You are on page 1of 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.


Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

Assessment of PV modules shunt resistance dependence

on solar irradiance
Cristiano Saboia Ruschel a,⇑,1, Fabiano Perin Gasparin b,2, Eurides Ramos Costa a,1,
Arno Krenzinger a,1
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Universidade Estadual do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Received 13 August 2015; received in revised form 2 March 2016; accepted 21 March 2016
Available online 18 April 2016

Communicated by: Associate Editor Arturo Morales-Acevedo


Modeling and simulation of photovoltaic systems, further than aiding on the project design phase, can be used to emulate the system
performance in real time, therefore helping to identify any malfunction that may occur. Among the available performance models for
photovoltaic systems, the single diode model is preferred by many authors, since it combines relative simplicity and accuracy. Previous
works reported that this model has some limitations on describing the photovoltaic system I–V curves under low irradiances, indicating
that the variation of the shunt resistance parameter with the irradiance level can be adopted to minimize this drawback. This paper aims
to study the shunt resistance dependence on the irradiance level in order to evaluate some of the usual expressions proposed on the
literature. A large area pulsed solar simulator model PASAN SunSim 3C was used to acquire the I–V characteristics of several
photovoltaic modules of different brands and technologies under 20 distinct irradiance levels ranging from 75 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2.
The shunt resistance parameter was calculated as the inverse slope of the I–V curve in the short circuit region, and fitting equations were
derived for each photovoltaic technology. The results in general agreed with previous published works, showing the tendency of an
increase of the shunt resistance on lower irradiance levels. Some empirical models tested did not present satisfactory accuracy to
reproduce the experimental data. Although simpler, an inverse dependence of the shunt resistance on the irradiance using the measured
value at STC as a reference was seen to describe adequately the experimental data. A preliminary study showed that the inclusion of this
dependence on the single-diode model indeed increases the model accuracy, reducing the average error on the performed tests by more
than half comparing to the original model.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Photovoltaic module; Single-diode model; Shunt resistance

1. Introduction

⇑ Corresponding author. The development of accurate simulation tools for

E-mail addresses: (C.S. Ruschel), gasparin. photovoltaic (PV) systems is a crucial issue not only for (F.P. Gasparin), (E.R. Costa), project and performance prediction but also for plant oper- (A. Krenzinger). ation supervision. An unreliable prediction model may
Address: LABSOL - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 – Prédio 42712, Porto
Alegre, RS CEP 91509-910, Brazil.
cause financial losses if the energy to be produced by the
Address: Av. Bento Gonçalves, 8855, Bairro Agronomia, Porto system is overestimated, discouraging future investments
Alegre, RS CEP 91540-000, Brazil. on PV projects. Using an overly cautious estimation to
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
36 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
avoid this problem is not a reasonable alternative either, qV
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1 ð2Þ
since it may lead to a false conclusion that the system is N s mkT
not economically viable. The use of simulation as a tool
to supervise photovoltaic systems can be of major assis- However, this ideal photovoltaic module equation has
tance, since it may indicate when a device is not working little practical use, since photovoltaic modules with such
correctly by comparing the actual operating conditions characteristics are impossible to build. For a better descrip-
with the simulated ones. Evidently, an adequate accuracy tion of the I–V characteristic of PV modules, a series
is required on these cases; otherwise it would not be possible resistance (Rs) is included. This component represents the
to properly identify a system malfunction. resistance of the materials which compose the module
The characteristic I–V curve, and therefore the power and causes a reduction on the power converted by this
produced by a photovoltaic system, is highly dependent device, and the resulting current I is then described by
on the environmental conditions, namely the temperature Eq. (3).
and the solar irradiance. Several models are available to qðV þ IRs Þ
forecast the operation of photovoltaic systems. However, I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1 ð3Þ
N s mkT
on the definition of the parameters for many models a
problem arises: the data provided by the manufacturer In addition to the parameters of the ideal cell, the series
datasheet usually contains only information at standard resistance Rs must also be determined, increasing the
test conditions (STC), or at best also for the NOCT number of unknown parameters to four. This model is
(nominal operating cell temperature). So, the knowledge known as the four-parameter model, and has been used for
of the dependence of the I–V curve parameters on the several authors such as Xiao et al. (2004) and Chenni et al.
environmental conditions is necessary in order to establish (2007), describing the behavior of PV devices adequately
a model valid for every condition. for irradiance level of 1000 W/m2 under different tempera-
Among the alternatives for representing the electrical tures. On other studies though, this method was shown to
characteristics of photovoltaic modules, the single diode present a poor performance under certain conditions. Celik
five-parameter model is one of the most commonly used. and Acikgoz (2007) exhibit a comparison between measured
Despite combining relative simplicity and accuracy, data for a sequence of five days, with two numerical
previous works have shown that as a drawback this model simulations, one using the four-parameter model and
tends to fail on the description of I–V curves on lower another with a five-parameter model. The four-parameter
irradiance conditions (Ishaque et al., 2011). The variation model was shown inadequate to describe the PV system
of the shunt resistance parameter with the irradiance can under some of the reported environmental conditions, with
be adopted to minimize this limitation. The aim of this the five-parameter model presenting a better agreement.
paper is to study the behavior of the shunt resistance with The main difference between the two aforementioned
the irradiance level for several photovoltaic modules, in models is the inclusion of the so-called shunt resistance
order to check the validity of some usual expressions and (Rsh), which is connected in parallel with the diode. The
propose viable alternatives based on experimental data. complete circuit for the five-parameter model is presented
on Fig. 1.
2. Photovoltaic devices modeling The current I is therefore given by Eq. (4).
qðV þ IRs Þ V þ IRs
An ideal solar cell can be described, from the basic I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1  ð4Þ
N s mkT Rsh
theory of semiconductors, as a current source in parallel
with a diode. Representing the diode current with the The shunt resistance accounts for alternative paths for
expression proposed by Shockley (1950), the characteristic the free carriers produced by the solar radiation. A high
I–V curve of the ideal solar cell is given by Eq. (1). shunt resistance means that the vast majority of these
    carriers generate power, whereas a low resistance indicates
qV cell large losses, affecting mainly the slope of the I–V curve on
I ¼ I ph;cell  I 0;cell exp 1 ð1Þ
mkT the proximity of the short circuit region. Breitenstein et al.
(2004) attempts to reach a better understanding of the
where Iph is the photogenerated current by the cell, I0 the
reverse saturation or leakage current, q is the electron
charge, V the applied voltage on the cell terminals, m the
diode ideality factor, k the Boltzmann constant and T the
absolute cell temperature.
Photovoltaic modules are assembled by connecting sev-
eral cells in series. When representing a module, Eq. (1) is
modified by adding one term representing the number of
cells in series, Ns, and by replacing the cell parameters by
the module ones, leading to Eq. (2). Fig. 1. Five-parameter model circuit.
C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43 37

nature of this shunt current by applying lock-in thermogra- although using the double diode model. This parameter
phy to investigate and classify different kinds of shunts. was also studied for photovoltaic modules exposed to
The author states that the majority of the shunts are sunlight over the course of the day, and again the tendency
process-induced, such as edge shunts, cracks, holes, was of an increase of shunt resistance with the decrease of
scratches or aluminum particles, rather than material- irradiance levels.
induced shunts, these including crystal defects or inversion Some recent models propose to consider these variations
layers due to SiC inclusions. on the shunt resistance with the irradiance. De Soto et al.
Although a more precise model for considering the (2006) propose an inverse behavior of Rsh with respect to
shunt resistance, the five-parameter model still has some the irradiance (G), described by Eq. (6), following observa-
limitations, being reported to be less precise under low tion based on experiments performed on the United States
irradiance conditions, especially on the vicinity of the open National Institute of Standards and Technologies and on
circuit voltage (Ishaque et al., 2011). For that reason, an inference exposed by Schroeder (1998). However, the
double-diode models are frequently used, but these have latter only guarantees this approach as valid for very low
the drawback of requiring the determination of additional irradiance levels.
parameters, raising the complexity of the problem. There-  
fore, an interesting approach to the problem is to improve Rsh ¼ Rsh;ref ð6Þ
the single-diode model by studying the behavior of the G
parameters under different conditions and then adding
Other authors, such as Dongue et al. (2012) and Ma
adjustment equations for some of these parameters
et al. (2014) followed on the consideration of a variable
Rsh with the irradiance, describing it also with Eq. (6). A
study performed by Sandia National Laboratories (2015)
3. Dependence of the parameters on irradiance and presents a comparison between the shunt resistance pre-
temperature dicted with Eq. (6) and the one extracted from I–V curves
of several irradiance levels for a monocrystalline silicon
According to the traditional approach for the five- module. Although following the same tendency of increas-
parameter model, the photocurrent Iph depends on the irra- ing Rsh for lower irradiances, the experimental data does
diance, I0 is affected by the temperature of the cell and m, not match very closely the expected behavior for the tested
Rs and Rsh are constant. (Ciulla et al., 2014). The photo- PV module.
current is known to vary linearly with the irradiance and Lo Brano et al. (2010) present a model with additional
the reverse saturation is frequently considered to change parameters, which requires the measurement of the I–V
with temperature following Eq. (5) (Townsend, 1989): curve in different irradiance and temperature levels to be
qeg obtained. Despite not explicitly defining an equation relat-
I 0 ðT Þ ¼ DT 3 eAkT ð5Þ ing Rsh and G, this model results on an inverse dependence
of this resistance with the variation of G, similarly to the
where D is the diode diffusion factor, approximately con-
De Soto et al. (2006) model.
stant, T the absolute cell temperature, A = cNs (for ideal
Another procedure is suggested by the commercial soft-
cells c is equal to 1) and eg the material energy band gap,
ware PVsyst. This software is a well-known tool for design
which is 1.12 eV for Silicon.
and simulation of photovoltaic systems, which describes
Some studies, such as De Soto (2004) suggest that the
the PV panel using the five parameter model presented
series resistance has a dependence on the irradiance,
on Eq. (4). The shunt resistance is calculated by taking
decreasing its value for lower irradiance levels, and even
the virtual Maximum Power Point conductance (IscImp)/
assuming negative values for some of the operating condi-
Vmp, corresponding to the absolute minimum value of
tions. As a matter of fact, earlier works also indicate nega-
Rsh, and taking a given fraction of this quantity (PVsyst
tive values for the series resistance on the five-parameter
SA, 2012). The model also includes an option to vary the
model on low irradiance conditions (Chan et al., 1986).
value of the shunt resistance with the irradiance, according
Nevertheless, most authors do not consider these varia-
to the exponential presented on Eq. (7).
tions relevant, treating Rs as independent of the incident
irradiance and temperature and obtaining sufficient preci- Rsh ¼ Rsh;ref þ Rsh ð0Þ  Rsh;ref :e5:5G=Gref ð7Þ
sion (de Blas et al., 2002; De Soto et al., 2006).
Previous works have also observed a dependence of the The constant Rsh(0) is suggested to assume the value of
shunt resistance on the irradiance. Bätzner et al. (2001) 12 times Rsh for amorphous silicon modules, and 4 times
measured the five characteristic parameters for three solar Rsh for crystalline silicon panels. However, it is stated that
cells from different technologies with irradiance ranging this equation is the result of few measurements, and there-
from 0.1 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 and verified an increase of fore the software does not use it as default, leaving as an
the shunt resistance for lower irradiance levels in all cases. option for the user.
Eikelboom and Reinders (1997) also tested a cell under Following these studies, several photovoltaic modules
different irradiance levels and reached similar results, of different brands and technologies were tested under
38 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

different irradiance levels in order to evaluate the validity Table 1

of Eqs. (6) and (7), and to help on the development of a LAPSS characteristics and IEC 60904-9 requirements for a class A solar
more accurate single diode model. For that purpose, a
discussion of the extraction methods for the shunt Characteristic Class A solar LAPSS PASAN
simulator SunSim 3C
resistance is presented on the following section.
Non-uniformity 2% <1%
Temporal instability 2% <1%
4. Shunt resistance evaluation Spectral match ratio 0.75–1.25 0.875–1.125

A common method to assess the shunt resistance is by

using the Eq. (8), where the Rsh0 is the inverse of the slope
of the I–V curve at the short circuit region, as given by the international standard IEC 60904-9 (2007) and is rated
Eq. (9), and Rs the series resistance (de Blas et al., 2002, as AAA, even exceeding all standard requirements as
Lo Brano et al., 2010). shown in Table 1.
Tests performed on site after installation of the solar
Rsh ¼ Rsh0  Rs ð8Þ
simulator have shown a spatial non-uniformity of 0.27%,
dV therefore better than the nominal features. The flash
Rsh0 ¼  ð9Þ non-uniformity was tested by measuring the short circuit
dI I¼I sc
current of a multicrystalline solar cell in 64 positions over
On the method proposed by Bouzidi et al. (2006), which the device under test area.
was also adopted on studies regarding the behavior of The I–V curves were traced in 10 ms under a single volt-
photovoltaic cells on different conditions (Cheegar et al., age sweep varying from Isc to Voc, acquiring 418 I–V pairs.
2013; Cuce et al., 2013), although different coefficients are The raw I–V curve is corrected to STC conditions
used, the shunt resistance is ultimately calculated by Eq. (8). according to IEC 60891 (2009) by the LAPSS software.
However, the second term on Eq. (8) is often neglected The room temperature was maintained at 25 °C ± 1 °C,
as it is usually much smaller than the first. The inverse of and for each measurement the module temperature was
the slope of the I–V curve at the short circuit region is con- required to be stable between this range as well. A set of
sidered to provide an accurate estimation for the shunt six masks with attenuation ratios of 0.7, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2
resistance for the single-diode model, and this method, and 0.1 was used to trace the I–V curves over a wide range
Rsh = Rsh0, is preferred by several authors (Phang et al., of irradiance levels. The I–V curves were traced with
1984; Hadj Arab et al., 2004). Furthermore, Chan et al. irradiances varying from 1000 to 75 W/m2 with 50 W/m2
(1986) compares different parameter extraction methods intervals. The measurements of 1000, 950, 900, 850, 800
and states that for the assessment of the shunt resistance, and 750 W/m2 were performed without the use of attenua-
Eq. (9) provides a better estimation than the use of curve tion masks, only by regulating the flash intensity. The mea-
fitting methods. surements of 700, 650, 600 and 550 W/m2 were performed
Another approach for this problem is proposed by with the mask with ratio of 0.7 and so on, until the 75 W/
Villalva et al. (2009), who applies an iterative process to m2 irradiance level, on which was employed the mask with
find the pair (Rs, Rsh) in which the calculated maximum the attenuation ratio of 0.1. The lowest irradiance level was
power coincides with the Pmp provided by the manufac- 75 W/m2 instead of 50 W/m2 due to technical limitations.
turer. This strategy has the advantage of not requiring The LAPPS software gives several parameters from
the measurement of the characteristic curve, relying only each I–V curve, including short-circuit current, open circuit
on data available on the PV module datasheet. Although voltage, maximum power, maximum power current, maxi-
useful for practical applications, this method can only be mum power voltage and shunt resistance (Rsh). The method
used for the extraction of parameters at the STC, since this for Rsh extraction on this work is the one based on the
is the usual condition for which the manufacturer provides direct use of Eq. (9), with Rsh = Rsh0, which gives suffi-
data. ciently precise results with relative simplicity. The Rsh value
is obtained from linear regression of the measured I–V
5. Measurement apparatus and procedure pairs ranging from 0 V to Vmp/2. This interval was seen
to contain sufficient points to minimize the effects of mea-
The electrical characterization of the PV modules was surement noises, at the same time that it is entirely inside
performed using a LAPSS (Large Area Pulsed Solar Simu- the linear region of the I–V curve for all measurements.
lator), model PASAN SunSim 3C that is installed at the The global uncertainty for the I–V curve parameters
facilities of Solar Energy Laboratory (LABSOL) at Federal would involve reference cell and temperature sensor cali-
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) – Brazil. The bration uncertainties, among several others typical for an
PASAN SunSim 3C LAPSS has a 10 ms flash and an accurate I–V curve measurement, as presented by
illuminated area of 2 m  2 m for the device under test. Mullejans et al. (2009). However, since the absolute values
The electrical accuracy is at least 0.2% and the light of the variables are not of major interest, the measurement
collimation is less than 15°. This LAPSS complies with uncertainty for the purpose of this work is only the one
C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43 39

related to the Rsh determination. In order to calculate this its higher value being nearly 7 times larger than the
expanded uncertainty, repeatability tests were conducted reference value at STC. By contrast, the Tandem module
by measuring the I–V curve of a multicrystalline PV displayed a variation of 40 times between the reference
module 26 times consecutively. value and the lowest measured irradiance. The Cadmium
Assuming that the measurement noise is constant, it is Telluride module increased about 9 times its shunt resis-
reasonable to conjecture that their influence on a smaller tance decreasing the radiation from 1000 W/m2 to
current measurement is more pronounced, and therefore 100 W/m2, and at 75 W/m2 the obtained value for this
the uncertainty would be larger at lower irradiances. The parameter was 76 times larger than the reference one.
repeatability test was performed for two levels of The correlation coefficient, R2, for the fitting equations
irradiance: 1000 W/m2 and 100 W/m2. The expanded was calculated, with its value being in general larger for
uncertainty for the Rsh value was determined by multiply- the groups with less measured modules. The amorphous
ing the standard deviation of the Rsh measurements by a silicon technology, from which only one module was
coverage factor k = 2.105, the coefficient t of Student for measured, presented the largest correlation coefficient.
a confidence interval of 95%. The relative expanded uncer- The Cadmium Telluride technology, although also a
tainty was determined dividing the expanded uncertainty single-module group, presented a relatively low correlation
by the mean value of Rsh, which resulted in ±4.8% for coefficient, meaning that the fitting equation does not
the 1000 W/m2 irradiance level and ±7.7% at 100 W/m2, represent precisely the measured points. As for the groups
confirming an increase in the uncertainty of Rsh for lower with several measured modules, namely the monocrys-
irradiances. talline and multicrystalline technologies, it was noted a
large dispersion on the shunt resistance behavior with the
6. Results and discussion irradiance. Moreover, it was perceived that even panels
from the same manufacturer and belonging to the same
In order to better analyze the behavior of the photo- model exhibited fairly different behaviors in some cases.
voltaic modules, the measured data was sorted into smaller In order to compare the different groups, each obtained
groups according to their cell technology. Modules built fitting equation was plotted on Fig. 3. This figure includes
with the same photovoltaic technology are expected to also a representation of Eq. (6), corresponding to the De
have more similar characteristics with one another. Soto et al. model and Eq. (7), proposed on the PVsyst
Hence, six groups were established: one including 17 model, to help on the evaluation of their validity for the
multicrystalline modules, another with 7 monocrystalline tested modules. The two suggested values for Rsh(0) on
modules, a third with 2 CIGS panels, and three groups with Eq. (7) were included. For the sake of clarity, Table 2
one individual PV module on each: amorphous silicon, compiles the represented equations. On this analysis, the
tandem with amorphous/microcrystalline silicon, and curves were extrapolated to irradiance levels lower than
Cadmium Telluride. The measurements from two of the the ones used on the experiment.
modules, one multicrystalline and one monocrystalline, Except for the tandem technology, the six fitting equa-
were discarded due to negative values for the shunt resis- tions provided very similar results for irradiances over
tance on low irradiance levels. These unexpected results 500 W/m2. For lower irradiance values, larger deviations
can be credited to measurement noises, since on modules occurred, with the multicrystalline and the CIGS modules
which present a very small slope it is possible that these showing a lower increase of the shunt resistance for low
noises may cause the linear regression to have an upward radiation levels, while the CdTe and the Tandem techno-
direction. Characteristic I–V curves with upward-trending logy panels presented a much more significant growth.
current, and therefore negative shunt resistances, were also The values of Rsh for these groups under the lower levels
observed by Sandia National Laboratories (2015), and the of irradiance are not visible on the chart as they surpass
approach of discarding the corresponding measurements the chosen axis limitation. The fitting for the amorphous
was taken as well. Moreover, this occurrence was observed silicon module was shown to have a very close agreement
for only 2 of the 580 performed I–V curve measurements with Eq. (6), which seems therefore to be suitable for
on this work, representing 0.34% of the tests. this photovoltaic technology. As for the exponential pro-
Fig. 2 presents the obtained Rsh for every measurement, posed by Eq. (7), the suggested value for crystalline silicon
as well as a fitting power law equation for each group of PV modules did not agree with any of the verified fitting equa-
modules tested. For the sake of comparing the shunt tions, while the recommended coefficient for amorphous
resistance dependence of each module on the irradiance, silicon presented a behavior which was quite similar to that
instead of its absolute value, the results were normalized of the crystalline silicon modules.
taking the value at STC conditions as the reference. A further analysis is introduced by Fig. 4, which shows a
A tendency of increase on the shunt resistance for histogram representation of the absolute values of Rsh,ref.
lower irradiances was observed on all groups. Further- Both crystalline silicon groups presented a high variability
more, differences were observed between the distinct on the reference shunt resistance value, ranging from
photovoltaic technologies. CIGS modules presented less 173 X to 729 X for the multicrystalline and from 148 X to
variation on their shunt resistance with the irradiance, with 1320 X for the monocrystalline technology. Once again,
40 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

Fig. 2. Dimensionless shunt resistance versus irradiance for each measured group.
C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43 41

Table 3
Rsh,ref for the other photovoltaic groups measured at STC.
Module CIGS A CIGS B DA142 DA100A5 FS280
Rsh,ref (X) 1978 2086 2806 1218 3472

The effect of increasing the shunt resistance is larger

when its value is low, since the leakage current decays
asymptotically with it, as can be derived from Eq. (4).
Therefore, the measured data indicate that considering a
variation of the shunt resistance with the irradiance is
especially relevant for the crystalline silicon modules.
On an additional study, the I–V curve of the multi-
crystalline and monocrystalline modules measured at
Fig. 3. Comparison between the obtained fit equations and the methods every irradiance level was simulated with the single diode
proposed by De Soto and PVsyst. model using two different approaches. In both cases, the
parameters were extracted from the I–V curve at
Table 2
the 1000 W/m2 irradiance. While on the first one all the
Summary of the tested equations. parameters were maintained constant, with the exception
Model Equation
of Iph, on the second one Eq. (6) was used to determine
the Rsh value. Fig. 5 displays a comparison between I–V
De Soto et al. (2006) Rsh ¼ 1000G1 
PVSYST amorphous Rsh ¼ 1 þ 11 exp  1000
5:5G curves at 150 W/m2 to illustrate the effectiveness of

PVSYST crystalline Rsh ¼ 1 þ 3 exp  1000
5:5G implementing the variation of the shunt resistance with
Multicrystalline fit Rsh ¼ 219:7G0:75 the irradiance on the single-diode model for one monocrys-
Monocrystalline fit Rsh ¼ 540:7G0:9 talline module of this study. The measured I–V curve is better
CIGS fit Rsh ¼ 144:7G0:7 represented by the simulated model which includes the
Tandem fit Rsh ¼ 12132:6G1:31
Amorphous fit Rsh ¼ 832:8G0:96
dependence of the shunt resistance on the irradiance level.
CdTe fit Rsh ¼ 3918:1G1:19 In order to calculate the overall improvement verified
for the single-diode model, the mean absolute error
between the measured I–V curves and the simulated ones
even modules with the same nominal characteristics for each module on all irradiance levels was determined.
presented large variability on this parameter. For the other Taking the average value of all errors, the error decreased
groups the results are shown on Table 3. Nothing can be 57% on the inverse Rsh model comparing with the constant
stated about these technologies variability since only one one. Despite the occurrence of some variation of this
or two modules of each were tested. It is interesting to decrease on the error for each individual module, it was
notice, though, that the absolute value of shunt resistance seen that the implementation of shunt resistance variation
for these four groups is, in general, similar or superior to with irradiance provided superior results for every tested
that of the best tested crystalline silicon modules. module.

Fig. 4. Distribution of Rsh,ref for (a) multicrystalline and (b) monocrystalline groups.
42 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

silicon modules. This equation lies in fact between the

obtained fits for the experimental data, overstating the
shunt resistance value on low irradiance for CIGS and
1.2 crystalline cells and understating it for CdTe and Tandem
technologies. This method has the advantage of its simplicity,
since no empirical coefficients are used, and seems to be an
appropriate option if a single equation is desired to describe
Current [A]

0.8 Measured the behavior of every photovoltaic technology.

Simulated: Rsh=Rsh,ref(Gref/G) A brief discussion on the inclusion of an inverse
Simulated: Rsh = Rsh,ref
dependence of the shunt resistance with the irradiance
showed that the results are indeed superior when this effect
is considered. The mean absolute error for this model was
less than half the error of the original single diode model,
considering the average of all tested crystalline modules
at all irradiance levels. The analysis of the I–V curve of
one of the modules at a low irradiance level with and
without the Rsh dependence on the irradiance corroborated
0 10 20 30 40 this result, since unlike the original single-diode model, the
Voltage [V]
modified one represented closely the measured data.
Fig. 5. Measured and simulated I–V curves for a monocrystalline module
at 150 W/m2. Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by CNPq – Brazil

7. Conclusions (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı́fico e
Tecnológico) and CAPES – Brazil (Coordenação de
The results obtained from the experiments agreed with Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel Superior).
previous studies published on the literature, confirming
that the shunt resistance on the five-parameter model
increases at lower irradiance levels when directly extracted
from measured I–V curves. Six fitting equations were Bätzner, D.L., Romeo, A., Zogg, H., Tiwari, A.N., 2001. CdTe/CdS solar
obtained, one for each tested photovoltaic technology, cell performance under low irradiance. In: Proceedings of the 17th
demonstrating that there are considerable differences European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition,
between the distinct groups. It must be stressed that the paper VB1.40. Munich, Germany.
use of the equations here proposed for the behavior of de Blas, M.A., Torres, J.L., Prieto, E., Garcı́a, A., 2002. Selecting a
suitable model for characterizing photovoltaic devices. Renew. Energy
each technology requires caution, since few modules were 25, 371–380.
tested, and there is no guarantee that other modules from Bouzidi, K., Chegaar, M., Bouhemadou, A., 2006. Solar cells parameters
the same technology will follow it. Additionally, a high evaluation considering the series and shunt resistance. Sol. Energy
variability among different PV modules of the same Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 1647–1651.
Breitenstein, O., Rakotoniaina, J.P., Al Rifai, M.H., Werner, M., 2004.
technology was verified on the shunt resistance indicating
Shunt type crystalline silicon solar cells. Prog. Photovoltaics: Res.
a difficulty to generalize the results, as even PV modules Appl. 12, 529–538.
with the same nominal features presented considerable Celik, A.N., Acikgoz, N., 2007. Modelling and experimental verification
variability on this parameter. of the operating current of mono-crystalline photovoltaic modules
The comparison of the obtained fits with the PVsyst using four- and five-parameter models. Appl. Energy 84, 1–15.
method (Eq. (7)) indicated that it may be an interesting Chan, D.S.H., Phillips, J.R., Phang, J.C.H., 1986. A comparative study of
extraction methods for solar cell model parameters. Solid-State
alternative to represent the variation of the shunt resis- Electron. 29, 329–337.
tance. However, the proposed experimental coefficients in Cheegar, M., Hamzaoui, A., Namoda, A., Petit, P., Aillerie, M., Herguth,
PVsyst SA (2012) may not to be adequate to be used as A., 2013. Effect of illumination intensity on solar cells parameters.
stated, since the recommended coefficient for the amor- Energy Procedia 36, 722–729.
phous silicon modules presented results which were in fact Chenni, R., Makhlouf, M., Kerbache, T., Bouzid, A., 2007. A detailed
modeling method for photovoltaic cells. Energy 32, 1724–1730.
in better agreement with the crystalline modules, whereas Ciulla, G., Lo Brano, V., Di Dio, V., Cipriani, G., 2014. A comparison of
the recommended one for the crystalline modules failed different one-diode models for the representation of I-V characteristic
to describe any of the tested photovoltaic groups. Further of a PV cell. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 684–696.
tests should be carried on to establish an improved set of Cuce, E., Cuce, P.M., Bali, T., 2013. An experimental analysis of
illumination intensity and temperature dependency of photovoltaic cell
empirical coefficients if this method is chosen to be used.
parameters. Appl. Energy 111, 374–382.
Considering the shunt resistance inversely proportional De Soto, W., 2004. Improvement and validation of a model for
to the irradiance (Eq. (6)) as proposed by De Soto et al. photovoltaic array performance. M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineer-
(2006) was seen to agree very closely with the amorphous ing, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43 43

De Soto, W., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 2006. Improvement and Ma, T., Yang, H., Lu, L., 2014. Development of a model to simulate the
validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance. Sol. Energy performance characteristics of crystalline silicon photovoltaic mod-
80, 78–88. ules/strings/arrays. Sol. Energy 100, 31–41.
Dongue, S.B., Njomo, D., Tamba, J.G., Ebengai, L., 2012. Modeling of Mullejans, H., Zaaiman, W., Galleano, R., 2009. Analysis and mitigation
electrical response of illuminated crystalline photovoltaic modules of measurement uncertainties in the traceability chain for the calibra-
using four- and five-parameter models. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Adv. tion of photovoltaic devices. Meas. Sci. Technol. 20, 075101.
Eng. 2, 612–619. Phang, J.C.H., Chan, D.S.H., Phillips, J.R., 1984. Accurate analytical
Eikelboom, J.A., Reinders, A.H.M.E., 1997. Determination of the method for the extraction of solar cell model parameters. Electron.
irradiation dependent efficiency of multicrystalline Si PV modules on Lett. 20 (10), 406–408.
basis of IV curve fitting and its influence on the annual performance. PVsyst SA, 2012. User’s Guide – Pvsyst Contextual Help. Satigny,
In: Proceedings of the 14th European PV Solar Energy Conference, Switzerland.
293–296, Barcelona, Spain. Sandia National Laboratories, 2015. Parameters Estimation for Single
Hadj Arab, A., Chenlo, F., Benghanem, M., 2004. Loss-of-load proba- Diode Models of Photovoltaic Modules. Sandia Report, Albuquerque,
bility of photovoltaic water pumping systems. Sol. Energy 76, United States of America.
713–723. Shockley, W., 1950. Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors. Van
IEC 60891 (2009) (International Electrotechnical Commission) Photo- Nostrand, New York.
voltaic devices – Procedures for temperature and irradiance corrections Schroeder, D.K., 1998. Semiconductor Material and Device Characteri-
to measured I-V characteristics. zation, second ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
IEC 60904-9 (2007) (International Electrotechnical Commission) Photo- Townsend, T.U., 1989. A method of estimating the long-term perfor-
voltaic devices – Part 9: Solar simulator performance requirements. mance of direct-coupled photovoltaic systems. M.S. Thesis, Mechan-
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., Syafaruddin, 2011. Modeling and ical Engineering, University of Wisonsin-Madison.
Simulation of photovoltaic (PV) system during partial shading based Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Filho, E.R., 2009. Comprehensive approach
on a two-diode model. Simul. Modell. Practice Theory 19, to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans.
1613–1626. Power Electron. 24 (5), 1198–1208.
Lo Brano, V., Orioli, A., Ciulla, G., Di Gangi, A., 2010. An improved Xiao, W., Dunford, W.G., Capel, A., 2004. A novel modeling method for
five-parameter model for photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. photovoltaic cells. In: Proc. IEEE 35th Annual Power Electronics
Sol. Cells 94, 1358–1370. Specialists Conference (PESC), vol. 3, pp. 1950–1956.