Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split
Postal address: R. Boskovica 32, 21000 Split, Croatia
imarinic@fesb.hr

Sandro Nižetić, Associate professor, PhD

Department of Thermodynamics and Energy Efficiency
Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split
Postal address: R. Boskovica 32, 21000 Split, Croatia
snizetic@fesb.hr

Agis M. Papadopulos, Full professor, PhD

Department of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Postal address: GR-54124, Thessaloniki, Greece
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Process Equipment Design Laboratory

Abstract—This paper deals with influence of PV panel size on
its average working temperature. A numerical model has been
established in accordance with experimental results gained in
realistic operating conditions. Established model was used to gain
information of size influence on average panel temperature.
Results show significant difference in average temperature
between several distinct panel sizes. Since the dependence
between temperature and electrical efficiency of PV panel is
already known, provided information can be used in future
design of PV systems.
Keywords—photovoltaic; cooling; temperature; efficiency;
numerical; panel design
I. INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy has proven to be in focus of scientific
research in current decade. The most abundant, solar energy,
has been widely introduced into global economy, and
significant amount of research studies have been made
regarding its potential and improvement. There are two
general applications of solar energy: heat collecting systems,
and photovoltaic systems. Hybrid systems have been
developed, which combine the two systems, and produce both
heat and electricity. Unfortunately, since electrical efficiency
of photovoltaic systems drops significantly with temperature
[4], [5], and leaves out the possibility of gaining high
temperature fluid, hybrid systems have not yet taken hold in
global energy market.
Among other things, overall efficiency of PV panel depends
upon its overall dimensions. By comparing averaged
temperatures of different panel dimensions, authors will try to
define how panel temperature changes with its size. To do
that, a simplified Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
model will be used to vary the operating parameters, thus
giving the information about the influence of panel
dimensions. Detailed CFD model development is presented in
[1]. This work will only briefly explain model development
and verification, in order to concentrate on panel size
influence.
II. MODEL VERIFICATION
In order to create a model that is accurate enough, realistic
operating conditions have to be obtained. Thus, a series of
measurements on PV panel have been done. The
measurements were made in month of June, under realistic
panel operating conditions, at peak insolation. Measurements
were conducted in city of Split, a typical Mediterranean city,
on typical roof surface.
Measured PV panel was of silicium monocrystalline type, with
outer dimensions of 0.55x0.6 m, with nominal output power of
54W. In order to simulate load, a 45W halogen lamp was
connected directly to PV panel. Panel was tilted 20° from
horizontal position, and positioned directly towards the Sun.
The equipment that was consisted of pyranometer,
thermocouples for measuring panel temperature,
thermocouples for measuring frame temperature, capacitive
temperature sensors for measurement of air temperature
underneath the panel, and hot wire anemometer for wind
speed measurements is presented on Figure 1.

Figure 2 - Back side sensor position

The results show a difference in temperature profiles between

PV cell and ambient air from back side of the panel. It is
expected that highest temperature of PV cell will be in the
middle of the panel. Reason for that conclusion lies in the fact
that the edges of panel are more exposed to ambient air, and
also are made of more conductive material. Other
measurements and simulations [6], [9], [11] show the
predicted temperature distribution. However, this experiment
shows substantially higher temperature at lower area of the
panel. This is also confirmed when air temperatures were
taken into account. Figure 3 shows a comparison of
measurement results.

Figure 1 - Measuring schematic

Thermocouples on back panel were used in a way to measure

directly the temperature of PV cell (positioned inside the PV
panel). For that purpose, back side of PV panel was drilled, in
a way that thermocouple can directly reach PV cell. Two
additional thermocouples were positioned on back surface of
PV panel, while two thermocouples were placed on front glass
surface. Since this paper deals only with back side of PV
panel, results for front surface temperature will be omitted.

To prevent the influence of ambient air on thermocouple

measurement, all thermocouples were insulated from the
surrounding air with fixing material that has thermal
properties similar to back side material. That way, real
temperatures of back side surfaces were acquired. Otherwise,
measured temperature would be average temperature between
air and back side of the PV panel. Capacitive temperature
sensors were positioned at the top, middle and lower part of
back side. The sensors were positioned in a way that they do
not touch the back side surface. Primary goal was to measure
air temperature about 10 mm away from the surface.
Measurement position is presented on Figure 2.
Figure 3 - Air temperature profile vs. Cell temperature
It can be seen that air temperature at the bottom of the panel
rises significantly, when compared with top part. Presumably,
temperature of the cell rises accordingly. Since PV cell is a
source of heat, when only back side of PV panel is observed, it
can be deduced that air temperature rise is a result of cell
temperature rise. However, convection cooling is main type of
heat dissipation for PV panel. If air temperature beneath the
panel is roughly the same as cell temperature at that part of the
panel, it could mean that underneath that part of the panel, air
is not circulating at all. Since panel is placed in typical stand- Generally, the simulation of PV should not consider an isolated
alone conditions, it can be presumed that, depending of wind system but should replicate the respective microclimate in
speed and angle, a flow separation occurs somewhere along which it operates [18]. PV panel performance obviously
the back side of the panel. Flow separation results in formation depends on its radiation environment such as shadowing effects
of air bubble, which blocks convective heat transfer from and reflections from neighboring buildings or nearby surfaces of
specific parts of panel. To prove a bubble theory, a CFD different reflective properties. So if one wants to simulate PV
model was made. In order to simulate solar irradiance, a heat system performance for specific operating conditions, it is very
source was placed directly on silicon cells inside the panel. important to have a detailed model of the surrounding
Intensity of heat source was varied until numerical results environment. Since the objective of this paper is to isolate the
started to correlate with experimental ones. General equation effects of fluid flow on convection heat transfer, it is convenient
to suppress the effects of radiation so that a general conclusion
on convection effects can be easily obtained. To achieve this,
Q& in = a ⋅ Gs ⋅ Ap (1)
radiation is not directly modeled, but only its overall effect on
⋅ heat transfer is taken into account. To simulate solar irradiance,
was used, where Qin is total heat load of PV panel, a is overall an equivalent heat source approach was adopted: a continuous
absorption coefficient of PV panel, Gs is overall irradiance heat source was applied directly on the PV cell, the magnitude
of which corresponds to the intensity of irradiance in realistic
per square meter and Ap is panel surface. Value of absorption
circumstances minus the produced electric power.
coefficient was varied between 0.6 and 0.8 in order to gain the
desired intensity. 3.2 Numerical model setup
.
The earlier described model is solved numerically by a general-
purpose, widely used commercial CFD software, namely
III. NUMERICAL MODEL ANSYS FLUENT [20],[21]. The first step is the selection of
the computational domain for fluid and multiple solid regions as
it is illustrated in Fig. 4a, illustrates inlet and outlet boundary
3.1 General assumptions conditions of the fluid region and its size. The domain size was
selected with respect to panel length which was Lp=0.55m. The
To model the mentioned processes, a computational fluid length of the fluid domain was set to L=9Lp, of which 3Lp
dynamics (CFD) model was implemented. In the case of the domain length was from the inlet to the panel and the domain
PV panel being exposed to open surrounding conditions, wind height was H=7Lp while the width was W=7Lp. When defining
has a high turbulent intensity and this prevents making it the size of domain, its size was increased until the solution
mandatory to model the flow as a turbulent one. Since the showed no changes with additional increase in size.
occurring heat transfer includes a good part of convection, the A simplified scheme of the PV panel is illustrated in Figure
correct modeling of the region close to the wall is important. 4b, with following elements: glass, PV cell, backboard (PVF)
In many cases, wall functions are sufficient and are often used and aluminum frame. Each element (material) that the PV
as an approximation in sub-viscous and buffer regions near the panel is consisted of is described with its thermal properties.
wall. When a level of accuracy beyond that is needed, a
turbulence model is used to solve the entire flow regime. In
cases when flow is not fully turbulent, such as in a natural
convection problem, the near wall flow needs to be resolved
and wall functions should not be used. In the herein analyzed
case, the PV panel is exposed to open surrounding
conditions, where the free stream flow is assumed to be fully
turbulent, with a high turbulence intensity of wind stream.
Nevertheless, accurate resolving of the boundary layer is of
critical importance to correctly model convection problems
and possible flow separations.
In addition to modeling fluid flow, conduction and convection,
various additional effects could be considered. For example, a
detailed radiation environment, electrical behavior, or even
coupled conductive–radiative heat transfers with included
photoelectric phenomena within PV cells could be implemented
to make the model more realistic [19]. The prime objective of
CFD analysis in this paper is to isolate the effect of convection Figure 4 - Specific geometry: a) fluid zone and b) PV panel
heat transfer and investigate the effect of fluid flow and
convection on backboard temperature.
 Initial conditions are constant fluid velocity, constant fluid and
solid temperature at 300 K. a)

3.3 Validation of the CFD model and comparison with

experimental readings
Various transient and steady state analyses with different
insolation, wind velocity and wind angle conditions were
conducted to confirm the CFD model as well as to
investigate the effect of different working regimes on panel
performance. The CFD model validation summary and
comparison with experimental readings is given in Table 1.
The measured data of various experiments was compared to
numerical model results with corresponding working
conditions that are specified by average wind velocity v, wind
angle α and irradiation G.

Temperature at measurement points (K)

Glass Cell Backboard
Conditions Results G1 G3 C1 C2 C3 C4 T1 T3
α =45°,
Case 1: v=1.5 m/s;α Exp 316 313 321 323 325 330 321 331
G=869 W/m2. CFD 318 319 320 320 321 320 320 320
max=326 max=327 max=326
Case 2: v= 2.7 m/s;α
α =0°, Exp 308 306 314 317 318 322 315 322
2 CFD 314 317 315 316 318 316 315 318
G=837 W/m .
max=317 max=319 max=319
Case 3: v= 1.0 m/s;α
α =0°, Exp 321 316 328 329 330 333 328 337
G=863 W/m .
2 CFD 323 326 324 326 327 324 324 327 b)
max=326 max=328 max=328

Figure 5 - a) PV panel temperature distribution, b) Backboard

Table 1 - Comparison of measurements and results obtained temperature distribution
through CFD analysis (“G1, G3 - temperatures of glass
surface”, “C1…C4 - cell temperatures - Figure 2 - TC Cell”, The variation of Case 1 (Table 1) with a different angle of
“T1, T3 - back side temperature - Figure 2 - TC Tedlar”) attack was conducted to investigate changes in the temperature
field. Various angles resulted in different temperature
distributions on the back surface of the PV panel, with ‘high’
To simulate real-life insolation of 869 W/m2 for the purpose of temperatures always occurring at locations with high
CFD simulation, a heat equivalent of 650 W/m2 was taken for separation zones.
the heat source that was applied on the PV panel, assuming
that this is the amount of heat absorbed into the PV panel.
Maximal temperatures for each element, during the CFD
analysis, are also specified in Table 1.
The numerical simulation of characteristic temperatures
corresponds reasonably well with the experimental
measurements, except at the T3 measurement point (TC PVF
3, Figure 2). The overall maximum temperature of the
individual element showed a better agreement with the T3
measurement point than with the temperature at the same
location. Possible reason for this deviation of results was
presumably a different wind direction in experimental
conditions. Qualitative results of numerical simulation can be
seen on Figure 5.

Figure 6 - Air velocity magnitude distribution of surrounding

air over the PV panel
 Since it is shown that numerical model corresponds relatively For mentioned panels, temperature distribution of PV cell
well with experimental results, and it is shown that flow looks like on Figure 8
separation occurs and is partially responsible for temperature
raise of specific areas of PV panel, an analysis can be made,
which will provide information about optimal PV panel
dimensions, regarding flow separation effect. Now, when
valid numerical model is confirmed (as explained in detail in
[1]), panel dimensions will be varied. Only effective
information for this analysis is average temperature of PV cell,
since no specific spots on the panel can be defined.

IV. SURFACE VARIATION

Surface variation was made simply by varying panel outer
dimensions. Main aluminum bracket, that holds panel in place,
retained original profile dimensions, and only its length and
width were varied. It was expected that bigger panel surface
would create bigger flow separation. If bigger flow separation
occurs at the back side of the panel, that results in greater back
side insulation, which will eventually lead to higher panel
temperature.
New panel dimensions were 0.09, 0.2, 0.37, 0.69 and 1.22
square meters respectively. On all panels, simulation showed
flow separation bubble (like on Figure 6) as it was expected. A
comparison of flow separation bubbles for two distinct
dimensions of 0.37 and 1.22 m2 respectively can be seen on
Figure 7:
Figure 8 - average temperature for a) 0.37 m2 and b) 1.22 m2
panel

Overally, average temperature of panels regarding their

dimensions is given in Figure 9:

a)

Figure 9 - influence of panel size on average panel

temperature

From Figure 9 it can be seen that average panel temperature

drastically rises with an increase in dimensions. This effect,
however, obviously reaches highest value somewhere around
2 m2, due to the nature of curve in Figure 9.
b)
V. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
Figure 7 - air velocity magnitude for a) 0.37 m2 and b) 1.22 m2 From this perspective, it seems that bigger PV panels operate
panel on much higher temperature than surrounding air (approx.
80°C higher, for biggest panel). In reality, this is not the case.
This model is confirmed only for back side of the PV module,
so exact heat flow on front side is unknown. Front side heat
flow could be easy to calculate, if radiation heat transfer is
known. Since radiation is completely omitted from this
analysis as an effect, front side heat flow cannot be precisely
defined. Moreover, radiation has much larger influence at
higher temperatures. It is presumable that on higher
temperatures radiation and convection heat transfer are in the
same order of magnitude. Because of that, curve on Figure 9
would have smaller value in real conditions.
Nevertheless, it is shown that panel dimensions strongly
influence panel temperature, i.e. panel efficiency. Another
important thing to notice is the amount of aluminum edge
profile when compared to active panel surface. Smaller panels
obviously have larger aluminum profile surface when
compared with active panel surface, hence, they are more
easily cooled. Larger panels have relatively small aluminum
profile surface when compared with active panel surface.
Since panel surface is made of material that has low thermal
properties, the heat in the middle of the panel has nowhere to
go. Only effective heat flow surface for middle part of the
panel is front surface, since flow separation bubble insulates
back surface. The fact that heat flow from central area is much
lower than flow from edge areas is well known, but it has
often been associated only with low conductivity of back and
front side [8]. Here, it is presented that air insulation of back
side significantly contributes to mentioned effect.
Also, in this CFD model, PV cell is made as one single piece
of material. Since PV cell (silicon cell) has conductivity
approx. hundred times higher than back or front side of panel,
much of the heat in the middle of the panel actually dissipates
through panel material (in numerical model). In real PV
modules, cells are separated inside the panel, and that leaves
PV cells in the middle of the panel even more thermally
insulated.
VI. CONCLUSION
Photovoltaic technology is one of the leading renewable
energy technologies around the world. In order to have better
understanding of thermal processes connected with PV
system, experimental system was made and measurements
were used to make a numerical simulation of PV operating
conditions. Model was confined only to back side convective
heat transfer, since front side convection can hardly be
passively influenced, and radiation is too complicated to
model correctly. Numerical model showed an interesting case
of flow separation which eventually causes temperature rise in
PV cells. Temperature rise directly influences cell efficiency,
dropping it by rate of about 0.5%/°C. Model was then used to
show the influence of panel dimensions on temperature raise.
It was shown that with rise in dimensions, temperature of PV
cells rises drastically. However, since radiation was omitted
from model, it can be presumed that in realistic conditions
temperature difference should be smaller. Nevertheless, it was
shown that larger panels are less effective when compared to
smaller panels, due to their higher average temperature.
REFERENCES
[1] Nižetić, S., Grubišić-Čabo, F., Marinić-Kragić, I., Papadopulos, A. M.,
“Experimental and numerical investigation of a backside convective
cooling mechanism on photovoltaic panels”, Energy, vol. 111, 211-225,
(2016)
[2] G. K. Singh, “Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) technology:
A review,” Energy, vol. 53, 1-13, (2013).
[3] G. N. Tiwari, R. K. Mishra, S. C. Solanki, “Photovoltaic modules and
their applications: A review on thermal modelling”, Applied Energy 88
(7), 2287-2304, (2011).
[4] A. H. Alami, “Effects of evaporative cooling on efficiency of
photovoltaic modules”, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 77,
pp. 668-679, (2014).
[5] Nižetić, S., Čoko, D., Yadav, A., Grubišić-Čabo, F., “Water spray
cooling technique applied on a photovoltaic panel: The performance
response”, Energy Conversion and Management 108, 287-296, (2016).
[6] Mirzaei, P. A., Zhang, R., “Validation of a climatic CFD model to
predict the surface temperature of building integrated photovoltaics”,
Energy Procedia 78 ( 2015 ) 1865 – 1870
[7] H. Bahaidarah, A. Subhan, P. Gandhidasan, S. Rehman, “Performance
evaluation of a PV (photovoltaic) module by back surface water cooling
for hot climatic conditions”, Energy, 59, 445-453, (2013),
[8] Cuce, E., Bali, T., Sekucoglu, A. “Effects of passive cooling on
performance of silicon photovoltaic cells”, International Journal of Low-
Carbon Technologies 2011, 6, 299–308
[9] H. G. Teo, P. S. Lee, M. N. A. Hawlader, “An active cooling system for
photovoltaic modules”, Applied Energy 90(1), 309-315, (2012).
[10] Smith, C.J., Forster, P.M., Crook, R. “Global analysis of photovoltaic
energy output enhanced by phase change material cooling”, Applied
Energy 126(1), 21-28, (2014).
[11] Rejeb, O., Dhaou, H., Jemni, A. “A numerical investigation of a
photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) collector”, Renewable Energy 77, 43-50,
(2015).
[12] Liang, R. , Zhang, J., Ma, L., Li, Y. “Performance evaluation of new
type hybrid photovoltaic/thermal solar collector by experimental study”,
Applied Thermal Engineering 75, 487-492,(2015).
[13] Feng, S., Cao, L., Fang, G.; “Dynamic performances modeling of a
photovoltaic–thermal collector with water heating in buildings”, Energy
and Buildings 66, 485–494 (2013.)
[14] Menter, F. R. “Zonal Two Equation k-ω Turbulence Models for
Aerodynamic Flows”, NASA technical memorandum 103975, (1992).
[15] Brinkworh BJ, Cross BM, Marshall RH, Yang H. “Thermal regulation
of photovoltaic cladding”, Solar Energy 61(3),169-78, (1997).
[16] Hiren, D. “Computational fluid dynamics analysis and experimental
validation of improvement in overall energy efficiency of a solar
photovoltaic panel by thermal energy recovery”, Journal of Renewable
and Sustainable Energy 6, DOI: 10.1063/1.4885178, (2014).
[17] Jubayer, C.M., Hangan, H., “Numerical simulation of wind effects on a
stand-alone ground mounted photo voltaic (PV) system”, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 134, 56-64, (2014).
[18] Vaillon,R., Robin, L., Muresan, C., Ménézo, C., “Modeling of coupled
spectral radiation, thermal and carrier transport in a silicon photovoltaic
cell”, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46, 4454-4468,
(2006).
[19] Allegrini ,J., Orehounig ,K., Mavromatidis ,G., Ruesch ,F., Dorer ,V.,
Evins ,R., “A review of modelling approaches and tools for the
simulation of district-scale energy systems”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 52, 1391-1404, (2015)
[20] Menter, F.R.; “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for
engineering applications”. AIAA-Journal, vol. 32(8), 269-289, (1994).
[21] Defraeye, T;Blocken, B;Carmeliet, J; “CFD analysis of convective heat
transfer at the surfaces of a cube immersed in a turbulent boundary
layer”, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Volume 53,
Issues 1–3, 297–308, (2010)