Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p t h e r m e n g

Research Paper

Thermal and electrical performances of a water-surface floating PV

integrated with double water-saturated MEPCM layers
C.J. Ho a,*, Wei-Len Chou a, Chi-Ming Lai b,**
a Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

H I G H L I G H T S

• We made water-surface floating PVs integrated with double water-saturated MEPCMs.

• Solar cell temperature control capabilities and PV generation efficiencies were investigated.
• A 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV increases the electricity generation by 2.03%.

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

Article history: In the present study, two water-saturated microencapsulated phase change material (MEPCM) layers are
Received 17 May 2015 attached to the back of a photovoltaic (PV) to form a MEPCM-PV module, which then floats on the water
Accepted 22 October 2015 surface. Numerical simulation is used to analyze the effects of the MEPCM layers on the temperature control
Available online 29 October 2015
of the solar cell and the power generation efficiency of the PV module during the day under local climate
conditions. The results show that compared to the PV module without any MEPCM layers, the thermal
Keywords:
and electrical performance of the MEPCM-PV module increased significantly. Compared to the un-
Photovoltaic
treated PV module, the power generation output of the MEPCM-PV module with a 3-cm-thick top MEPCM
Water-surface floating photovoltaic
Microencapsulated phase change material layer with a melting point of 30 °C and a 3-cm-thick bottom MEPCM layer with a melting point of 26 °C
Thermal control (3 cm/3 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module) increased by 1.48%, and the power generation output of the
Solar energy 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module increased by 2.03% during the summer.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The temperature of a solar cell is associated with the efficiency
of solar irradiation energy that is converted into electricity. The ef-
ficiency of a photovoltaic (PV) module decreases as the solar cell
temperature increases. A study conducted by Skoplak and Palyvos
[1] shows that the generation efficiency of a typical crystalline-
silicon solar cell decreases by 0.45% for every 1 °C increase in the
temperature of the solar cell. Therefore, whenever possible, it is ben-
eficial to enhance the heat dissipation of a PV module [2].
There are two common methods used to control the solar cell
temperature: an active or a passive temperature control system. An
active system removes heat from a solar cell by directly pumping
water or air through the solar cell; however, it requires external
energy. A passive system removes heat from a solar cell by using
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2757575 ext. 62146; fax: +886 6 2352973.
E-mail address: cjho@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.J. Ho).
** Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2757575 ext. 63136; fax: +886 6 2090569.
E-mail address: cmlai@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-M. Lai).
physical principles that do not require external energy, such as the
natural convection of air or water.
Many studies have attempted to improve the generation effi-
ciency of a PV module by using an active cooling system. Ueda et al.
[3] placed one PV module on a lake surface and another PV module
on the ground; lake water was pumped and sprayed onto the surface
of the PV module on the lake surface during the day, and the tem-
perature of the PV module on the lake surface was 20 °C lower than
that of the PV module that was on the ground during the day. The
daily generation outputs of the PV module on the lake surface and
that on the ground were 61.4 kW-hr/day and 54.6 kW-hr/day, re-
spectively, and the power required by the pump was 27 kW-hr/
month. Teo et al. [4] designed a PV system in which copper cooling
fins were attached to the back of the PV panel and air was pushed
by a pump through the fins to remove heat; the power required by
the pump was partially supplied by an external power source and
partially supplied by the power generated by the PV panel. Simu-
lation results showed that the surface temperature of the PV panel
decreased by approximately 30 °C when the airflow rate was
0.055 kg/s. Airflow rates exceeding 0.055 kg/s had no significant
impact on the generation efficiency and temperature control of the
PV panel. Valeh-e-Sheyda et al. [5] attached copper cooling fins to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.10.097
1359-4311/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132
the back of a PV panel and then used air and water to actively control
the temperature of the PV panel. The results showed that when the
water flow rate was fixed (92 mL/min), the PV panel achieved its
highest generation efficiency and the power output increased by
38% when the airflow rate was 2.69 m/s; a higher airflow rate could
result in an increase in the amount of heat removed by the airflow
but could also decrease the cooling effect of the water.
During the melting or solidification processes, a Phase Change Ma-
terial (PCM) can effectively store or release a large amount of latent
heat. The temperature of the PCM can be maintained during the latent
heat transfer process. Therefore, PCM is a very promising material
for energy storage and for controlling the thermal environment.
Waqas and Kumar [6] integrated a solar collector with a multi-
layered sheet-shaped PCM unit. The PCM unit was used to store the
solar heat collected during the day and release the heat at night
through the PCM solidification to address problems such as sudden
temperature drops and dry and cold conditions during winter nights.
It concluded that the closer the phase change temperature was to
the temperature that was to be maintained, the better the perfor-
mance of the storage unit, the lower the flow rate of the working
fluid in the system, and the better the performance of the storage
unit. Relatively high working fluid flow rates resulted in the accel-
eration of the phase change process. Jin et al. [7] placed a PCM inside
the walls to improve the thermal inertia of the building envelope
and analyzed the effect of the location of the PCM relative to the
heat source on the temperature control capabilities of the system.
It discovered that the closer the PCM was to the controlled end, the
better its performance. Based on data of summer weather from the
UK, Huang [8] used PCMs to control the temperature of a PV panel.
The used prototype in Huang’s study was a PV panel with an alu-
minum rectangular container containing two types of PCMs with
different melting points attached to the back. Thin aluminum plates
were used to separate and shape the two types of PCM: one type
of PCM was formed into a triangular shape, while the other type
of PCM was formed into a semi-circular shape. The entire system
was placed vertically such that solar radiation was incident on the
PV surface and there was natural convection between the back of
the PV system and the ambient air; the top and bottom surfaces of
the PV system were assumed to be insulated, and natural convec-
tion was assumed to be occurring inside the PCM system when the
PCMs were melting. The results showed that optimum perfor-
mance was achieved when using a combination of one PCM with
a melting point of 27 °C and one PCM with a melting point of 21 °C,
and an extra power output of 0.45 kW-hr/m2 could be generated
every day using such a combination of PCMs (the reference daily
power output of a PV cell is 1.4 kW-hr/m2).
Tanuwijava et al. [9] investigated the heat transfer characteris-
tics and thermal management performance of dry-packed
microencapsulated phase change material (MEPCM) modules for
photovoltaic applications under temporal variations of daily solar
irradiation via computational fluid dynamics simulations. The results
show that incorporating the appropriate MEPCM layer can improve
the thermal and electrical performances of the photovoltaic module.
The melting temperature and aspect ratio significantly affect the
thermal and electrical performances of the PV module. Ho et al. [10]
used a numerical simulation to investigate the thermal and elec-
tric performances of a PV module with a water saturated MEPCM
layer. When the MEPCM layer was at an adequate thickness, it pro-
vided optimum control over the temperature of the PV module under
different climatic conditions. Comprehensive reviews on PCMs, in-
cluding their thermophysical properties, long-term stability,
impregnation methods, current building applications, and their
thermal performance analyses, as well as on numerical simula-
tions of buildings with PCMs, can be found in the literature [11–13].
There have been few studies on the thermal control of PV
modules through the incorporation of MEPCMs and bodies of water.
123
Every PCM undergoes the phase change process within a specific
range of temperatures. The phase change process of a single PCM
can only occur within a very small temperature range; therefore,
the use of a single PCM will be limited when there is a relatively
large change in the ambient temperature. In the present study, two
types of MEPCMs with different melting points were stacked to in-
crease the period of time during which the phase change process
can occur. Metal frames were used to separate the two types of
MEPCMs. The heat transfer rate inside the MEPCM-PV module in-
creased due to the heat bridge effect of the metal frames. Then the
double MEPCM layers were attached to the back of a PV panel to
form a MEPCM-PV module, which was then floated on the surface
of a body of water. Numerical simulation was used to analyze the
temperature control efficiency of the MEPCM-PV module and the
generation efficiency of the PV panel based on the summer and
winter climate conditions in Taiwan.
2. Problem formulation
Two MEPCM layers were attached to the back of a PV panel to
form a MEPCM-PV module, which was then floated on the surface
of a body of water. As shown in Fig. 1, the blue portion on the topmost
surface represents solar cells; the brown portion represents the metal
container that is filled with MEPCMs; and the gray portion repre-
sents the two MEPCM layers. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this text, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.) Gs(t) represents the solar irradiance that changes over time;
Tamb(t) represents the ambient temperature that changes over time;
Tsky(t) represents the sky temperature that changes over time; Twater(t)
represents the water temperature that changes over time; hamb(t) rep-
resents the heat convection coefficient of air that changes over time;
and hwater represents the heat convection coefficient of water. The solar
cell has a length of H, a width of H and a thickness of δPV. Each of
the two MEPCM layers has a length of H, a width of H and a thick-
ness of W. The top, middle and bottom frames inside the module all
have a thickness of Wpt. The left and right frames both have a thick-
ness of Hpt/2.
2.1. Mathematical model
2.1.1. Basic assumptions for the mathematical model
(1) In practice, we connected several solar cells in series and par-
allel to form an array. Therefore, the area around a single solar
cell was assumed symmetrical.
(2) The heat transfer along the thickness of the solar cell was
neglected.
(3) The glass at the boundary of the solar cell was an isotropic
medium, and its thermal and physical properties were
constants.
(4) The solar irradiation on the solar cell, Gs(t), was evenly
distributed.
(5) The heat radiation absorptivity of the solar cell surface, α r ,pv ,
was constant.
(6) The thermal and physical properties of the material inside
the pores of the MEPCM layer (water) were constant.
(7) The MEPCM layer was treated as evenly distributed and as
an isotropic porous material that was filled with water with
a porosity of ϕf.
(8) The MEPCM was treated as a sphere with an even particle
diameter of d p+ . However, for the phase change process, the
MEPCM maintained a thermal balance with the material inside
the pores (water).
(9) The enthalpy approximation model [14] was used for the
solid–liquid phase change process of the MEPCM.
124 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

Fig. 1. MEPCM-PV module illustration.

(10) Subcooling was not considered for the MEPCM (i.e., its melting
point was equal to its freezing point).
(11) The buoyancy-driven water convection in the porous layer
packed with MEPCM particles was quite weak [10] and thus
neglected.
frame. The fourth subzone consists of the two vertical frames on
the outside of the module and the second type of MEPCM on the
inside of the module (MEPCM2). The fifth subzone consists of the
bottom frame, whose bottom surface is in direct contact with
water.

2.1.2. Computational domain and subzones

The left side of Fig. 2 shows the computational domain of the
program (red space) (left) and five subzones (right). (For interpre-
tation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.) The top subzone con-
sists of the solar cell and the top frame; because the solar cell is
relatively thin, only one layer of nodal points is established in
the simulation to represent the solar cell, and this layer of nodal
points is directly connected with the top frame below. The second
subzone consists of the two vertical frames on the outside of the
module and the first type of MEPCM on the inside of the module
(MEPCM1). The third subzone consists of the middle horizontal
2.1.3. Energy transfer in the PV panel
The energy balance of a solar cell includes heat conduction, heat
convection, solar radiation, and radiation cooling terms. The sim-
ulation is categorized as a pure PV system without any MEPCM layer
(untreated PV) or as a PV system with MEPCM layers (MEPCM-PV
module). The heat flux at the back of the solar cell in the un-
treated PV is equal to the environmental thermal convection,
′′ ,out = hwater (T pv − Twater ) ( N u = (0.037Re4 5 − 871) Pr1 3 [15]). For the
q pv
MEPCM-PV module, the heat flux at the back of the solar cell is equal
∂T pt ,up
to the thermal conduction flux of the top frame q pv ′′ ,out = −k .
∂z + z + = 0

Fig. 2. Computational domain (left) and subzones (right).

 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132 125

Based on the aforementioned assumptions (2)–(5), we can obtain the following equations:
the following energy balance equation:
ρm = φf ρf + (1 − φf ) ρp (11)
∂T pv ⎡ ∂2T pv ∂2T pv ⎤ 
ρpv c pv δ pv = k pv δ pv ⎢ +2 + ⎥ + α pv G s − E pv
∂t ⎣ ∂x ∂ y +2 ⎦ φf ρf c p ,f + (1 − φf ) ρp c p ,p
c p ,m = (12)
− hamb (T pv − Tamb ) − q rad
′′ ,pv − q pv
′′ ,out (1) φf ρf + (1 − φf ) ρp

Where E pv represents the generation power of the solar cell per

2.1.4.2. The melting fraction equation of the MEPCM layers.
unit area:
∂ξ A p hp ⎡ ∂T
E pv = G s ηpv (2) = (Tm − TM ) − τt m ⎤⎥ (13)
∂t ρpV p hLS ⎢⎣ ∂t ⎦

ηpv = ηpv ,ref [1 − κ pv (T pv − T pv ,ref )] (3) where τt represents the delay time, which is defined as follows:

where T pv ,ref is the solar cell reference temperature of 25 °C, ηpv ,ref ⎡ ( ∀ A )2 ⎤ ⎛ c ⎞
is the module’s electrical efficiency at the reference temperature τ t = ⎢ p p ⎥ ⎜ p ,m ⎟ (14)
⎢⎣ α p ⎥⎦ ⎝ c p ,p ⎠
and κ pv is a material-dependent coefficient for the PV cell, which
has a value of 4.5 × 10−3(1/K) in this study. Reference [16] includes
Because only heat conduction is considered inside the MEPCM
a summary of the related parameters.
layers, the heat transfer coefficient of the pores inside the MEPCM
Where hamb represents the ambient heat convection coeffi-
layers (hp) is calculated using the following equation:
cient, which changes with the wind speed ( U wind ) [17]:
hp d p
hamb = 3.1 + 4.1 × U wind (4) Nu p = =2 (15)
kp
′′ ,PV represents the sky radiation heat transfer rate of
Where q rad
the solar cell: 2.1.4.3. The energy equation of the container frames. Each frame is
′′ ,PV = α sky σ (TPV4 − T sky )
4 cut into several parts for numerical calculation. The boundary points
q rad (5)
are calculated first, followed by the boundary edges, boundary sur-
faces and the inside of the frame. The frames, solar cells and PCMs
Here, the sky absorptivity, α sky , is assumed to be equal to the
have different physical properties; therefore, it is necessary to treat
solar cell’s emissivity. In addition, σ represents the Stefan–Boltzmann
their grids separately; in addition, it is also necessary to calculate
constant, σ = 5.67 × 10 −8 ; Tsky represents the sky temperature (cal-
the heat transfer between the frames and the solar cells, between
culated by Tsky = 0.0552 × Tamb
1.5
[18]); and Tamb represents the outdoor
the frames and the PCMs, and between the solar cells and the PCMs
air temperature.
using heat fluxes to avoid the occurrence of unbalanced energy phe-
Solar cells are often encapsulated in glass. Therefore, the present
nomena at the interfaces between different materials.
study uses a glass frame as the periphery of the solar cells in both
the untreated PV module and MEPCM-PV modules:
∂T pt ⎡ ∂2T pt ∂2T pt ∂2T pt ⎤
ρpt c p ,pt = k pt ⎢ +2 + + (16)
∂T g ⎡ ∂2T g ∂2T g ⎤ ∂t ⎣ ∂x ∂y +2 ∂z +2 ⎥⎦
ρg c p ,g δ PV = k g δ PV
⎢ ∂ x +2 + ∂ y +2 ⎥ + α g G s
∂t ⎣ ⎦
− hamb (T g − Tam b ) − q rad
′′ ,g − q g′′,out (6) 2.2. Initial conditions, boundary conditions and environmental
parameters
The temperature is continuous and the heat fluxes are of equal
value at the interface between the glass and the solar cells. For the initial conditions setting, we assume that the tempera-
ture of the entire system (the PV panel, frames and MEPCM layers)
∂T g ∂T is equivalent to the ambient temperature. To set the boundary con-
T g = TPV ; k g = k PV PV+ (7)
∂x +j ∂x j ditions, we assume that the temperature of the top side of the top
frame is equivalent to the temperature of the solar cell and that the
(1) For the glass frame installed on the untreated PV: surface temperature of each of the MEPCM layers is equivalent to
the temperature of the frame that is in contact with the MEPCM
q g′′,out = hwater (T g − Twater ) (8) layer.

(2) For the glass frame installed on the MEPCM-PV module:

2.2.1. Initial and boundary conditions of the solar cell
∂T pt ,top
q g′′,out = −k pt (9) t = 0:
∂z +
T pv ( x + , y + ) = Tamb (17)
2.1.4. Mathematical equations of the MEPCM-PV module
2.1.4.1. Energy equation of the MEPCM layers. The energy equation t > 0:
discussed in [14] is used and includes the melting rate during the
x + = 0 : T pv ( 0, y + ) = T g ,left (18a)
phase change:

∂T m ⎡ ∂2T ∂2T ∂2T ⎤ ∂ξ H ∂T pv

ρm c p ,m = k m ⎢ +m2 + +m2 + +m2 ⎥ − (1 − φf ) ρp hLS ⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ (10) x+ = : =0 (18b)
∂t ⎣ ∂x ∂y ∂z ⎦ ⎝ ∂t ⎠ 2 ∂x + x+=
H
2

where ρm and c p ,m represent the density of the mixture and the spe-
cific heat of the mixture, respectively, which are calculated using y + = 0 : T pv ( x + , 0 ) = T g ,front (18c)
126 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

H ∂T pv where t rise ,T represents the time when the outdoor temperature

y+ = : =0 (18d) begins to change, t max,T represents the time when the highest outdoor
2 ∂y + y+=
H
2 temperature occurs, t set ,T represents the time when the outdoor tem-
perature stops changing, Tamb ,night represents the outdoor temperature
2.2.2. Initial and boundary conditions of the MEPCM container at midnight, Tamb ,rise represents the outdoor temperature at t rise ,T ,
Tamb ,max represents the outdoor temperature at t max,T and Tamb ,set rep-
t = 0: resents the outdoor temperature at t set ,T .
In addition, the water surface temperature was based on the mea-
Tm ( x + , y + , z + ) = Tamb; ξ = 0 (19a) sured data. Because the water surface temperature also changed with
solar radiation, the changes of the water surface temperature were
T pt ,top ( x + , y + ) = T pt ,bottom ( x + , y + ) = Tamb (19b) set as follows:

⎧ ⎛ Twater ,night − Twater ,rise ⎞

T pt ,left ( y + , z + ) = T pt ,front ( x + , z + ) = Tamb (19c) ⎪Twater ,night − t ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ , 0 ≤ t < t rise ,T
⎪ t rise ,T
⎪ ⎡ π (t − t rise ,T ) ⎤
t > 0: ⎪Twater ,rise + (Twater ,max − Twater ,rise ) sin ⎢ ⎥, t rsie ,T ≤ t < t max,T
In the MEPCM container, each interface between different media ⎪ ⎣ 2 (t max,T − t rise ,T ) ⎦
Twater (t ) = ⎨
satisfies the following conditions: the heat fluxes are of equal ⎪T ⎡ π (t − t max,T ) ⎤
⎪ water ,set ( water ,max water ,set )
+ T −T cos ⎢ ⎥, t max,T ≤ t < t set ,T
value and the temperatures are of equal value: ⎪ ⎣ 2 (t set ,T − t max,T ) ⎦
⎪ ⎛ Twater ,set − Twateer ,night ⎞
⎪Twater ,set − (t − t set ,T ) ⎜ , t set ,T ≤ t ≤ 24
∂Tmaterial1 ∂Tmaterial2 ⎩ ⎝ (24 − t set ,T ) ⎠⎟
Tmaterial1 = Tmaterial2; = (20)
∂x +j ∂x +j (26)

Symmetric conditions are satisfied on each symmetric plane: where Twater ,night represents the water surface temperature at mid-
night, Twater ,rise represents the water surface temperature at t rise ,T ,
∂Tmaterial Twater ,max represents the water surface temperature at t max,T and
=0 (21)
∂x +j Twater ,set represents the water surface temperature at t set ,T .
According to the measurements, the wind speed gradually in-
At the interface between the bottom frame and water: creased before gradually decreasing during the day. Therefore, we
t = 0: used the following 4-step function to reflect wind speed:

T pt ,bottom ( x + , y + ) = Tamb (22)

0 ≤ t < t rise ,wind
⎧U wind ,night ,
⎪
t > 0: ⎪U wind ,max sin ⎡ π (t − t rise ,wind ) ⎤ , t rsie ,wind ≤ t < t max,wind
⎢ 2 (t ⎥
⎪⎪ ⎣ max,wind − t rise ,wind ) ⎦
∂T pt ,bottom U wind (t ) = ⎨
k pt = hwater (T pt ,bottom − Twater ) (23) ⎪U ⎡ π (t − t max,wind ) ⎤
∂z + cos ⎢ ⎥, t max,wind ≤ t < t set ,wind
z + =0 ⎪ w ind ,max ⎣ 2 (t set ,wind − t max,wind ) ⎦
⎪
⎪⎩U wind ,night , t set ,wind ≤ t ≤ 24
2.2.3. Environmental parameter setting (27)
To simulate changes in the solar radiation intensity through-
out the day, we set the solar radiation value as a function of time.
The radiation value was 0 before and after the sunset.
2.3. Related thermal and electrical physical quantities
⎛ 0, 0 ≤ t < t rise ,Gs
⎜ ⎡ π (t − t rise ,Gs ) ⎤ (1) The mean surface temperature of the solar cell:
⎜ G s ,o sin ⎢ ⎥, t rsie ,Gs ≤ t < t max,Gs
⎜ ⎣ 2 (t max,Gs − t rise ,Gs ) ⎦
G s (t ) = ⎜
H H
(24) 2 2
⎜ G s ,o cos ⎡ π (t − t max,Gs ) ⎤ ,
4
⎢ 2 (t ⎥ t max,Gs ≤ t < t set ,Gs T pv = 2 ∫ ∫T pv dx +dy + (28)
⎜ ⎣ set ,Gs − t max,Gs ) ⎦ H 0 0
⎜
⎝ 0, t set ,Gs ≤ t ≤ 24
(2) The mean generation efficiency of the solar cell:
Here, t rise ,Gs represents the time of sunrise, t max,Gs represents the H H
4 2 2 0.5 0.5

H 2 ∫0 ∫0
time of peak radiation, and t set ,Gs represents the time of sunset. ηPV = ηPV dx +dy + = 4 ∫ ∫ ηPV dxdy (29)
0 0
According to meteorological data, the outdoor air temperature
changes almost linearly when no solar radiation occurs. Thus, we
set the outdoor temperature by using the following 4-stage func- (3) The power output of the PV panel within a certain time:
tion: t rise + Δt
E PV ( Δt ) = ∫ G s H 2ηPV dt (30)
⎧ ⎛ Tamb ,night − Tamb ,rise ⎞
⎪Tamb ,night − t ⎜⎝ 0 ≤ t < t rise ,T t rise
t rise ,T ⎟⎠ ,
⎪
⎪ ⎡ π (t − t rise ,T ) ⎤ (4) The heat transferred to the surface of the water:
⎪Tamb ,rise + (Tamb ,max − Tamb ,rise ) sin ⎢ ⎥, t rsie ,T ≤ t < t max,T
⎪ ⎣ 2 (t max,T − t rise ,T ) ⎦ PV:
Tamb (t ) = ⎨
⎪T ⎡ π (t − t max,T ) ⎤
⎪ amb ,set ( amb ,max amb ,set )
+ T −T cos ⎢ ⎥, t max,T ≤ t < t set ,T H H
⎣ 2 (t set ,T − t max,T ) ⎦ 4 2 2
⎪
⎪ ⎛ Tamb ,set − Tamb ,night ⎞ ′′
q amb = 2 ∫ ∫h water (T pv ,bottom − Twater )dx +dy + (31a)
⎪Tamb ,set − (t − t set ,T ) ⎜⎝ , t set ,T ≤ t ≤ 24 H
(24 − t set ,T ) ⎟⎠
0 0
⎩
(25) MEPCM-PV module:
 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132 127

Table 1 Summer
Summer environmental parameters. W1 /W2 (cm) TM1 /TM2 (°C) Line
U wind ,night (m s ) 1 t max,Gs (hr ) 14 t max,T (hr ) 14 36 5/5 30/26
U wind ,max (m s ) 2.7 t set ,Gs (hr ) 19 t set ,T (hr ) 19 3/3 30/26
t rise ,wind (hr ) 8 Tamb ,night (°C ) 25.9 Twater ,night (°C ) 25
t max,wind (hr ) 14 Tamb ,rise (°C ) 24.4 Twater ,rise (°C ) 24
t set ,wind (hr ) 20 Tamb ,max (°C ) 32.3 Twater ,max (°C ) 31
G s ,o (W m 2 ) 800 Tamb ,set (°C ) 28.1 Twater ,set (°C ) 28
t rise ,Gs (hr ) 6 t rise ,T (hr ) 6 – – 32

T( °C )
H H
2 2
4
′′
q amb = 2 ∫ ∫h water (T pt ,bottom − Twater )dx +dy + (31b) 28
H 0 0

2.4. Parameter settings

24
The investigated climatic conditions included the summer and
winter seasons. The working fluid inside the MEPCM layer is set as
water. The separator material is aluminum. The simulated water flow
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
rate is 0.341 m/s. Tables 1–4 provide the related parameter settings.
t (hour)
2.5. Numerical method
Fig. 3. Mean surface temperatures of the solar cells in the treated PV modules with
MEPCM layers with different thicknesses.
The finite difference method is used as a discrete method for dif-
ferential equations. The time term is discretized using the first-
order backward differential method. The spatial diffusion term is
discretized using the second-order central differential method. The the present study selects 2 × 10 −6 as the value of the time step. We
implicit method is used for time discretization. A test shows that have compared the power generation results of the untreated PV
the value of the time step (ΔFo) should not be greater than 5 × 10 −6 ; module (129 W-hr/100 m2) with the previously reported power
outputs of water-surface floating PV systems (136 W-hr/100 m2 [3])
and 124 W-hr/100 m2 (estimated by Israel’s Solaris Synergy, re-
Table 2 ported by the New York Times), and found that there is no significant
Winter environmental parameters. difference between the power generation of the untreated PV module
U wind ,night (m s ) 2.5 t max,Gs (hr ) 14 t max,T (hr ) 14
obtained in the present study and the previously reported power
U wind ,max (m s ) 4.3 t set ,Gs (hr ) 18 t set ,T (hr ) 19 outputs of water-surface floating PV systems, proving the reliabil-
t rise ,wind (hr ) 7 Tamb ,night (°C ) 15.8 Twater ,night (°C ) 15.7 ity of the simulation results.
t max,wind (hr ) 15 Tamb ,rise (°C ) 14.3 Twater ,rise (°C ) 15
t set ,wind (hr ) 20 Tamb ,max (°C ) 21.4 Twater ,max (°C ) 21
G s ,o (W m 2 ) 400 Tamb ,set (°C ) 17.8 Twater ,set (°C ) 17 3. Results and discussion
t rise ,Gs (hr ) 7 t rise ,T (hr ) 7 – –
3.1. Summer climate conditions

Table 3
Fig. 3 shows the mean surface temperatures of the solar cells in
Geometric parameters. two MEPCM-PV modules (the MEPCM-PV module with a 5-cm-
thick MEPCM1 layer with a melting point of 30 °C and a 5-cm-
H 5 cm
W Determined based on the conditions (cm) thick MEPCM2 layer with a melting point of 26 °C (5 cm/5 cm–
δ pv 1.8 mm 30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module) and the 3 cm/3 cm–30 °C/26 °C
H pt 1.8 mm MEPCM-PV module). The MEPCM2 layer in the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/
W pt 2 mm 26 °C MEPCM-PV module begins melting at 8 h and is completely
d p+ 18 μm
melted after 11 h; therefore, the mean surface temperature of the
solar cells in the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module is lower
than that of the solar cells in the 3 cm/3 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-
Table 4 PV module. The MEPCM1 layer in the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C
Thermal and physical properties.
MEPCM-PV module begins melting at 12 h, after which the retard-
km 0.41 W/m·k c p ,p 1,800 J/kg·s ing effect of the MEPCM1 layer on the temperature increase of the
k pv 168 W/m·k c p ,pv 2,790 J/kg·s solar cells becomes more pronounced; the highest surface temper-
kf 0.613 W/m·k c p ,pt 900 J/kg·s
k pt c p ,g
ature (31.8 °C) of the solar cells is observed at 16 h.
237 W/m·k 750 J/kg·s
kg 1.4 W/m·k αf 1.47 × 10−7 m2/s Based on these results, as the thicknesses of the MEPCM layers
μf 8.55 × 10−4 kg/m·s α pv 0.45 increase, the temperature of the solar cells can be controlled through
νf 8.575 × 10−7 m2/s αg 0.28 the heat-absorbing effect of the MEPCM2 layer due to melting (the
ρf 997.1 kg/m3 βT ,f 276.1 × 10−6 1/k
melting point of the MEPCM2 layer is lower than that of the MEPCM1
ρp 900 kg/m3 κ pv 4.5 × 10−3 %/k
ρpv 883 kg/m3 ϕf 0.46
layer). The closer to noon, the greater the solar irradiance. Thus, if
ρpt 2,700 kg/m3 ηpv ,ref 0.2 the MEPCM2 layer begins melting too late, the heat-absorbing effect
ρg 2,500 kg/m3 CF 0.55 of the MEPCM2 layer due to melting will decrease. Therefore, we
c p ,f 4,179 J/kg·s T pv ,ref 25 °C decrease the melting point of the MEPCM2 layer in the 5 cm/5 cm
hls (summer ) 172,000 J/kg hls (winter) 235,000 J/kg
MEPCM-PV module to increase the retarding effect of the MEPCM2
128 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

Summer Summer
W1 /W2 (cm) TM1 /TM2 (°C) Line W1 /W2(cm) TM1 /TM2(°C) Line
36 5/5 30/26
36 5/5 30/26
5/5 30/25
5/5 26/30

32
32

T(°C)
T(°C)

28

28

24

24
20
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
t (hour) t (hour)
Fig. 4. Mean surface temperatures of the solar cells in the treated modules with Fig. 5. Effect of swapping the locations of the two MEPCM layers on the surface tem-
MEPCM2 layers with different melting points. perature of the solar cells during the summer.

layer on the increase in temperature of the solar cells when the
MEPCM2 layer melts.
Fig. 4 shows the mean surface temperatures of the solar cells in
the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module and the 5 cm/5 cm–
30 °C/25 °C MEPCM-PV module (the thicknesses of the MEPCM layers
in these two modules are the same, but the melting points of the
MEPCM2 layers are different). The initial conditions set for the 5 cm/
5 cm–30 °C/25 °C MEPCM-PV module are as follows: the MEPCM
layers are in the solid state, and the initial temperatures of the
MEPCM layers are the same as the ambient temperature. There-
fore, when the simulation starts, the MEPCM2 layer with a melting
point of 25 °C melts immediately. The data between 8 h and 11 h
show that the heat-absorbing effect of the PCM due to melting can
be achieved effectively when the MEPCM with a melting point of
25 °C is used as the MEPCM2 layer. However, if the melting point
of the MEPCM layer is relatively low, the MEPCM2 layer will be com-
pletely melted relatively early.
As the MEPCM1 layer begins melting, the temperature of the
module increases rapidly. The MEPCM1 with a melting point of 30 °C
begins melting at approximately 13 h. The surface temperatures of
the solar cells in the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/25 °C MEPCM-PV module are
higher than those of the solar cells in the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C
MEPCM-PV module from 13 h to 18 h. After the MEPCM2 layer with
a melting point of 25 °C is completely melted, the temperature of
the MEPCM2 layer increases rapidly and is close to the tempera-
ture of the MEPCM1 layer due to heat transfer through the frames,
and this temperature increase is completed after approximately 1 h.
In the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/25 °C MEPCM-PV module, while the MEPCM1
layer is melting, the temperature of the MEPCM2 layer is already
30 °C; therefore, the downward heat transfer effect inside the module
is low. In the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module, while the
MEPCM1 layer is melting, the temperature of the MEPCM2 layer is
approximately 29 °C; thus, the module still has an internal down-
ward heat transfer, resulting in the relatively low surface temperature
of the solar cells.
Therefore, when we increase the difference between the melting
points of the MEPCM1 and MEPCM2 layers, we can use the heat-
absorbing effect of the MEPCM2 layer with a relatively low melting
point; when we decrease the difference between the melting points
of the MEPCM1 and MEPCM2 layers, we can reduce the thermal re-
sistance effect caused by the MEPCM2 layer.
Table 5 lists comparisons among the thermal and electrical prop-
erties of MEPCM-PV modules and the untreated PV during the
summer. The highest temperature of the 3 cm/3 cm–30 °C/26 °C
MEPCM-PV module is higher than that of the untreated PV; however,
a comparison of the daily power outputs per unit area shows that
the use of MEPCM layers still results in increased mean genera-
tion efficiency ηpv ,day and power output Epv,day.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of swapping the locations of the two
MEPCM layers on the surface temperature of the solar cells. The two
temperature curves are very close to one another; however, because
the MEPCM1 layer is closer to the solar cells, the melting condi-
tions of the MEPCM1 layer have a more significant impact on the
temperature of the solar cells when compared to the melting con-
ditions of the MEPCM2 layer; therefore, the 5 cm/5 cm–30 °C/
26 °C MEPCM-PV module has a better temperature-controlling effect
when solar radiation is intense.
Fig. 6 shows the variations in the melting rates of the MEPCM
layers over time during the summer after the locations of the two
MEPCM layers are swapped. During the 48-h phase change process,

Table 5
Comparison of the thermal and electrical properties of the MEPCM-PV modules and the untreated PV during the summer.

W1 W 2 (cm/cm) TM 1 TM 2 (°C/°C) Tpv,max (°C) ηpv ,min (%) ηpv ,day (%) Epv,day (kJ/m2)

Untreated PV 0 – 32.8 19.30 19.46 4645.99

Treated PV 3/3 30/26 33.5 19.23 19.47 4714.62
5/5 30/26 31.9 19.38 19.57 4740.34
5/5 30/25 32.2 19.35 19.56 4736.73
 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132 129

Fig. 6. Variations of the melting rates of the MEPCM layers during the summer.

except for a slight difference in the time when the melting process
is completed, the melting rates of MEPCM layers with the same
26 Winter
melting point are essentially the same at any given time. There-
fore, we know that swapping the locations of the MEPCM layers has W1 /W2 (cm) TM1 / TM2 (°C) Line
only a slight impact on the performance of the MEPCM layers during 24 3/3 18/16
the summer. 5/5 18/16

3.2. Winter climate conditions 22

Fig. 7 shows the time variations of the mean surface tempera-
T(°C)

tures of the solar cells in two treated modules with MEPCM layers 20
of different thicknesses. The 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-PV
module has relatively good heat-absorbing effects from 10 h to 16 h
due to melting, and thus the temperature of the solar cells in this 18
module is relatively low during this period. This module has sim-
ilarly good heat-releasing effects from 20 h to 26 h due to
solidification, and thus the temperature of the solar cells in this 16
module is relatively high during this period. The MEPCM2 layer in
the 3 cm/3 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-PV module does not com-
pletely solidify on the first night; therefore, the amount of this 14
MEPCM2 layer that is able to melt on the morning of the second
day is less than the amount that is able to melt on the morning of 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
the first day, and thus the highest temperature of the solar cells on t (hour)
the second day is higher than that on the first day.
Table 6 shows that an increase in MEPCM can result in an in- Fig. 7. Mean surface temperatures of the solar cells in the treated modules with
crease in the lowest temperature of the module on the second day; MEPCM layers of different thicknesses during the winter.
130 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

Table 6
Comparison of the thermal and electrical properties of the MEPCM-PV modules and the untreated PV module in winter conditions.

W1 W 2 (cm/cm) TM 1 TM 2 (°C/°C) Tpv,max (°C) ηpv ,min (%) Epv,day (kJ/m2) qwater ,night (kJ/m2) Tpv,maxII (°C)

Untreated PV 0 – 21.5 20.0 2049.2 −4602.4 14.2

Treated PV 3/3 18/16 20.0 20.0 2049.2 1818.1 15.1
5/5 18/16 18.6 20.0 2049.2 2061.6 15.4

Superscript II: Second day data.

100 a

b
q"water (W/m2)

0
c

-100
a

-200
c
b
-300
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
t (hour) t (hour)
(a) (b)

100
Winter
case W1 /W2(cm) TM1 /TM2(°C) Line
qwater (W/m )

0
2

a 5/- 18/-
a b 5/5 18/16
-100 c 5/5 16/18
"

-200
c
b
-300
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
t (hour)
(c)

Fig. 8. Heat fluxes transferred from MEPCM layers with different melting points to the water surface during the winter.

however, the difference in the amount of heat transfer is most sig-
nificant in the early morning hours. Therefore, an increase in the
thicknesses of the MEPCM layers does not result in an increase in
the total amount of heat.
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the heat fluxes transferred to the
water surface after the MEPCM layers in the module are swapped.
Fig. 8a shows the heat fluxes during the hours with sunshine on the
first day. The MEPCM2 layer in the 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-
PV module begins melting first; therefore, the amount of the heat
absorbed by the 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-PV module is greater
than that absorbed by the 5 cm/5 cm–16 °C/18 °C MEPCM-PV
module.
Fig. 8b shows the heat fluxes during the hours without sun-
shine on the first day. There is no significant difference between the
heat fluxes transferred from the module to the water surface after
the MEPCM layers in the module are swapped. However, because
the melting of the MEPCM in the 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-
PV module gradually decreases from top to bottom, this module has
a greater total amount of heat transfer. Fig. 8c shows the heat fluxes
transferred to the water surface during the hours with sunshine on
the second day. Due to an increase in the thicknesses of the MEPCM
layers, the solidification of the MEPCM layers is incomplete on the
first night, resulting in a phenomenon in which the heat-absorbing
effect of each module on the surface of the body of water sud-
denly decreases at approximately 36 h. Therefore, the module with
a MEPCM2 layer with a higher melting point absorbs more heat
because the MEPCM with a higher melting point has sufficient time
to solidify at night.
4. Conclusions
The present study uses numerical simulations to analyze the
effects of double water-saturated MEPCM layers in a water-surface
floating PV on the surface temperature and power output of the PV
module under different environmental conditions. The following con-
clusions are obtained from the results:
1. The untreated PV module has a highest surface temperature of
32.6 °C, a mean generation efficiency of 19.46% and a daily per
unit area power output of 4646 kJ/m2 during the summer.
 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132 131

2. The following improvements are achieved when two MEPCM ρ Density [kg/m3]
layers are attached to the PV module during the summer: the τt Delaying coefficient
3 cm/3 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module has a highest tem- ξ Melt fraction
perature of 33.5 °C, a mean generation efficiency of 19.47% and Δ Difference
a daily per unit area power output of 4714.6 kJ/m2 (a 1.48% in-
crease when compared with the untreated PV module); the 5 cm/ Subscript
5 cm–30 °C/26 °C MEPCM-PV module has a highest surface amb Outdoor
temperature of 31.9 °C, a mean generation efficiency of 19.57% bottom Bottom
and a daily per unit area power output of 4740.3 kJ/m2 (a 2.03% day Accumulated value of the investigated daytime
increase when compared with the untreated PV module). f Fluid (water)
3. The use of two MEPCM layers during the winter can result in front Front
an increase in the lowest temperature of the PV module on the g Glass
second day. The use of a combination of 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/ high High
16 °C MEPCM layers increases the lowest temperature at the left Left
bottom of the module to 15.4 °C, while the use of a combina- low Low
tion of 3 cm/3 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM layers increases the lowest m Mixed MEPCM-fluid
temperature at the bottom of the module to only 15.1 °C. During max Maximum
the hours without sunshine, the total amount of heat transfer M; melt Melt
of the 3 cm/3 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM-PV module is slightly lower night Night
than that of the PV module with one MEPCM layer, while the out Outward
amount of heat transfer of the 5 cm/5 cm–18 °C/16 °C MEPCM- p MEPCM particle, pore
PV module is higher than that of the PV module with one MEPCM pt Separator
layer. pv Photovoltaic cell
rad Sky radiation
Nomenclature ref Reference
rise Sunrise
Ap Capsule surface area [m2] set Sunset
c, Cp Specific heat [J/kg K] sky Sky temperature
CF Forchheimer coefficient T Outdoor air temperature
d Diameter [m] top Top
E Electricity output [kJ/m2] up Upward
E Electric power output per unit cell area [W/m2] water Water
g Gravitational acceleration [m/s2] wind Wind
Gs Incident solar irradiation [W/m2]
Gs,o Maximum incident solar irradiation [W/m2] Superscript
h Heat convection coefficient [W/m2 K] – Average
H Length [m] and width [m] of the MEPCM + Dimensional
Hpt Double thicknesses of the left and right separators [m]
hLS Latent heat [J/kg]
k Thermal conductivity coefficient [W/m K] References
MEPCM Microencapsulated phase change material
[1] E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos, On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
Nu Nusselt number electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations, Sol. Energy
PV Photovoltaic 83 (2009) 614–624.
q Heat transfer [kJ/m2] [2] D. Du, J. Darkwa, G. Kokogiannakis, Thermal management systems
for photovoltaics (PV) installations: a critical review, Sol. Energy 97 (2013)
q″ Heat flux [W/m2]
238–254.
t Time [s] [3] Y. Ueda, T. Sakurai, S. Tatebe, A. Itoh, K. Kurokawa, Performance analysis of PV
T Temperature [°C] systems on the water, EU PVSEC Conference, 4EP.1.3, Valencia, Spain. 2008,
U Velocity [m/s] 2670–2673.
[4] H.G. Teo, P.S. Lee, M.N.A. Hawlader, An active cooling system for photovoltaic
∀ Capsule volume [m3] modules, Appl. Energy 90 (2012) 309–315.
W Thickness of the MEPCM [m] [5] P. Valeh-e-Sheyda, M. Rahimi, E. Karimi, M. Asadi, Application of two-phase
Wpt Thicknesses of the top and bottom separators of the flow for cooling of hybrid microchannel PV cells: a comparative study, Energy
Convers. Manag. 69 (2013) 122–130.
MEPCM [m] [6] A. Waqas, S. Kumar, Phase change material (PCM)-based solar air heating system
x = x+/H for residential space heating in winter, Int. J. Green Energy 10 (2013) 402–426.
y = y+/H [7] X. Jin, M.A. Medina, X. Zhang, On the importance of the location of PCMs in
building walls for enhanced thermal performance, Appl. Energy 106 (2013)
72–78.
Greeks [8] M.J. Huang, The effect of using two PCMs on the thermal regulation performance
α Thermal diffusivity [m2/s] of BIPV systems, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95 (2011) 957–963.
[9] A. Tanuwijava, C. Lai, C. Ho, C. Huang, Numerical investigation of the thermal
α r ,pv Heat radiation absorptivity of the solar cell
management performance of MEPCM modules for PV applications, Energies
α sky Sky absorptivity of the solar cell 6 (2013) 3922–3936.
βT ,f Fluid expansion coefficient [1/K] [10] C.J. Ho, B. Jou, C. Lai, C. Huang, Performance assessment of a BIPV integrated
with a layer of water-saturated MEPCM, Energy Build. 67 (2013) 322–333.
δ Thickness [m]
[11] N. Zhu, Z. Ma, S. Wang, Dynamic characteristics and energy performance of
ϕ Porosity buildings using phase change materials: a review, Energy Convers. Manag. 50
η Electrical efficiency of the solar cell (2009) 3169–3181.
κ pv Temperature dependent coefficient of the solar cell [1/K] [12] M. Delgado, A. Lázaro, J. Mazo, B. Zalba, Review on phase change material
emulsions and microencapsulated phase change material slurries: materials,
μ Viscosity [N s/m2] heat transfer studies and applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012)
ν Kinematic viscosity [m2/s] 253–273.
132 C.J. Ho et al./Applied Thermal Engineering 94 (2016) 122–132

[13] M.R. Anisur, M.H. Mahfuz, M.A. Kibria, R. Saidur, I.H.S.C. Metselaar, T.M.I. Mahlia,
Curbing global warming with phase change materials for energy storage, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 18 (2013) 23–30.
[14] C.J. Ho, A continuum model for transport phenomena in convective flow of
solid–liquid phase change material suspensions, Appl. Math. Model. 29 (2005)
805–817.
[15] F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavines, Principles of Heat and
Mass Transfer, seventh ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
[16] G.N. Tiwari, R.K. Mishra, S.C. Solanki, Photovoltaic modules and
their applications: a review on thermal modelling, Appl. Energy 88 (2011)
2287–2304.
[17] S.A. Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems, second ed.,
Academic Press, Waltham, MA, USA, 2014.
[18] W.C. Swinbank, Long-wave radiation from clear skies, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 89
(1963) 339–348.