Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Numerical and outdoor real time experimental investigation of performance T

of PCM based PVT system
H. Fayaza,b, N.A. Rahima,c, M. Hasanuzzamana,b, , A. Rivaia, R. Nasrind
⁎

a
UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre (UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R&D, University of Malaya, 59990 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Renewable Energy Research Group, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
d
Department of Mathematics, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Photovoltaic power generation is a suitable option to counter depleting and environmentally hazardous fossil
Solar irradiation fuels. However, increased cell temperature of the photovoltaic module reduces the electrical performance.
PV/T Therefore, for enhancing the electrical performance as well as to obtain the useful thermal, a combined pho-
PCM tovoltaic thermal system is suitable technology. Furthermore, the addition of phase change materials into
Performance
photovoltaic thermal systems adds more dual benefits in terms of cooling of PV cell as well as heat storage.
Hence, there are still issues to transfer heat from the system efficiently, which cause lower performance of PVT
and PVT-PCM systems. In this paper, the aluminium material of thermal collector is used by introducing a novel
design to enhance heat transfer performance, which is assembled in PVT and PVT-PCM systems. Experimental
validation is carried out for the 3D FEM-based numerical analysis with COMSOL Multiphysics® at 200 W/m2 to
1000 W/m2 varying irradiation levels while keeping mass flow rate fixed at 0.5LPM and inlet water temperature
at 32 °C. The experiment is carried out at outdoor free weather conditions with passive cooling of the module by
an overhead water tank scheme. A good agreement in numerical and experimental results is achieved through
experimental validation. Cell temperature reduction of 12.6 °C and 10.3 °C is achieved from the PV module in
case of the PVT-PCM system. The highest value of the electrical efficiency achieved is 13.72 13.56% for PV and
13.85 and 13.74% for PVT numerically and experimentally respectively. Similarly, for PVT-PCM, electrical ef-
ficiency is achieved as 13.98 and 13.87% numerically and experimentally respectively. In the case of the PVT
system, electrical performance is improved as 6.2 and 4.8% and for PVT-PCM, it is improved as 7.2 and 7.6% for
numerically and experimentally respectively.

1. Introduction economically feasible as compared to separate systems (Al-Waeli et al.,

Climate change and depleting conventional energy sources with
increasing energy demand has created concerns amongst the govern-
ments and research all over the world. Therefore, renewable energy
sources are being studied harnessed to combat the issues stated (Ahmed
et al., 2013; Fayaz et al., 2011). Renewable energy sources provide a
sustainable alternative to our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce
carbon emissions. Hence, it is necessary to develop an innovative
technique of solar energy conversion as a better alternative to where
the use of fossil fuels is at the highest risk. Solar energy is one of the
abundant and promising available renewable sources. There are two
uses of solar energy such as thermal and electrical conversions. Thermal
collectors produce thermal energy and photovoltaic produce electrical
energy, which allows both advantages in one system making it
2018c). These both systems are often used separately. The PV cells
convert solar energy with considerable less percentage of total incident
irradiations (normally between 10 and 20%). The cells are very ab-
sorbent towards all solar radiation, which causes the major part of solar
radiations to transform into heat, making the cells hotter and as a re-
sult, which reduces its electrical efficiency (Chauhan et al., 2018). Cell
temperature is very important regarding cell efficiency even though the
other operating conditions be set at optimum for improved performance
because the electrical performance of PV module declines due to en-
ormous cell temperature gain. Observation of electrical efficiency of
0.469% is done with each degree Celsius drop in PV cells (Lim et al.,
2013; Skoplaki and Palyvos, 2009). Nishioka et al. (2003) installed a PV
system with a capacity of 50 kW in Japan for its field testing. It was
observed that the PV system is affected by high temperature when being

⁎
Corresponding author at: UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre (UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R&D, University of Malaya, 59990 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
E-mail address: hasan@um.edu.my (M. Hasanuzzaman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.057
Received 24 July 2018; Received in revised form 19 November 2018; Accepted 23 December 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Nomenclature Tb Tedlar back surface temperature (°C)

Tg Glass surface temperature (°C)
A Area of PV surface (m2) Tr Reference temperature (°C)
B Bias error Ts Sky temperature (°C)
Cp Specific heat at constant pressure (J kg−1 K−1) Tsc Temperature of solar cell (°C)
ch Channel Uc Measured uncertainty
Ee Module’s electrical energy (W) Usca Coefficient of heat transfer through glass from top layer to
Ein Incident energy at module top surface (W) ambient (Wm−2 K−1)
Et Useful thermal energy in the system (W) Ut Coefficient of heat transfer from top layer to bottom tedlar
El Lost energy from glass layer to ambient (W) layer (Wm−2 K−1)
f Fluid Ub Coefficient of heat transfer from tedlar layer to ambient
fu Fusion (Wm−2 K−1)
G Solar irradiance (W m−2) W Width of bottom tedlar surface (m)
he Heat exchanger
K Thermal conductivity (Wm−1 K−1) Greek symbols
Nu Rate of heat transfer at bottom surface
l Liquid αb Absorptivity of tedlar back sheet
L Latent heat αg Absorptivity of glass
N Number of data αsc Absorptivity of PV module
PV Photovoltaic σ (=5.670367 × 10−8 W m−2 K−4) Stefan- Boltzmann
Psc Packing factor of module constant
pcm Phase change material τg Transmitivity of glass
Q Thermal energy (W) εg Emissivity of glass
tλ Estimate of precision error ηsc Reference electrical efficiency of PV module
s Solid ρ Density (kg m−3)
SF Standard deviation μsc PV temperature coefficient (%/°C)
T Fluid temperature (°C) θ liquid phase fraction
Ta Ambient temperature (°C) λ Degree of freedom

used under a vast temperature range. Every time the temperature
coefficient rises by 0.1%/°C, about a 1% increase of annual output
energy happens because of the temperature coefficient on conversion
efficiency.
Combined systems comprising PV and thermal collector together are
on top of the priority for the reason that thermal energy is obtained
while reducing cell temperature. Such combination of the collectors
causes the increase in the cell electrical efficiency along with reduced
sized of solar collectors (Al-Waeli et al., 2016; Bertram et al., 2012;
Dupeyrat et al., 2014). There are many applications of phase change
materials such as battery thermal management, thermal energy storage,
smart thermal fibres and photovoltaic thermal management etc. due to
their thermal characteristics. Recently, PCMs are used to regulate the
thermal energy in photovoltaic thermal systems to get the better elec-
trical performance and thermal energy (Song et al., 2018). Phase
change materials (PCMs) incorporated into PVT systems provide more
advantage in storing heat as well as reducing more temperatures of PV
cell as compared to PVT systems without the use of PCMs. The latent
heat of phase change materials is quite higher which let the material
store heat when the transition temperature of materials reaches from
solid to liquid. Whereas, it releases latent heat in the cooler environ-
ment to surroundings while turning from liquid to solid form. However,
PCM stores sensible heat as well as a constant phase of solid or liquid
(Browne et al., 2015; Nouira and Sammouda, 2018). Phase change
materials have different values of thermal conductivity which is an
important factor for heat transfer form PV cell to PCM. However, it can
be enhanced by introducing nano particles into PCMs making it as
nano-PCM (Aberoumand et al., 2018; Al-Waeli et al., 2018a; 2018b;
Chauhan et al., 2018; Ebadi et al., 2018; Mousavi et al., 2018). In ad-
dition, thermal performance can further be enhanced by using nano-
fluid as working fluid (Al-Waeli et al., 2017; Rostami et al., 2018). Wolf
(1976) discovered in his investigation on PVT collectors that they can
produce hot water by using Hottel-Whillier model (Hottel and Whillier,
1955), which is an economically viable method. The design of the
system and operating conditions are primary aspects that affect the
performance of PVT systems in terms of electrical and thermal effi-
ciencies (Hasanuzzaman et al., 2015; Riffat and Cuce, 2011). Its per-
formance also relies on climate conditions. Standard test condition
(STC) differ according to the type of PV cell technology and the climate
conditions they are under (Daghigh et al., 2011; Vokas et al., 2006).
Amorphous silicon PV is found to perform well under Malaysia’s cli-
mate condition in comparison to other types of PV cells (Adiyabat et al.,
2006). Browne et al. (2015) conducted the performance investigation of
the PVT-PCM system at controlled working conditions at the indoor
environment. Under simulated conditions, PVT-PCM systems stored
more heat as compared to the PVT system with 6 °C more temperature
was gained by water in PVT-PCM. However, the PVT-PCM system took
double time to store heat energy as compared to the PVT system. Heat
storage potential increased by 100% in the higher temperature climate.
The PVT-PCM system’s amount of heat is shown to be increased as
compared to Irish maritime climate. Furthermore, the PVT-PCM system
stored the heat for double-timing as compared to the PVT system for an
extended time of use. Simulation of one dimensional energy balance
model is carried out for PVT-PCM by Malvi et al. (2011). It is found that
with the use of PCM, the performance of PV can be increased 9% along
with average water temperature rise of 20 °C.
In this paper, the effect of solar irradiations of different intensities
on PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems is investigated at outdoor weather
conditions. Cell temperature, temperature distribution over the whole
system, thermal energy collection, output electrical power and overall
performance of the PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems have been in-
vestigated and compared.
The novelty of this work is 3D numerical analysis is carried out in
place of 1D analysis for detail investigation of heat transfer from each
layer of PV module and to the thermal collector used with water as
working fluid. 3D numerical analysis is rarely done for such huge sys-
tems where it gives critical analysis and data to further understand the
heat transfer phenomenon in better way. The new thermal collector
design using aluminum as its material with maximum thermal collector
length to target maximum output temperature from the PV module is

136
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

used. A parallel photovoltaic thermal system using PCM (paraffin k 2T 2T 2T

group) is used for the temperature transition of 44 °C) for the weather of + + =0
Cp x2 y2 z2 (11)
Malaysian conditions for maximum electrical efficiency gain.
Furthermore, the experimental validation of the model is carried out For the fluid domain
extensively with set working conditions which have proved the math- u v w
ematical model with approximate allowance of 5% error percentage in + + =0
x y z (12)
the experimental results.
ui u u p 2u 2u 2u

2. Research methods u +v i +w i = +µ i
+ i
+ i
x y z xj x2 y2 z2 (13)

2.1. Numerical investigation T T T 2T 2T 2T

( Cp ) u +v +w =k + +
x y z x2 y2 z2 (14)
The solar energy total amount received by PV, PVT and PVT-PCM is
calculated as (Nishioka et al., 2003) where i = j = 1, 2, 3 represents u, v and w component of the velocity
vector of fluid and x, y, z-direction respectively.
Er = g sc psc GA (1) µf Cpf Vin Dh f
Pr = kf
is the Prandtl number and Re = µf
is the Reynolds
Some of the energy is dissipated back into the environment, which is number where Dh is the hydraulic diameter, represented by the equa-
given as; 4A
tion Dh = p in . Here Ain, pin, ρf, Vi, µ f , Cp f and kf, are an area of the
in
El = Usc (Tsc Tamb ) A (2) section of inlet boundary, inlet pipe perimeter, density, inlet fluid ve-
locity, dynamic viscosity, specific heat at a consistent pressure and
Electrical power is produced from the absorbed energy on the solar
thermal conductivity of fluid respectively.
cell as the following equation (Nasrin et al., 2018a);
Ep = sc psc g sc GA [1 µsc (Tsc Tr )] (3) 2.1.2. Numerical procedure for the PVT-PCM system
When PCMs change their phase, the heat is transferred during this
Further, the rest energy is transferred through conduction process
process. This model describes the heat transformer phenomenon in
form cell to Tedlar of PV module, which is given in Eq. (4).
PCMs assembled in the geometry as shown in Figs. 3a and 3b. For the
Et = Ut (Tsc Ttd ) A (4) numerical simulation of the PVT-PCM collector, enthalpy-based method
Following the energy balance equation shows the energy from top formulation is used. A phase change zone is attached to the flow
glass to Tedlar and environment. channel of the PVT system with thermal paste by using this method.
Convection in the liquid phase is not considered in this model because it
Er = El + Et + Ee (5) not significant during liquid forms of PCM in this case.
Solar cell temperature can be calculated from the Eq. (6) (Rahman Assumptions made for this numerical investigation is given below;
et al., 2015).
a) Phase change based volume difference is ignored.
psc G ( sc ) + (Usca Ta + Ut Ttd)
Tsc =
g sc
b) In both cases of solid and liquid, the phase is isotropic and homo-
(Usca + Ut ) (6) geneous as well as the segmental melting process is symmetric.
The extracted thermal energy from the PV module by the fluid can c) The solidification temperature is constant, and subcooling effects
be obtained by Eq. (7). are ignored due to the assumption of ideal solidification behaviour
of PCM.
Et = mCpf (Tout Tin) (7) d) Homogeneous distribution of solid in the mushy region is considered
PV module electrical efficiency can be calculated as; e) It is assumed that contact between the flow channel and PCM bags if
perfect.
produced electrical power Ep
e = = 2T 2T 2T
Total received energy Ein (8) kpcm, s
pcm, s
+
pcm, s
+
pcm, s
= Uch (Tch Tpcm, s )
x2 y2 z2 (15)
Eq. (9) is for thermal efficiency of said systems.
2T 2T 2T
Extracted thermal energy E pcm, l pcm, l pcm, l
t = = t kpcm, l + + = Upcm (Tpcm, l Tch )
Total received energy Ein (9) x2 y2 z2 (16)
Eq. (10) is for overall efficiency Initially, the PCM is in the solid phase. For the presence of solid
Ep + Et irradiation, PCM tries to collect heat from the flow channel and melting
= procedure starts as followed by Eq. (13). Following equation is defined
o
Ein (10)
considering liquid fraction values, θ, for melting PCM for modelling
properties changes between the two phases of PCM, (Eq. (15)).
2.1.1. Numerical procedure for PVT system 1
The 3D numerical simulation has experimented under regular con- pcm, s = l + (1 ) s ; Cp, pcm, s = [ l Cp, l + (1 ) s Cp,s] ; k pcm, s
pcm, s
ditions. Heat flow is investigated from each layer of the PVT system.
= kl + (1 ) ks (17)
There are some test conditions set as it is the incompressible laminar
flow and temperature inconsistencies through the thickness are ig- The thermal conductivity, density and specific heat capacity of PCM
nored, surfaces are free of any dust that will disrupt solar energy ab- in solid and liquid forms are, ks, kl, ρs, ρl, Cp,s, Cp,l respectively, in the
sorptivity, and transmission quality is 100% approximately for ethyl above equations. The mass of liquid and solid ratio to the total mass of
vinyl acetate (EVA). There is no role of wind velocity in this study. PCM called as a liquid, and solid fractions are between 0 and 1 value,
Below are the ruling partial differential equations for the thermal en- which are determined at every iteration of the total solution. When
ergy of different stratum along with equations of continuity and mo- PCM is in total liquid from the liquid fraction is set to 1, and when the
mentum of the system (Fayaz et al., 2018; Nasrin et al., 2018a, 2018b): PCM is in total solid form the liquid the fraction is set to 0, similar
For the solid layers procedure happens for the solid procedure.

137
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

In this model, the definition of solid fraction ϕ and liquid fraction θ

in COMSOL is done by inserting a step function which changes between
0 and 1. This step function is dependent on the changes in temperatures
around PCM phase change temperature. Furthermore, a variation of 1 K
up and down to phase change temperature of the material is set a limit
for the phase change zone. (a) PV
At the same time, by appending the latent heat of fusion impact as
well as the latent heat of solidification, values should be modified due
to phase change phenomenon. Therefore, for adding a normalised pulse
parameter, D (K−1), an analytic function is defined in COMSOL as a
coefficient multiplied by latent heat of fusion for both solid and liquid
phases; latent heat for solidification for both phases of solid and liquid.
Notably, over the temperature range between the liquid and solid
phases, the integral of D(T) must be equal to unity.
Cp, l = Cp, l, phase + DLfu ; Cp, s = Cp, s, phase + DLfu (b) PVT

Cp, s = Cp, s, phase + DLso ; Cp, l = Cp, l, phase + DLso

where Lfu, Lso, Cp,l,phase and Cp,s,phase the latent heat of fusion, latent heat
of solidification, specific heat capacities of the liquid and solid phases
respectively.

2.1.2.1. Boundary conditions.

Tg
1. At the top surface of the PV: inward heat flux k g z = G
2. At the top surface of the PV: diffuse surface condition (c) PVT-PCM
n. q = (Tamb 4
Tg4) , where σ (=5.670367 × 10−8 W m−2 K−4)
is Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
3. At the top surface of the PV: convective heat loss Fig. 1. Generation of finite element mesh for PV, PVT and PVT-PCM module.
n. q = Usca (Tamb Tg )
4. At the solid-fluid interface: kf ( )T
n f
= khe ( )
T
n he
considered is the temperature of the solar cell. No significant change in
the mean value of cell temperature is observed at the expense of un-
5. At all solid boundaries of the fluid passing pipe: no-slip condition
bearable time length as depicted in a third and fourth column of
u=v=w=0
Table 1. Therefore, for numerical simulations, values in the third
6. At the inlet boundary of the aluminum pipe: T = Tin , u = Uin, v = 0,
column for PV, PVT and PVT-PCM are taken into consideration.
w=0
7. At the outlet boundary: convective boundary condition p = 0
T
8. At all other boundaries of PVT module: insulation ns = 0 2.3. Experimental setup

where n is the distance running along x or y or z directions re-
sponding normally to the surface.
2.2. Numerical technique
To solve the numerical model, COMSOL Multiphysics is used to
apply the finite element method (FEM) in this study. The method
(Chandrasekar et al., 2013) is utilized to solve the system of Equations
used for the current experiment. To understand the heat distribution of
solar cells and output fluid (Tsc, Tout) and velocity distribution of the
fluids (u, v, w) of the PVT module, the conservation of mass and energy
and momentum equations are imperative factors in this study. Data
from COMSOL Multiphysics is recorded in the form of graphs in Mi-
crosoft Excel based on the data.
2.2.1. Mesh generation and grid check
Fig. 1 shows the computational domain meshing of three systems
PV, PVT, and PVT-PCM. Finer type and coarse type meshing’s chosen
for these numerical simulations of PV, PVT and PVT-PCM modules re-
spectively from the built-in-physics-controlled meshing. Three-dimen-
sional (3D) model is chosen for numerical analysis. For the subdomains
and boundaries of the numerical model, free tetrahedral and triangular
elements are used respectively. At conditions of 1000 W/m2 solar ir-
radiations and 0.5 LPM of mass flow rates, two tests independent of the
grid are performed for PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems.
For PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems, different non-uniform grid
systems are checked as shown in Table 1. The supervising parameter
An experimental setup is prepared to acquire data at Level-3 Wisma
R&D outdoor solar testing facility, University of Malaya. The experi-
ment is carried out under free weather conditions of the average 32 °C
environmental and water inlet temperature. The experimental setup
mainly comprises the solar simulator, PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems,
which are assembled at the UMPEDAC mechanical facility. Indoor
schematic experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2.
The onsite instruments have taken necessary data; I-V tracer is used
for measuring all the essential electrical parameters of the systems.
Standard instrumentation takes meteorological data, solar irradiation
and other electrical and thermal parameters. Data Taker DT80 model
data logger is used for data logging in 60 s interval. Instruments used
are; P1024 model silicon pyranometer for irradiations, LZM-15 flow
meter for mass flow rate and K-type thermocouples for temperature
data. Tedlar temperature is important to obtain for final cell tempera-
ture assessment. Therefore, one thermocouple is attached with Tedlar.
However, another thermocouple is connected to the PV module surface
to understand the surface temperature accumulation. Similarly, surface
and Tedlar thermocouples are attached to PVT and PVT-PCM systems
along with fluid inlet and outlet of the systems. All the relevant data
such as temperatures, photovoltaic current, voltage, output power,
ambient temperatures, humidity, wind speed and solar irradiation were
taken. Schematic cross-sectional view of PVT system and a plan view of
the thermal collector are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b. Fig. 4 shows the
experimental fabrication process of PVT and PVT-PCM system along
with phase change material used in the system. Two separate PVT and
PVT-PCM systems are prepared.

138
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Table 1
Grid sensitivity check at 1000 W/m2 irradiation.
PV Type of meshing Normal Fine Finer Extra fine
Elements 59,636 1,87,601 11,66,206 79,50,780
Cell temperature (°C) 69.52532 75.12827 75.12881 75.12890
Time of solution (s) 26 69 789 5028

PVT Type of meshing Extra coarse Coarser Coarse Normal

Elements 14,99,353 20,33,676 36,64,990 74,00,382
Cell temperature (°C) 67.00529 67.00559 67.00582 67.00593
Time of solution (s) 6650 9102 15,021 31,541

PVT-PCM Type of meshing Extra coarse Coarser Coarse Normal

Elements 15,51,566 20,98,558 37,09,748 78,54,851
Cell temperature (°C) 63.01413 63.01458 63.01479 63.01491
Time of solution (s) 6918 9546 16,379 32,932

Fig. 2. Schematic experimental setup of the PVT system.

Fig. 3a. Cross-sectional view diagram of the photovoltaic thermal system.

The data taken has been analysed to identify the effect of different
solar irradiation effects on cell temperature, temperature distribution
into the whole system, thermal energy collection, output electrical
energy and overall performance of the PV, PVT and PVT. The mass flow
rate is fixed at 0.5 LPM which is laminar with Reynolds number less
than 2000. The data is collected during the whole day from about 8:30
am to 7:00 pm from May to August 2017. The solar irradiations
minimum and maximum intensity is obtained from around 50 W/m2 to
1100 W/m2. However, Malaysian weather is cloudy therefore data
taken is for a long period to get consistent irradiation levels and other
weather conditions. The outdoor experimental setup is shown in Fig. 5.
Manufactured in Malaysia, PV module model is E310P(S)-011 with
a solar cell size of 156 × 156 mm comprising total 72 cells making the
overall PV module size of 2 m2. Table 2 shows the further technical
details of the PV module used to experiment.
There are five layers of the PV module used, assembled in the me-
tallic frame. The layers and properties of materials of PV module are is
given in Table 3.

139
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Fig. 3b. Cross-sectional view diagram of the thermal collector.

The investigation of PVT and PVT-PCM systems is conducted to
remove thermal energy from the PV module at different solar irradia-
tions from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 at the 32 °C set as the ambient
temperature throughout the experiment. Temperatures form centre
points of glass, Tedlar, inlet and outlet of water for PV, PVT and PVT-
PCM are taken with thermocouples along with other data for the whole
experiment. Changing solar irradiations effect on the cooling behaviour
of PV modules, electrical efficiency and maximum power output along
with thermal energy yield is investigated on PV, PVT, and PVT-PCM
systems by analysing achieved data.
Table 4 shows the working parameters and weather conditions of
the outdoor environment on average. Solar irradiance were recorded
for the whole of the day and average solar irradiance values were ob-
tained from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 for an hour to investigate the
performance of the systems.
2.3.1. Thermophysical properties and characterisation of PCM
Phase change material used in this experiment is Paraffin with
commercial code A44-PCM. Thermophysical properties are determined
using differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) during the melting cycle
as shown in Fig. 6. The material undergoes endothermic reaction at an
onset temperature of 44.77 °C which attributes to the change in phase
from solid to liquid form. During this phase change, a large amount of
energy has been absorbed by the paraffin wax as can be identified from
the heat capacity value. The change in Cp revealed the latent heat
absorption characteristics of the paraffin wax. This Cp is responsible for
energy storage in the material. Higher peak corresponds to high energy
storage which in turn leads to the high performance of the system.
To further understand the stability of paraffin wax, TGA pattern has
been analyzed. Fig. 7 shows the TGA pattern of intended specimen. It
can be observed that the material is stable till 200 °C. After 200 °C,

Fig. 4. The fabrication process of PVT and PVT-PCM systems.

140
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Fig. 5. Outdoor experimental setup of PVT system.

Table 2 Table 4
Specifications of the PV module. Working outdoor parameters of the investigation at the location of the ex-
periment.
Item Specification
Working parameters Value Unit
Brand name EPV
Materials Polycrystalline silicon Irradiance 200–1000 W/m2
Area of a cell 0.02433 m2 Average relative humidity 75 %
Maximum power 305 W Average wind speed 0.53 m/s
Short circuit current (Isc) 8.92A Average ambient temperature 32 °C
Open circuit voltage (Voc) 45.7 V Average water inlet temperature 32 °C
Current at Pmax. (Impp) 8.17A Tilt angle 15 Degree
Voltage at Pmax. (Vmpp) 30.6 V
Operating temperature −40 °C - ± 85 °C
STC 1000 W/m2, AM 1.5, 25 °C
the other PCMs tested A44 paraffin wax was selected for the reasons
Tolerance 0∼+3%
that it’s safer and its life of degradation due to temperature range is
satisfactory, however, there is very little compromise on thermal con-
oxidation reactions cause weight loss of the specimen. Although spe- ductivity but that’s ignored as compared to other factors for the study.
cimen underwent a change in phase (melting) at 44.77 °C as evident in Moreover, Malaysian climatic conditions show that PV cell temperature
the DSC pattern, over the stability of the material has not been affected. can exceed from 25 °C to 70 °C+ in different weather conditions, which
No weight loss can be seen at 44.77 °C in TGA pattern. is harmful for the efficiency and life of PV modules. Therefore, to cut
A sharp weight loss took place at 230–250 °C. And the specimen the temperature rise at maximum temperature transition of phase
showed 100% weight loss at approximately 300 °C. This 100% weight change for PCM was chosen as 44 °C where the heat starts to be ab-
loss also indicates the purity level of the specimen under investigation. sorbed and stored by PCM (A44) at peak hot timings to keep cell
Thermophysical properties of PCM Paraffin (A44) are shown in Table 5. temperature of PV at minimum as much as possible. Under the desired
Five PCMs were inspected for the study, which are Decanoic Acid, other properties except thermal conductivity, the PCM (A44) is chosen
Lauric acid, Paraffin wax (A44), Paraffin wax-52 and I-Tetra Decnol. after its satisfactory results of temperature reduction of PV module in
The criterion of selection was safety in terms of toxicity, corrosiveness numerical analysis, which is the main aim of this study. There have
and other disastrous factors of PCM to be used in the project. Amongst been limitations for the other PCMs with all desired features designed

Table 3
PVT collector materials and thermal properties (Nahar et al., 2017a).
Layer Materials Heat capacity at constant pressure [J/(kg K)] Thermal Conductivity [W/(m K)] Density [kg/m3] Thickness (mm)

Top cover Glass 500 2 2450 3

Encapsulant EVA 2090 0.311 950 0.8
Solar cell Silicon 700 148 2329 0.1
Bottom cover Tedlar 1250 0.15 1200 0.05
Conductive medium Thermal paste 650 1.42 2500 0.2
Thermal collector Aluminium 2700 237 1
Working fluid Water 998 0.68 –

141
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

110 =N 1 (19)
100 PCM: A44 (Paraffin) Onset: 44.77 °C In this relationship, N represents the number of data. While, the
Heat Flow Endo Up (mW)

90 Peak: 45.73 precision is presented as;

Peak Height: 41.035 mW
80 Endset: 46.87 °C SF
R=
Heat of Fusion: 245.077 J/g N1/2 (20)
70
N
60 1
SF = (Xi X¯ ) 2
50 N i=1 (21)
40 In this equation, SF and (Xi X¯ ) 2 represent the standard deviation
30 and deviation of Xi . Further, the true value is presetned as;
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature(°C) X ' = X¯ ± U (95%) (22)

Fig. 6. Results of DSC tests of Paraffin A44. where X and X̄ are true temperature or flow and mean temperature or
'

flow measured.

2.5. Test procedure

The experimental test procedure is carried out in way that con-

sistent and stable data on average can be achieved for prescribed data
range and design parameters of the systems. The data was taken about
100 days and only refined data of desired values of working conditions
e.g. solar irradiations, wind speed etc. were taken for evaluation pur-
pose to compare and validate with numerical analysis. The days were
clear as well as cloudy and semi cloudy. Therefore, data on clear day for
desired amount of solar irradiation was taken on average. For example,
1000 W/m2 was achieved from 12 noon to 2 pm on average on sunny
clear days, further, 600 W/m2 was achieved from 10am to 12 pm or
3 pm to 5 pm on average at time period of clear sky. To make sure the
average amount of solar irradiation achieved with clouds interruptions,
the initial working conditions of the systems were taken into con-
sideration to reduce error percentage. Such work is done by some other
research as well as they used the similar procedure to analyze the data
(Nahar et al., 2017b; Rahman et al., 2017).

Fig. 7. TGA pattern of paraffin wax. 3. Results and discussion

Table 5 In this paper, numerical and experimental investigations on PV, PVT

Thermophysical properties of Paraffin (A44). and PVT-PCM collectors have been carried out to analyse the perfor-
Property Value mance under different operating conditions. A novel design of thermal
collector is introduced with the Aluminium material. A serpentine
Thermal conductivity 0.18 W/m K thermal collector design has been used as flow path of water passively
density 805 kg/m3
driven by overhead water tank head. The operating conditions of
Specific heat at constant pressure 2150 J/kg K
Temperature of transition 44 °C
200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 irradiation range is set in the present in-
Latent heat −242 kJ vestigation. The water inlet temperature and outdoor ambient tem-
Transitional interval 1 °C peratures are taken as 32 °C.

3.1. Optimization and selection of thermal collector diameter and material

for the research project as discussed earlier.
2.4. Uncertainty analysis
For the uncertainty analysis in this investigation, calibration and
data acquisition errors are taken into account in evaluating overall
measurement error. In addition, to evaluate the data reduction error,
which is made up of thermocouple error and bias error of flow meter,
the later one is not considered for the reason that the value is very is
very small and can be negligible. The confidence interval of 95% is
considered for uncertainty analysis as shown in following Eq. (18).
B 2 + (t
U= ,95% × R)
where U, B, and tλ,95% R are measurement uncertainty, bias error, and
an estimate of the precision error in the repeated temperature and flow
measurement at 95% confidence. Where the degree of freedom is given
as λ represented below as;
Fig. 8 shows the inner diameter effect on output temperature and
thermal efficiency of the thermal collector when assembled with PV
under same working conditions of 1000 W/m2 and 0.5 LPM. Three
diameters such as 3.5, 7.5 and 15 mm are analysed to select for the
further numerical and experimental investigation. The effect of each
diameter is presented in terms of output temperature and thermal ef-
ficiency separately. It is observed that diameter has very significant
effect on the performance of thermal collector in heat transfer effi-
ciency. The rend shows the increasing thermal performance with re-
spect to decreasing inner diameter of the thermal collector (Joshi and
Khandwawala, 2014).
(18)
Therefore, from the results, it can be concluded that lower the
diameter the higher is the efficiency of the thermal collector. Such a
significant difference in thermal performance of the thermal collector
due to working diameter pushes to be careful in selecting the diameter
of the thermal collectors. Conversely, it is not necessary that lowest

142
H. Fayaz et al.
Fig. 8. Optimization and selection of thermal collector diameter.
diameter should be selected for the better thermal performance of
thermal collector because the lowest diameter has other compromises,
e.g. limiting mass flow rates, chances of increased system pressure and
rapid blockage due to possible fouling and scaling inside the thermal
collector. Thus, the selection of the inner diameter in this investigation
is limited to 7.5 mm. The reason behind this selection is to avoid the
exceeding pressure in the system and possible blockage due to fouling
and scaling, which may lead the system to failure and major main-
tenance costs. Higher diameter is not selected due to the reason that it
has considerably low thermal performance as compared to 7.5 mm and
very high-mass flow rates are not required in the domestic hot-water
system due to a certain limit of hot-water consumption with preferred
higher output temperatures (Fayaz et al., 2018).
Fig. 9 shows the material optimization and selection for the current
investigation under same working conditions. Aluminium and copper
are analyzed and compared for their thermal performance to go with
suitable and desired one. The copper has better thermal conductivity as
compared to the aluminium material (Hust and Lankford, 1984). It is
seen in Fig. 9 that there is the difference in the aluminium and copper in
their heat transfer efficiency but not as big as to comprise with cost,
weight, workability and availability of each of them. Consequently, for
the selection of copper material for some heat transfer efficiency, there
is a compromise on the other factors. Aluminium is lightweight, which
is almost three times lighter than copper, which reduces the overall
weight of the PVT system if the length of the thermal absorber is kept
Fig. 9. Optimization and selection of thermal collector material.
143
Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150
similar. Furthermore, the cost of copper is higher than aluminium due
to high demand and shortage in the market. The output temperature
and thermal efficiency of aluminium and copper thermal collectors are
observed as 61.11 & 62 °C, and 69.1 & 71.24% respectively (Fayaz
et al., 2018). Therefore, keeping all factors for selection, aluminium is
selected for further numerical and experimental investigation.
3.2. Solar irradiation reception potential profile
Whole day solar irradiation incident on the collectors used for ex-
periments are shown in Fig. 10. The significant angle and intensity of
solar irradiations on average are achieved from 08:30 approximately,
where PV panel starts to generate power. Furthermore, PV panels kept
producing power till 18:45 approximately when the angle and intensity
of solar irradiation were so acute to provide a significant amount of
solar irradiation to PV panels for power production. It can further be
seen that sky in Malaysia is not 100% clear due to clouding because the
solar irradiation suddenly drops at some time during the whole day. It is
rare to get clear sky in Malaysian climatic conditions. However, there is
the great potential of solar irradiations availability in Malaysia as can
be seen in Fig. 10.
The maximum solar irradiations are achieved as 1050 W/m2 ap-
proximately for the peak of the day starting from 12:00 to about 14:00.
This period of solar irradiation is very ideal for thermal as well as
electrical energy gain. However, on average, the best timing for the
electrical as well as thermal energy gain starts from 10:30 to 16:30
where solar irradiations are achieved as 600 W/m2 or above on a clear
day.
3.3. Effect of solar irradiation on PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems’
temperature profile
The different solar irradiations intensities have specifically a major
varying effect in heating the whole PV, PVT and PVT-PCM systems
along with other influencing working parameters. In Fig. 11(a)–(e), the
surface temperature flow over the PV is presented for its exposure to
solar irradiations of from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 at natural convec-
tion conditions. From the 200 to 1000 W/m2 solar irradiations, the
highest values of PV temperatures are found as approximately 77.9 °C
and 37 °C respectively with the surrounding environmental temperature
of 32 °C. Additionally, the edges of the PV module are observed cooler
than the middle part of the PV, which is fewer degrees Celsius lower in
value. The reason behind the cooler edges of PV is three directional heat
removals to the surroundings as compared to the middle part which
only dissipated heat from glass and Tedlar only. The electrical effi-
ciency of the PV module is found as 11.44 and 11.61% for experimental
and numerical respectively at 1000 W/m2. However, at reducing irra-
diations electrical efficiency is improved due to lower cell temperatures
associated with solar irradiations intensity (Jaaz et al., 2018).
Similarly, in Figs. 12(a)-(j) and 13(a)-(j), the effect of solar irra-
diation on the PVT and PVT-PCM systems’ surface temperature and the
temperature of water flowing and the pipe is shown in 3D simulation
plots. The temperature distribution is depicted for the solar irradiations
ranging from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 at the fixed average water inlet
temperature of the water as 32 °C and 0.5 LPM mass flow rate. It can be
seen that temperature of the PVT system decreased approximately from
75.1 °C to 45.9 °C at decreasing solar irradiation from 200 W/m2 to
1000 W/m2 (Nahar et al., 2017b). Furthermore, the temperature falls
steadily with a considerable difference as the irradiation intensity de-
creases. The temperature distribution of heat transferring fluid flowing
in the pipe at varying solar irradiations from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2
at fixed 0.5 LPM is shown in Fig. 12(f)-(j). The water channel captures
heat from 32 °C to 63.1 °C at 1000 W/m2. At these irradiation ranges the
module temperature is reduced from 75 °C to 46 °C. There is an almost a
uniform drop in the temperature PV as the irradiation levels decrease.
Similarly, for PVT-PCM in Fig. 13(a)-(j), the temperature drops in
H. Fayaz et al.
Fig. 10. Incident solar irradiation on a typical day.
the similar pattern as compared to PVT with respect to varying solar
irradiations. However, in PVT-PCM, the temperature decreased more
than the PVT because the phase change material absorbs a certain
amount of heat and stores it. Therefore, some heat is carried out with
working fluid which is water and some heat is stored in phase change
material. Thus, it causes PVT-PCM to reduce the PV temperatures more
as compared to PVT. The maximum temperature of the system is shown
as 70.7 °C at 1000 W/m2, and minimum temperature is accumulated as
45.3 °C at the solar irradiations of 200 W/m2. Furthermore, in
Fig. 13(f)-(j), the streamline temperature is shown for the water flowing
channel. At 1000 W/m2, the achieved temperature is 59.4 °C and a
minimum temperature of 41 °C is obtained at 200 W/m2. The output
temperature from the PVT-PCM is smaller than the PVT for the reason
of storing capacity of phase change materials used in this experiment.
3.4. Analysis of electrical performance of PV, PVT and PVT-PCM at
varying irradiation levels.
Fig. 14 shows the effect of the solar irradiation on the cell tem-
perature. The average cell temperature increases with increasing irra-
diation intensity for PV, PVT and PVT-PCM numerically and experi-
mentally. As the incident irradiation increases the excessive heat
generates in the PV module causing the increase in the average tem-
perature of PV cell (Nordmann and Clavadetscher, 2003). It can be
observed from the Fig. 14 that there are some deviations in an ex-
perimental curve as compared to numerical curve because of the ex-
perimental control parameters errors in outdoor weather conditions
and sensors uncertainties. The working conditions for outdoor data are
measured at 32 °C for ambient and inlet water temperature at a fixed
mass flow rate of 0.5LPM. It can be seen that the PVT-PCM system
achieves best results with minimum cell temperature gain. It is because
of the reason that PCM (A44) absorbs a certain amount of heat latently
(Browne et al., 2016), which reduces the temperature of a cell tem-
perature of the PVT-PCM system. Cell temperature achieved by PV is
observed as a maximum of 77.6 °C and 75.1 °C for experimental and
numerical cases, and minimum 46.3 °C and 44 °C for experimental and
numerical cases respectively. However, cell temperature of PVT is much
lower as compared to PV module, which is observed as highest 69.3 °C
and 67 °C, and lowest 43.6 °C and 42 °C for experimental and numerical
cases respectively. Additionally, an increment in cell temperature on
average at each 100 W/m2 is obtained as 2.6 °C and 2.5 °C experimen-
tally and numerically respectively. Furthermore, the cell temperature of
PVT-PCM is observed as highest 64.8 °C and 63 °C, and the lowest
41.6 °C and 40 °C for experimental and numerical cases respectively.
Additionally, an increment in cell temperature on average at each
144
Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150
100 W/m2 is obtained as 2.32 °C and 2.3 °C for experimental and nu-
merical cases respectively. Maximum cell temperature reduction of
8.3 °C and 8.1 °C in case of PVT, and 12.8 °C and 12 °C is achieved in
case of the PVT-PCM system from the PV module.
The incident irradiation effect on power and electrical efficiency is
depicted in Figs. 15a and 15b. It can be seen that with the increase in
irradiations there is a corresponding increase in output power due to
the reason that both current and voltage increase, however current
increases too higher than voltage rate of increment. Thus, the voltage
shows a linear increment with increasing irradiation intensities
(Başoğlu and Çakır, 2016; Radziemska, 2003). In Fig. 15a output power
of PV is significantly lower than PVT system, which is due to the reason
of higher cell temperature accumulation in the PV module due to its
lower rate of heat removal from its cell temperature in natural con-
vection only. Conversely, PVT system acquires higher output power
because of the reason of its cooling, which removes the excessive heat
from cell temperature hence creating higher power output.
PVT-PCM removes maximum heat as compared to PVT, which re-
moves the excessive heat from cell temperature as PCM stores heat
along with water cooling, hence creating higher power output.
In the PV, PVT and PVT-PCM cases, numerical values are almost
stable, however; experimental deviations are noted significantly at
lower and higher irradiation level.
As the solar irradiation increases the electrical efficiency decreases
because of the reason that cell temperature increases prominently at
high incoming radiation flux as shown in Fig. 15b. For PV, electrical
efficiency decreases from 13.72% to 11.62 in the numerical case and
13.56 to 11.44% in the experimental case from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/
m2 irradiation intensities. In the like manner for PVT, values of elec-
trical efficiency decrease from 13.85% to 12.16% for the numerical case
and 13.74% to 12% for the experimental case. For PVT-PCM, values of
electrical efficiency decrease from 14% to 12.43% for the numerical
case and 13.87% to 12.31% for the experimental case. Further, at every
100 W/m2 interval PV, electrical efficiency is decreased at the average
rate of 0.21% and 0.212% for numerical and experimental cases re-
spectively. Moreover, for PVT, decrement in electrical efficiency is
found as 0.169% and 0.174% numerically and experimentally respec-
tively.
3.5. Thermal performance of PVT and PVT-PCM system at different
irradiation intensities
The solar irradiation effect on the thermal performance of the PVT
system is shown in Figs. 16a, 16b, 17a and 17b. The water outlet
temperature increases with increase in irradiation level from 200 W/m2
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

(a) G= 1000 W/m2 (b) G= 800 W/m2

(c) G= 600 W/m2 (d) G= 400 W/m2

(e) G= 200 W/m2

Fig. 11. PV module temperature distribution for the effect of irradiation at 200 to1000 W/m2.

to 1000 W/m2 numerically and experimentally as seen in Fig. 16a. Such
increasing trend is ascribed to the enhancing conduction and convective
heat transfer rate in between PV layers and from Tedlar to aluminium
heat exchanger hence finally to flowing water due to the higher tem-
perature gradient (Rohsenow et al., 1998). Higher the temperature
gradient allows the higher heat transfer rate. Therefore, as irradiation
increases the more energy is transmitted to working fluid at higher
rates. In result, higher output temperatures are acquired. The rate of
heat transfer is uniform from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 for numerical
values but it changes in curved shape in declining position after 400 W/
m2 for the experimental case. It is because of the reason that at higher
irradiation levels PVT and PVT-PCM systems accumulated a high
amount of heat, which created a high-temperature gradient between
the systems and the environment. Therefore, some of the heat is rapidly
dissipated into the environment due to free convection phenomenon. It
gets lesser time for transferring heat efficiently to working fluid due to
high temperatures and lower ambient temperature conditions of 32 °C
(Kreith and Black, 1980). It can be observed from the same figure that
there is a good accord in numerical and experimental results and con-
tinues with the similar trend from some deviation after 400 W/m2 in
case of experimental data. Output temperature values for PVT system
are obtained as 61.11 °C at 1000 W/m2 and 38.92 °C at 200 W/m2 for
the numerical case, whereas, 59.88 °C at 1000 W/m2 and 38.85 °C at
200 W/m2 for the experimental case. Output temperature increment at
every 100 W/m2 is achieved as 2.219 °C and 2.103 °C on average for
numerical and experimental cases respectively. For PVT-PCM, output

145
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

(f) G= 10000 W/m2 (a) G= 1000 W/m2

(g) G= 800 W/m2 (b) G= 800 W/m2

(h) G= 600 W/m2 (c) G= 600 W/m2

(i) G= 400 W/m2 (d) G= 400 W/m2

(j) G= 200 W/m2 (e) G= 200 W/m2

Fig. 12. Surface and streamline temperature distribution over through PVT system.

temperature values are obtained as 59.76 °C at 1000 W/m2 and 38.14 °C average numerically and experimentally respectively. Thermal energy
at 200 W/m2 for the numerical case, whereas, 58.1 °C at 1000 W/m2 relationship on solar irradiation is shown in Fig. 16b at the solar irra-
and 38 °C at 200 W/m2 for the experimental case. Output temperature diation range from 200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2. At the high-temperature
increment at every 100 W/m2 is achieved as 2.16 °C and 2.06 °C on gradient caused by high solar irradiation, the heat transfer between the

146
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

(f) G= 200 W/m2 (a) G= 200 W/m2

(g) G= 200 W/m2 (b) G= 200 W/m2

(h) G= 200 W/m2 (c) G= 200 W/m2

(i) G= 200 W/m2 (d) G= 200 W/m2

(j) G= 200 W/m2 (e) G= 200 W/m2

Fig. 13. Surface and streamline temperature distribution over through PVT-PCM system.

thermal collector and water increases considerably. Therefore, as obtained as 999.6 W and 928.2 W at 1000 W/m2 for numerically and
compared to 200 W/m2 more thermal energy is obtained at 1000 W/m2 experimentally respectively. In addition, smallest thermal energy va-
due to increased convective and conductive heat transfer within the lues are achieved as 142.8 W and 135.66 W at 200 W/m2 for numeri-
system. The maximum value of thermal energy for PVT systems is cally and experimentally respectively. For each 100 W/m2 irradiations,

147
H. Fayaz et al. Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150

Fig. 14. Effect of irradiation on cell temperature of PV, PVT and PVT-PCM.

Fig. 16a. Effect of solar irradiation on the output temperature of PVT and PVT-
PCM.

Fig. 15a. Effect of solar irradiation on the output power of PV, PVT and PVT-
PCM.

Fig. 16b. Effect of solar irradiation on thermal energy of PVT and PVT-PCM.

Fig. 15b. Effect of solar irradiation on the electrical efficiency of PV, PVT and
Fig. 17a. Effect of solar irradiation on the thermal efficiency of PVT and PVT-
PVT-PCM.
PCM.

148
H. Fayaz et al.
Fig. 17b. Effect of solar irradiation on the overall efficiency of PVT and PVT-
PCM.
thermal energy on average is achieved as 85.68 W and 79.254 W for
numerically and experimentally respectively. Similarly, for PVT-PCM
maximum thermal energy is gained as 985.67 W and 860.37 W at
1000 W/m2 for numerically and experimentally respectively. In addi-
tion, smallest values for thermal energy are achieved as 216.69 W and
170.64 W at 200 W/m2 for numerically and experimentally respec-
tively. At the same interval of 100 W/m2, thermal energy is achieved as
76.898 W and 68.973 W on average for numerically and experimentally
respectively.
Fig. 17a shows that thermal efficiency at the irradiation level of
200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2. Opposite to thermal energy graphs, thermal
energy is decreased with an increase in solar irradiation. That’s be-
cause, at the higher irradiation levels, heat obtained by the system is
not efficiently transferred to the water as some of the heat is lost in the
convection process to the surroundings. The heat convection phenom-
enon happens so fast that it provides less time for heat to transfer from
PV layers to the thermal collector and hence finally to the water flowing
inside the collector. Temperature difference which is responsible for
excessive heat transfer in between systems layers to the water is also
responsible for heat flow to the surrounding due to a temperature
gradient. Conversely, at lower irradiation levels, thermal efficiency is
improved and is higher than irradiations at high levels.
The maximum thermal efficiency achieved for the PVT system is as
76.1% and 75.1% at 200 W/m2 numerically and experimentally re-
spectively. Additionally, at 1000 W/m2, minimum values of thermal
energy are achieved as 69.1% and 66.2% numerically and experimen-
tally respectively. Thermal efficiency drop is observed as 0.7% and
0.9% at each interval of 100 W/m2 numerically and experimentally
respectively. Similarly, for the PVT-PCM, thermal efficiency at highest
value is achieved as 72.83% and 71.1% at 200 W/m2 numerically and
experimentally respectively. Additionally, at 1000 W/m2 minimum
thermal efficiency is achieved as 65.91% and 63.25% numerically and
experimentally respectively. Drop in thermal efficiency is achieved as
0.69% and 0.78% at every 100 W/m2 numerically and experimentally
respectively.
Fig. 17b shows that the overall efficiency of the systems with the
effect of varying solar irradiations. Overall efficiency shows the similar
trend as compared to electrical and thermal efficiencies of the systems.
Overall efficiency is the addition of electrical and thermal efficiencies
where the major part is the thermal efficiency, hence dominating the
similar trend of fall in overall efficiency with respect to increasing solar
irradiations. Overall efficiency at the maximum values is achieved as
90.08% and 88.95% numerically and experimentally respectively at
149
Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150
200 W/m2 for PVT system. Further, lowest thermal efficiency is ob-
tained as 81.7% and 78.46% for numerically and experimentally re-
spectively. In the same manner, the highest values for overall efficiency
numerically and experimentally are 87.43% and 85.53% respectively
for the PVT-PCM system, at 200 W/m2. Finally, the lowest overall ef-
ficiency obtained is 78.89% and 76.53% numerically and experimen-
tally respectively at 1000 W/m2. Numerical and experimental results
are observed with no a big difference or deviation and are in the sa-
tisfactory range of mathematical 3D model proposed for this in-
vestigation.
4. Conclusion
In this investigation, evaluation of the numerical and experimental
performance of a PV, PV/T and PVT-PCM systems with the serpentine
design of aluminium pipe is presented. Numerical analysis based on
FEM is done by using COMSOL Multiphysics® along with outdoor ex-
periments conducted under controlled operating conditions. The main
findings achieved from the present research work are given below:
• For the confirmation of the thermal and electrical efficiency of the
proposed design, an experimental verification is carried out. The
tests show that the experimental results are in satisfactory range
with the numerical analysis for different mass flow rates.
• For PV, the maximum achieved cell temperature is 75.6 and 75.1 °C
PVT, and for PVT, it is 67 and 69.3 °C numerically and experimen-
tally. In addition, PVT-PCM, maximum cell temperature is achieved
as 63 and 64.8 °C numerically and experimentally respectively.
• Maximum cell temperature reduction of 8.3 °C and 8.1 °C in case of
PVT, and 12.8 °C and 12 °C is achieved in the case of the PVT-PCM
system from the PV module.
• The electrical efficiency of PV, PVT and PVT-PCM numerically is
achieved 13.72, 13.85 and 14% and for the experimental in-
vestigation; it is obtained as 13.56%, 13.74% and 13.87% at 200 W/
m2 respectively.
• For PVT, the highest overall efficiency is 89.9 and 88.84%, and for
PVT-PCM, the maximum overall efficiency is obtained as 85.88 and
82.87% numerically and experimentally respectively.
• In the case of the PVT system, electrical performance is improved as
6.2 and 4.8% and in the case of PVT-PCM; it is improved as 7.2 and
7.6% numerically and experimentally respectively.
• The highest value for the electrical efficiency of PVT is achieved as
13.744 and 113.852%, and similarly, for PVT-PCM, electrical effi-
ciency is achieved as 13.829 and 13.987% at 200 W/m2 numerically
and experimentally respectively.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from
Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE) Grant, Ministry of
Higher Education (Project: UM.0000067/HME.OM, UMPEDAC - 2016)
to carry out this research.
References
Aberoumand, Sadegh, Ghamari, Shahin, Shabani, Bahman, 2018. Energy and exergy
analysis of a photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system using nanofluids: An experimental
study. Sol. Energy 165, 167–177.
Adiyabat, Amarbayar, Kurokawa, Kosuke, Otani, Kenji, Enebish, Namjil, Batsukh,
Garmaa, Battushig, Mishiglunden, ... Ganbat, Bathuu, 2006. Evaluation of solar en-
ergy potential and PV module performance in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia. Prog.
Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 14 (6), 553–566.
Ahmed, Ferdous, Al Amin, Abul Quasem, Hasanuzzaman, M., Saidur, R., 2013.
Alternative energy resources in Bangladesh and future prospect. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 25, 698–707.
Al-Waeli, A.H.A., Chaichan, M.T., Sopian, K., Kazem, H.A., 2018a. Comparison study of
indoor/outdoor experiments of SiC nanofluid as a base-fluid for a photovoltaic
thermal PV/T system enhancement. Energy 151, 33–44.
Al-Waeli, Ali H., Sopian, K., Kazem, Hussein A., Chaichan, Miqdam T., 2016. Photovoltaic
H. Fayaz et al.
solar thermal (PV/T) collectors past, present and future: A. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 11
(22), 10757–10765.
Al-Waeli, Ali H.A., Sopian, K., Chaichan, Miqdam T., Kazem, Hussein A., Ibrahim, Adnan,
Mat, Sohif, Ruslan, Mohd Hafidz, 2017. Evaluation of the nanofluid and nano-PCM
based photovoltaic thermal (PVT) system: An experimental study. Energy Convers.
Manage. 151, 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.032.
Al-Waeli, Ali H.A., Sopian, K., Kazem, Hussein A., Chaichan, Miqdam T., 2018b.
Nanofluid based grid connected PV/T systems in Malaysia: A techno-economical
assessment. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 28, 81–95.
Al-Waeli, Ali H.A., Sopian, K., Kazem, Hussein A., Yousif, Jabar H., Chaichan, Miqdam T.,
Ibrahim, Adnan, Ruslan, Mohd Hafidz, 2018c. Comparison of prediction methods of
PV/T nanofluid and nano-PCM system using a measured dataset and Artificial Neural
Network. Sol. Energy 162, 378–396.
Başoğlu, Mustafa Engin, Çakır, Bekir, 2016. Comparisons of MPPT performances of iso-
lated and non-isolated DC–DC converters by using a new approach. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 60, 1100–1113.
Bertram, Erik, Glembin, Jens, Rockendorf, Gunter, 2012. Unglazed PVT collectors as
additional heat source in heat pump systems with borehole heat exchanger. Energy
Procedia 30, 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.049.
Browne, Maria C., Lawlor, Keith, Kelly, Adam, Norton, Brian, Cormack, Sarah J.M., 2015.
Indoor characterisation of a photovoltaic/thermal phase change material system.
Energy Procedia 70 (Supplement C), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2015.02.112.
Browne, Maria C., Quigley, Declan, Hard, Hanna R., Gilligan, Sarah, Ribeiro, Nadja C.C.,
Almeida, Nicholas, McCormack, Sarah J., 2016. Assessing the thermal performance of
phase change material in a photovoltaic/thermal system. Energy Procedia 91,
113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.184.
Chandrasekar, M., Suresh, S., Senthilkumar, T., 2013. Passive cooling of standalone flat
PV module with cotton wick structures. Energy Convers. Manage. 71, 43–50.
Chauhan, Aditya, Tyagi, V.V., Anand, Sanjeev, 2018. Futuristic approach for thermal
management in solar PV/thermal systems with possible applications. Energy Convers.
Manage. 163, 314–354.
Daghigh, Ronak, Ibrahim, Adnan, Jin, Goh Li, Ruslan, Mohd Hafidz, Sopian,
Kamaruzzaman, 2011. Predicting the performance of amorphous and crystalline si-
licon based photovoltaic solar thermal collectors. Energy Convers. Manage. 52 (3),
1741–1747.
Dupeyrat, P., Ménézo, C., Fortuin, S., 2014. Study of the thermal and electrical perfor-
mances of PVT solar hot water system. Energy Build. 68 (Part C(0)), 751–755.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.09.032.
Ebadi, Soroush, Tasnim, Syeda Humaira, Aliabadi, Amir A, Mahmud, Shohel, 2018.
Melting of nano-PCM inside a cylindrical thermal energy storage system: Numerical
study with experimental verification. Energy Convers. Manage. 166, 241–259.
Fayaz, H., Rahim, N.A., Saidur, R., Solangi, K.H., Niaz, H., Hossain, M.S., 2011. Solar
energy policy: Malaysia vs developed countries. In: Paper Presented at the Clean
Energy and Technology (CET), 2011 IEEE First Conference on.
Fayaz, H., Nasrin, R., Rahim, N.A., Hasanuzzaman, M., 2018. Energy and exergy analysis
of the PVT system: Effect of nanofluid flow rate. Sol. Energy 169, 217–230. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.05.004.
Hasanuzzaman, M., Al-Amin, Abul Quasem, Khanam, Shamsunnahar, Hosenuzzaman, M.,
2015. Photovoltaic power generation and its economic and environmental future in
Bangladesh. J. Renewable Sustain. Energy 7 (1), 013108.
Hottel, Hoyte, & Whillier, Austin, 1955. Evaluation of flat-plate solar collector perfor-
mance. In: Paper Presented at the Trans. Conf. Use of Solar Energy.
Hust, Jerome G., Lankford, Alan B., 1984. Thermal conductivity of aluminum, copper,
iron, and tungsten for temperatures from 1 K to the melting point: National Bureau of
Standards, Boulder, CO (USA). Chemical Engineering Science Div.
Jaaz, Ahed Hameed, Sopian, Kamaruzzaman, Gaaz, Tayser Sumer, 2018. Study of the
electrical and thermal performances of photovoltaic thermal collector-compound
parabolic concentrated. Results Phys. 9, 500–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.
2018.03.004.
Joshi, Rajesh, Khandwawala, A.I., 2014. A comparative study of the effect of variation of
inside diameter of condenser and mass flow rate on the heat transfer coefficient in a
domestic refrigerator. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 4 (2), 514–518.
150
Solar Energy 179 (2019) 135–150
Kreith, Frank, & Black, William Z., 1980. Basic heat transfer: Harper & Row New York.
Lim, Jong-Log, Woo, Sung-Cheol, Jung, Tae-Hee, Min, Yong-Ki, Won, Chang-Sub, Ahn,
Hyung-Keun, 2013. Analysis of factor on the temperature effect on the output of PV
module. The Transactions of The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 62 (3),
365–370.
Malvi, C.S., Dixon-Hardy, D.W., Crook, R., 2011. Energy balance model of combined
photovoltaic solar-thermal system incorporating phase change material. Sol. Energy
85 (7), 1440–1446.
Mousavi, Soroush, Kasaeian, Alibakhsh, Shafii, Mohammad Behshad, Jahangir,
Mohammad Hossein, 2018. Numerical investigation of the effects of a copper foam
filled with phase change materials in a water-cooled photovoltaic/thermal system.
Energy Convers. Manage. 163, 187–195.
Nahar, Afroza, Hasanuzzaman, M., Rahim, N.A., 2017a. Numerical and experimental
investigation on the performance of a photovoltaic thermal collector with parallel
plate flow channel under different operating conditions in Malaysia. Sol. Energy 144
(Supplement C), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.041.
Nahar, Afroza, Hasanuzzaman, M., Rahim, N.A., 2017b. Numerical and experimental
investigation on the performance of a photovoltaic thermal collector with parallel
plate flow channel under different operating conditions in Malaysia. Sol. Energy 144,
517–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.041.
Nasrin, R., Hasanuzzaman, M., Rahim, N.A., 2018a. Effect of high irradiation and cooling
on power, energy and performance of a PVT system. Renew. Energy 116 (Part A),
552–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.004.
Nasrin, R., Rahim, N.A., Fayaz, H., Hasanuzzaman, M., 2018b. Water/MWCNT nanofluid
based cooling system of PVT: Experimental and numerical research. Renew. Energy
121, 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.014.
Nishioka, Kensuke, Hatayama, Tomoaki, Uraoka, Yukiharu, Fuyuki, Takashi, Hagihara,
Ryuzou, Watanabe, Momoki, 2003. Field-test analysis of PV system output char-
acteristics focusing on module temperature. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 75 (3),
665–671.
Nordmann, Thomas, Clavadetscher, Luzi, 2003. Understanding temperature effects on PV
system performance. Paper Presented at the Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003.
Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on.
Nouira, Meriem, Sammouda, Habib, 2018. Numerical study of an inclined photovoltaic
system coupled with phase change material under various operating conditions. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 141, 958–975.
Radziemska, E., 2003. The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon
solar cells. Renew. Energy 28 (1), 1–12.
Rahman, M.M., Hasanuzzaman, M., Rahim, N.A., 2015. Effects of various parameters on
PV-module power and efficiency. Energy Convers. Manage. 103 (Supplement C),
348–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.06.067.
Rahman, Mohammad Mafizur, Hasanuzzaman, Md., Rahim, Nasrudin Abd, 2017. Effects
of operational conditions on the energy efficiency of photovoltaic modules operating
in Malaysia. J. Cleaner Prod. 143, 912–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.
12.029.
Riffat, Saffa B., Cuce, Erdem, 2011. A review on hybrid photovoltaic/thermal collectors
and systems. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 6 (3), 212–241.
Rohsenow, Warren M., Hartnett, James P., Cho, Young I., 1998. Handbook of Heat
Transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rostami, Zakie, Rahimi, Masoud, Azimi, Neda, 2018. Using high-frequency ultrasound
waves and nanofluid for increasing the efficiency and cooling performance of a PV
module. Energy Convers. Manage. 160, 141–149.
Skoplaki, Elisa, Palyvos, John A., 2009. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic
module electrical performance: A review of efficiency/power correlations. Sol.
Energy 83 (5), 614–624.
Song, Mengjie, Niu, Fuxin, Mao, Ning, Hu, Yanxin, Deng, Shiming, 2018. Review on
building energy performance improvement using phase change materials. Energy
Build. 158 (Supplement C), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.
066.
Vokas, G., Christandonis, N., Skittides, F., 2006. Hybrid photovoltaic–thermal systems for
domestic heating and cooling—A theoretical approach. Sol. Energy 80 (5), 607–615.
Wolf, Martin, 1976. Performance analyses of combined heating and photovoltaic power
systems for residences. Energy Convers. 16 (1–2), 79–90.