Solar Ceils, 6 (1982) 39 - 47 39

P E R F O R M A N C E M E A S U R E M E N T TECHNIQUES F O R
C O N C E N T R A T O R P H O T O V O L T A I C CELLS

R. D. NASBY
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (U.S.A.)
R. W. SANDERSON
College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
(U.S.A.)
(Received September 10, 1981; accepted November 16, 1981)

Summary

Concentrator solar cells operate in a high irradiance environment which

differs considerably from the 1 sun environment of flat-plate solar cells.
Because of the high irradiance, additional difficulties are encountered in
accurately measuring cell performance, and special measurement techniques
have been developed. This paper is concerned with the additional problems
in concentrator cell measurements.

1. Introduction

Concentrator solar cells operate in a high irradiance environment which

differs considerably from the 1 sun environment of flat-plate solar cells.
Because of the high irradiance, some of the measurement problems and
techniques encountered in evaluating solar cell electrical performance are
different for a concentrator solar cell. In particular, the high irradiance leads
to increased sample currents, produces difficulties in maintaining and mea-
suring cell temperatures and causes problems in accurately determining the
total illumination p o w e r incident on the cell. The latter problems are further
complicated by non-uniform illumination and temperature profiles on the
cell resulting from the illumination optics and inadequate thermal contact of
the cell with a uniform temperature heat sink. This paper is concerned with
those measurement techniques which arise because of these additional mea-
surement difficulties. General solar cell testing techniques are discussed in
the Proceedings o f a Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measurements
[1] and in Solar Energy Research Institute documents on performance
criteria for photovoltaic energy systems [ 2 ] .

0379-6787/82/0000-0000/$02.75 © Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

40

2. General measurement techniques

2.1. Area measurement

Because of differences between the optical components used with fiat-
plate modules and concentrator modules, the area used in calculating the
efficiency of a concentrator solar cell is often different from the area used to
compute fiat-plate cell efficiency. The area used in calculating concentrator
solar cell efficiency is the total area intended to be illuminated when the
solar cell is installed in a concentrator module. This area includes the area of
interior grid lines and normally any guard band (the area of low illumination
inside the bus-bars) but generally excludes peripheral bus-bars, since con-
centrator modules are not usually designed to focus sunlight on the cell bus-
bar. Losses associated with light incident on these regions are treated as
optical losses at the module level. However, care must be exercised to main-
tain consistency in the area definition and to exclude light during testing
from any active cell areas which are not included in the cell area.

2.2. Sample preparation

In order to assume uniform and repeatable test conditions under high
irradiance conditions, attention must be paid to the m e t h o d of attaching a
concentrator cell to its substrate and the placement of current and voltage
probes. To provide adequate thermal and electrical contact with the sub-
strate, concentrator cells are normally soldered to high conductance sub-
strates. At the higher levels of irradiance, a vacuum hold-down does not
provide adequate uniformity of thermal or electrical contact between the
cell back contact and the substrate to provide uniform test conditions.
Soldering of the cell can, however, result in thermal stress caused by
mismatch between the coefficients of thermal expansion of the solar cell and
the substrate. Copper is often used as a substrate in testing because of its
high thermal conductivity; however, its coefficient of thermal expansion is
five to six times that of silicon. Still, copper is used successfully for cells
which are n o t too large {for dimensions of less than about 2 - 3 in) [3]. The
electrically insulating ceramics, alumina and beryllia, are also used as sub-
strates because of their thermal conductivities, and the thermal expansion
mismatch is reduced to a factor of approximately 2. The surfaces of these
substrates can be metallized to provide electrical contact and solderability.
These insulating substrates, as well as m o l y b d e n u m , provide a close thermal
expansion match to GaAs, and alumina and beryllia have been used as
substrates in GaAs arrays [4, 5]. In testing, low temperature solder alloys
may be used to reduce thermal stress and to reduce the possibility of affect-
ing the device structure or contact integrity during cell mounting. Several
solder alloys of indium have been used for silicon with satisfactory results.
The uniformity of the solder bond between the cell and its substrate is
important. The presence of significant voids may result in the same problems
of non-uniform temperature and series resistance as were described concern-
ing the use of a vacuum hold-down. Solder bond uniformity may be investi-
 41

gated and verified with X-rays, temperature-sensitive liquid crystals, acoustic

methods or flash testing techniques.
The use of four-terminal connections (Kelvin probes) for the measure-
m e n t of current and voltage is a well-established practice in the testing of flat.
plate solar cells [1, 2 ] . Because of the high current levels present during
concentrator solar cell operation, the use of a Kelvin probe is mandatory. In
addition, the voltage probe should be located so that the voltage measured is
the voltage at the location of the current probe. For example, if there is a
significant voltage drop along the bus-bar and the voltage probe is placed
away from the current probe, the cell will appear to have increased perfor-
mance.

3. Cell performance measurements

3.1. Testing at an intensity o f I sun

During the testing of a concentrator cell, the irradiance is normally
determined by measuring the cell short-circuit current Is¢ and assuming a
constant ratio of I~ to irradiance. This ratio is typically determined during
a 1 sun measurement of the cell Isc where the irradiance is measured using
either a reference cell or a pyrheliometer. Because of the spectral response
characteristics of solar cells, this ratio will vary depending on the spectral
distribution of the irradiance [6 - 9 ] . This spectral variation presents a
significant problem since the energy input for determining efficiencies is cal-
culated at all irradiance levels using this ratio of Isc to irradiance.
The most accepted technique available to determine a repeatable Isc-tO-
intensity ratio is to measure irradiance using a calibrated reference solar cell
having a spectral response matching that of the test cell. Such a technique
yields a result which would be obtained under the spectral distribution used
to calibrate the reference cell (typically air mass 1.5) [9]. In practice, it is
often difficult to obtain a reference cell having a spectral response matching
an arbitrary test cell. Techniques have been published to calculate a reference
Is¢-to-intensity ratio w i t h o u t the use of a reference cell [ 1 0 ] , or to correct
for the spectral response mismatch between a test cell and a reference cell
when using a solar simulator [ 1 1 ] . Spectral mismatch between cells is dis-
cussed in refs. 9 and 11; however, these methods of determining mismatch
are n o t in c o m m o n use. A practical m e t h o d of determining spectral mismatch
is being considered by the ASTM.
If no reference cell is available and a pyrheliometer is used as the irra-
diance instrument, errors of up to 6% m a y be expected [7]. In either
case the cell must have the same optical field of view during testing
as the reference cell or pyrheliometer. Typically, for comparison with
commercial pyrheliometers, this means using a collimating tube with a
length-to-diameter ratio of 10 to 1 and an appropriate slope angle [ 1 2 ] .
Collimation has normally been used for concentrator testing as it eliminates
the diffuse c o m p o n e n t of the spectrum for both the test cell and the refer-
ence cell or pyrheliometer [ 11 ].
42

3.2. Testing at concentration

The most c o m m o n means of determining the irradiance level at multi-
sun intensities accepted at present is to measure the Isc of the cell being
tested [2, 13]. It is then assumed that Isc varies linearly with irradiance and
thus, by knowing the calibrated 1 sun value of Is¢, the irradiance can be
determined. The errors in this procedure are believed to be acceptable in
view of the problems associated with other methods. Accurate commercial
meters are n o t available for use at intensities over ranges from 1 to several
thousand suns. Also, the use of an independent irradiance meter in conditions
of non-uniform irradiance can result in significant errors if the meter
aperture and position do not intercept the same total irradiance as the cell
under study.
Measurement of the short-circuit current of the cell under investigation
thus becomes the most convenient m e t h o d but may also result in significant
errors. First, care must be taken to ensure that I~c, which is typically mea-
sured, equals the light-generated current or that the light-generated current
can be obtained under reverse-bias conditions. Secondly, the dependence of
Isc on irradiance has not been determined for most cell types, and thus the
errors introduced in the assumption of linearity are n o t well known.
Studies of the deviation from linearity have been made on several
silicon and Alx G a l _ x A s - G a A s cells over limited ranges of irradiance [ 13 -
18]. For planar silicon cells, superlinear behavior may be expected as the
base region of the cell goes into high injection. In high injection, the base
lifetime and possibly the effective diffusion coefficient increase, leading to
possible increased current collection [ 14, 15]. Thus superlinearity might be
expected to occur for higher irradiance levels as the base lifetime is decreased,
such as with decreasing base resistivity or resulting from certain processing steps
This trend has been noted for n+-p cells of 0.15, 0.4 and 1.5 ~t cm base
material by observing the concentration at which superlinearity occurred
[18]. In these tests a 0.15 gt cm base cell exhibited linearity to about 100
suns, the highest concentration studied. The 0.4 and 1.5 ~ cm cells exhibited
superlinearity, attaining ratios of Is¢ to irradiance of 1.04 and 1.08 respec-
tively, at 100 suns. A p + - n - n ÷ cell of 0.3 gt cm base resistivity exhibited
linear behavior to about 10 suns and superlinearity to an intensity of about
1000 suns where the ratio equaled about 1.08 [16]. A p ÷ - n - n + (10 ~2
cm) cell yielded a slight steady increase in superlinearity as the concentration
increased from 1 to 300 suns, reaching a ratio of about 1.02 at 300 suns. For
this cell, high injection occurs near 1 sun conditions [19]. Only a small
increase in the ratio occurs, as the low injection collection is sufficient to
allow almost complete carrier collection.
Preliminary data taken at Sandia National Laboratories indicate that
non-linearity effects of a different origin may occur for non-conventional
silicon cells, such as the interdigitated back contact (IBC) cell, which do n o t
have a front-surface p - n junction. A decrease in the ratio of Isc to irradiance
has been observed for an IBC cell. This effect may result from increased
carrier loss at the front cell surface with increased irradiance.
 43

Limited data are available on the linearity of GaAs solar cells. Measure-
ments on some of the highest quality cells fabricated at Rockwell Interna-
tional indicated linear behavior from 10 to 1000 suns [ 2 0 ] . High quality
cells fabricated at Varian Associates were calibrated against a thermopile
p o w e r meter under illumination from a x e n o n arc lamp, and linear behavior
was observed to a b o u t 1000 suns [21, 2 2 ] . The dependence of Isc on irra-
diance was also reported [23] for several cells from Varian, Rockwell and
UTL. Deviations from linearity were observed; for example, one UTL sample
exhibited an increase of 33% in the ratio of I~¢ to irradiance at 400 suns.
These results are apparently dependent on cell structure and fabrication, but
the higher performance cells tended toward linear behavior. In these cells,
deviations from linearity are n o t expected to result from high injection
effects at moderate irradiance because of the short carrier lifetimes and
diffusion length in GaAs.
Non-linear behavior can be significant and possibly produces errors of
the order of 10% or greater in concentration values and thus also in efficien-
cies, particularly at higher concentrations. To obtain concentration values to
within a few per cent, the dependence of I~ on irradiance must be deter-
mined.

4. Cell temperature

Cell temperature is c o m m o n l y and most reliably monitored by locating

a thermocouple or other temperature sensor at the substrate surface beneath
the solar cell. Because of the high thermal conductivity K of silicon (K =
1.7 W cm -1 °C- 1 ) and the thinness of the cells (about 300 ~m), the drop
between a front p - n junction and the cell back is less than 2 °C at 106 W
m-2 irradiance. A thin layer several thousandths of an inch thick of solder
(K ~ 0.5 W cm -1 °C- I } should introduce only a 1 °C differential if there are
no large interface thermal impedances. The thermal conductivity of GaAs is
a b o u t one-third of that of silicon and thus approximately a 6 °C drop,
depending on cell thickness, will occur in GaAs devices.
If materials such as thermal epoxies (K ~ 0.01 W cm-1 °C-1) are used
to m o u n t samples onto a heat sink, large temperature differentials can result;
approximately a 50 °C differential at 1 0 6 W m - 2 for a layer 2 × 10 -3 in
thick. Cell junction temperatures for these cases can be obtained by measur-
ing the Vo¢ of the cell, where the relationship between Vo¢ and temperature
has been established through an independent test, such as an illumination
flash test [ 2 1 ] . In the cases where p o o r thermal contact of the cell, heat sink
and temperature sensor exist, it becomes difficult to maintain cell tempera-
ture during a current-voltage (I-V) scan. The p o w e r dissipation in the cell
changes with the load, resulting in cell temperature changes.
A m e t h o d used to eliminate most sample heating and temperature mea-
surement problems is flash testing [21, 24, 2 5 ] . Flashing light on the sample
for times of the order of milliseconds allows time for obtaining I - V data
while little sample heating occurs. For example, a free-standing silicon cell
44

(300 pm thick) will heat at a rate of about 2 °C ms -1 under an illumination

level of 106 W m - 2 This rate allows sufficient time to obtain discrete points
on an I - V curve or to sweep the I - V curve, and yet for most concentrator
cells to attain electrical equilibrium during the I - V scan.
Examination of Isc-Voc data can indicate problems in the cell tempera-
ture during testing. Deviations from expected or ideal diode behavior can
indicate errors in the cell average temperature or non-uniform cell tempera-
tures. This behavior is considered in more detail in the following discussion
of non-uniform cell temperatures.

5. Effects of non-ideal testing conditions

In concentrator systems and during individual cell testing, photovoltaic

cells are often exposed to non-uniform illumination profiles which are
dependent on the characteristics of the illumination optics, and cells are
subjected to temperature profiles across the cell in cases where good thermal
contact does not exist between the cell and a substrate of uniform tempera-
ture. Both effects normally produce degradation in cell performance com-
pared with performance under uniform conditions. A few studies have
addressed these effects experimentally and have used numerical modeling for
non-uniform illumination profiles with uniform cell temperatures [ 26 - 31]
and non-uniform temperature profiles with uniform illumination [31].

5.1. Non-uniform illumination

Non-uniform illumination typically produces degradation in perfor-
mance since higher intensities occur near the cell center further from the cell
bus-bar, producing increased I2R losses in the cell front grid and front-
surface diffused regions of conventional planar cells. A secondary loss results
from increased forward biasing and shifts in the I - V characteristics of the
regions of the diode across the cell surface. Typical degradation values are
difficult to specify even for planar cells since the degradation in performance
is dependent on the average illumination on the cell, the intensity profile and
the factors which affect the cell series resistance, i.e. cell size, grid spacing,
grid conductance and sheet resistivity of the front diffused region. The
magnitude of such effects may be indicated, however, by noting that 5% -
10% performance degradation was observed on commercial silicon concen-
trator cells when the intensity profile changed from that of the uniform case
to double the intensity over only one-half of the cell central area [27, 29].
Examination of the change in fill factor F F of GaAs cells for two illumination
patterns indicates that similar degradation may be expected for high quality
GaAs cells with low internal series resistance operating near 1000 suns [ 30].

5.2. Non-uniform temperature

Solar cells operating at high irradiance levels require a uniform attach-
m e n t to the temperature-controlled substrate in order to give o p t i m u m per-
 45

0.71 f
/
/
/
0.69 /

0.67 i
I,I

/
g 0.6.= /

t-- /
D
rr 0.6..
/
/
Z /
1,1.1
0.61 /
/
/
/
/
0.59 /
/

O. 57'1 I I
I(~0 I01 10 2

CONCENTRATION(SUNS) (I SUN= I000 W/m 2)

Fig. 1. Open-circuit voltage v s . irradiance for a cell with a void in the solder which mated
the cell to the temperature-controlled substrate.

formance [ 3 1 ] . Voids or areas of p o o r thermal contact between the solar

cell and its substrate cause a non-uniform temperature distribution across
the cell under high irradiance. This non-uniform temperature distribution
results in electrical performance which is different from that measured under
uniform temperature conditions. The effect of the temperature non-uniform-
ities depends on grid geometry and the magnitude and location of the non-
uniformity.
The primary effect of a non-uniform temperature distribution on a
silicon device is on the cell voltage [ 3 1 ] . In GaAs devices there may be
additional degradation in F F because of its significant temperature coeffi-
cient even at low irradiance levels [ 3 2 ] . The presence of non-uniform tem-
perature conditions can often be indicated by examining the Voc dependence
on irradiance. Under uniform temperature conditions, the open-circuit
voltage of an ideal silicon solar cell in low level injection follows a slope of
kT/q (where k is Boltzmann's constant, T is the absolute temperature and q
is the electronic charge) when plotted as a function of log Isc. This behavior
is shown by the broken line in Fig. 1. For cells operating in high level injec-
tion or significantly influenced by space charge recombination, this slope
may be greater than kT/q. Under non-uniform temperature, the slope will
be less than kT/q and will decrease as the irradiance increases, as shown in
Fig. 1. Solar cells showing this behavior because of non-uniform temperature
will yield erroneous efficiency measurements.
Similar behavior results if the temperature sensor indicates an erroneous
cell temperature which is d e p e n d e n t on irradiance. Typically, a p o o r thermal
46

conductance between the cell and a temperature sensor in the heat sink will
result in an increasing sample temperature and a decreasing Voc as the irra-
diance is increased and the heat sink temperature is held constant.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank J. A. Cape, Rockwell International, and J. J.

Wiczer, Sandia National Laboratories, for helpful discussions.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and
partially under Contract 40-1356, Sandia National Laboratories.

References

1 Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measurements, Baton Rouge, LA, Novem-

ber 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976) ( E R D A - N A S A Contract 1022/76/10).
2 R. Matson, R. Bird and K. Emery, S E R I Tech. Rep. 612-964, (Solar Energy Research
Institute, Golden, CO); Interim performance criteria for photovoltaic energy systems,
S E R I Tech. Rep., to be published (Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO).
3 D. L. Olson and K. M. Koliwad, IEEE Trans. Parts, Hybrids, Packag., 7 (2) (1971) 76.
4 J. A. Cape, R. Sahai and J. S. Harris, in R. van Overstraeten and W. Palz (eds.), Proc.
2nd Commission o f European Communities Conf. on Photovoltaic Solar Energy, West
Berlin, April 1979, Reidel, Boston, 1979, p. 1027.
5 R. J. Owen and P. G. Borden, Proc. 15th Photovoltaics Specialists' Conf., Orlando,
FL, 1981, IEEE, New York, 1981, p. 329~
6 H. B. Curtis, Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measurements, Baton Rouge,
LA, November 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976) 93 ( E R D A - N A S A Contract
1022/76/10).
7 F. M. Klucher and H. B. Curtis, Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measure-
ments, Baton Rouge, LA, November 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976) 247
( E R D A - N A S A Contract 1022/76/10).
8 C. H. Seaman, B. E. Anspauch, R. G. Downing and R. S. Estig, Proc. 14th Photo-
voltaic Specialists' Conf., San Diego, CA, January 7 - 10, 1980, IEEE, New York,
1980, p. 494.
9 V. G. Weizer and H. B. Curtis, Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measure-
ments, Baton Rouge, LA, November 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976) 203
( E R D A - N A S A Contract 1022176/10).
10 D. R. Lorentz and C. E. Backus, Proc. 15th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf., Orlando,
FL, 1981, IEEE, New York, 1981, p. 1189.
11 C. H. Seaman, JPL Rep. 1012-50, January 15, 1981 (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
(U.S. Department of Energy Contract).
12 A. T. Chai, Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Measurements, Baton Rouge,
LA, November 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976) 233 ( E R D A - N A S A Contract
1022176110).
13 E. L. Burgess and K. W. Mitchell, Proc. Workshop on Terrestrial Photovoitaic Mea-
surements, Baton Rouge, LA, November 1976, in N A S A Conf. Publ. 2010 (1976)
337 ( E R D A - N A S A Contract 1022176110).
14 V. L. Dalal and A. R. Moore, J. Appl. Phys., 48 (3) (1977) 1244.
15 A. Agarwala and V. K. Tewary, J. Phys. D, 13 (1980) 1885.
16 R. D. Nasby, C. M. Garner, H. T. Weaver, F. W. Sexton and J. L. Rodriguez, Proc.
15th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf., Orlando, FL, 1981, IEEE, New York, 1981,
p. 132.
 47

17 B. C. Chambers, M.S. Thesis, Arizona State University, 1980.

18 B. C. Chambers and C. E. Backus, Proc. 3rd Commission o f European Communities
Conf. on Photovoltaic Solar Energy, Cannes, France, 1980, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981,
p. 418.
19 R. D. Nasby and J. G. Fossum, Proe. 14th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf., San Diego,
CA, January 7 - 10, 1980, IEEE, New York, 1980, p. 419.
20 J. A. Cape, Rockwell International, personal communication, 1981.
21 P. G. Borden, R. A. LaRue, P. E. Gregory and R. Boettcher, Proc. 15th Photovoltaic
Specialists' Conf., Orlando, FL, 1981, IEEE, New York, 1981, p. 193.
22 P. G. Borden, Varian Associates Inc., personal communication, 1981.
23 R. J. Chaffin and J. J. Wiczer, Proc. 15th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf., Orlando,
FL, 1981, IEEE, New York, 1981, p. 243.
24 J. A. Cape and J. R. Oliver, Sol. Cells, 3 (1981) 215.
25 M. J. Cohen, J. A. Cape, M. D. Paul, D. L. Miller and J. S. Harris, SPIE J., 248 (1980)
109.
26 K.W. Mitchell, Tech. Dig. Int. Electron Devices Meet., 1977, IEEE, New York, 1977.
27 L. W. James and J. K. Williams, Proc. 13th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf.,
Washington, DC, June 5 - 8, 1978, IEEE, New York, 1978, p. 673.
28 C. M. Garner and R. D. Nasby, Tech. Dig. Int. Electron Devices Meet., 1979, IEEE,
New York, 1979, p. 312.
29 C. M. Garner and R. D. Nasby, Proc. 14th Photovoltaic Specialists' Conf., San Diego,
CA, January 7 - 10, 1980, IEEE, New York, 1980, p. 437.
30 R. A. LaRue, P. G. Borden and P. E. Gregory, IEEE Electron Device Lett., 2 (2)
(1981) 41.
31 R . W . Sanderson, D. T. O'Donnell and C. E. Backus, Proc. 14th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists' Conf., San Diego, CA, January 7 - 10, 1980, IEEE, New York, 1980, p.
431.
32 R. J. Boettcher, P. G. Borden and P. E. Gregory, IEEE Electron Device Lett., 2 (4)
(1981) 88.