Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Investigation of the operational performance and efficiency of an

alternative PV + PCM concept
Nikolaos Savvakis, Evangelia Dialyna, Theocharis Tsoutsos *
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab, School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, GR 73100 Chania, Greece

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

Keywords: The significance of the temperature effect on the performance of photovoltaics (PVs) has implied the necessity to
Photovoltaic develop PV cooling methods in recent years. In this research, the inclusion of phase change materials (PCMs)
Monocrystalline silicon cells through an alternative type of enclosure in tubular shape was proposed and investigated as an option of miti­
Phase change materials
gating the PV operating temperature to enhance their efficiency and lifetime. Two PVs incorporating different
Operating temperature
Energy efficiency
PCMs (PV + PCM systems) and a conventional PV module (reference case) were experimentally tested to assess
PV+PCM system their energy performance under the Mediterranean conditions in Chania, Crete. As PCMs employed were selected
Paraffins RT 27 and RT 31. The results indicated that a peak temperature decrement of 6.4 ◦ C and 7.5 ◦ C could be
observed by using 260 g of PCM27 and PCM31, respectively. Hence, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems
exhibited increased energy generation by 4.19% and 4.24%, respectively, while the increment in the PV con­
version efficiency by PCM integration ranged from 2.86 to 4.19%. The proposed configuration of PCM enclosures
took advantage of the synergistic effect of wind, as demonstrated by the recorded daily temperature profiles of
the PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems, even after the time of complete PCMs’ melting.

Savvakis and Tsoutsos (2015) investigated the effect of high tem­

1. Introduction
The performance of photovoltaic (PV) modules is dependent on cli­
matic variables, primarily the incoming sunlight and secondarily the
operating temperature (Lobera and Valkealahti, 2013). In practical
terms, the PV module operating temperature has a significant effect on
the solar-to-electricity conversion process, as the PV module voltage
generation and, by extension, its power output diminishes with the
rising temperature. This temperature is controlled by the physical
characteristics of the module materials and the ambient conditions
(Skoplaki et al., 2008; Tsitoura et al., 2016).
For instance, outdoor experiments with mc-Si PV modules demon­
strated that the PV power generated (P), fill factor (FF) and efficiency
(nELEC) were dropping by 6.5%, 2.0% and 0.8% respectively, per 10 ◦ C
increase of PV module operating temperature above 25 ◦ C (Radziemska,
2003). A few years later, Chander et al. (2015) examined the impact of
operating temperature on the mc-Si PV modules’ energy efficiency.
Several experiments via solar simulator as concerns the light intensity
and the PV cell temperature shown a downward trend in the range from
− 0.13%/oC till − 0.25%/oC in temperature coefficients of VOC, FF and
PMAX, with the rise of PV cells temperature.
peratures in the Mediterranean on the energy behaviour of a thin-film
PV system. They reported that the main electrical parameters’ values
(i.e. DC-voltage, DC-power, efficiency) were lessening linearly as the PV
operating temperature was raising. Taking into consideration that PV
modules usually operate at temperature values over 50 ◦ C during the
summer period, a significant deviation from the efficiency appraisals
received under standard conditions appears (Mavromatakis et al.,
2014). Accordingly, the regulation of PV operating temperature as low
as reasonably achievable could result in a substantial improvement in
PV efficiency (Siddiqui et al., 2012). Recently, this literature has been
enlarged. In these techniques, various fluids as means of heat storage (i.
e. air, water, PCMs, etc.) are exploited for the absorption of the excessive
heat from the PV module surface. PV cooling via PCM is considered
amongst the most effective options since the achievement even up to
20% in PV modules efficiency is possible (Ali, 2020).
In the present study, an alternative configuration for the PCM in­
clusion in a typical PV module was experimentally tested. More specif­
ically, two PCM containers were designed and fabricated in the form of a
thermal collector for the optimization of the correlation of the PCM
quantity and the energy performance of PV + PCM systems. The moti­
vation of exploiting a tubular configuration was to improve the free

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2821037825.

E-mail address: Theocharis.Tsoutsos@enveng.tuc.gr (T. Tsoutsos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.10.053
Received 17 May 2020; Received in revised form 16 October 2020; Accepted 17 October 2020
Available online 1 November 2020
0038-092X/© 2020 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Nomenclature t Measurement interval

T Reference period
Tmb PV back-side operating temperature (◦ C) xi ith value of the independent variable
Tmf PV front-side temperature (◦ C) yi ith value of the dependent variable
TPCM,melt Melting temperature of the PCM (oC) bj regression coefficients for j = 0, 1, 2, 3…
Tα Ambient temperature (◦ C) nELEC electrical efficiency (%)
GT Solar irradiance (W m− 2 m2) R correlation coefficient
A Effective PV module area (m2) R2 coefficient of determination
Vw Wind velocity (km h− 1) R2adj adjusted coefficient of determination
IMAX Current at the maximum power point (A) KT Clearness index
ISC Short Circuit current (A)
I Current (A) Abbreviations
VMAX Voltage at the maximum power point (V) PV photovoltaic
VOC Open-Circuit voltage (V) PCM phase change material
V Voltage (V) PV + PCM27 Photovoltaic module coupled with PCM RT 27
P PV module power output (W) PV + PCM31 Photovoltaic module coupled with PCM RT 31
PMAX PV module maximum power output (W) PV reference Photovoltaic module used as a reference case
FF fill factor PV/T Photovoltaic/thermal
EDC,d Daily total DC energy output (kWh) PV/T + PCM Photovoltaic/thermal module coupled with phase
N Number of time series change material

convective thermal-exchange from the back of the PV module, which
affects the PCM melting process in the rectangular containers as
mentioned by many researchers (Kamkari and Groulx, 2018; Groulx
et al., 2020). The comparative analysis of the energy behaviour of two
PVs incorporating different PCMs (PV + PCM systems) and a conven­
tional PV module (reference case) was carried out to measure the ben­
efits from the proposed modification. Paraffins RT 27 and RT 31 were
employed to upgrade the thermal response and energy generation in the
PV + PCM systems.
2. State-of-the-art
2.1. PV + PCM typical shapes
Since the first systematic research of a PV + PCM system performed
by Huang et al. (2004), several researchers have tried to answer to
multiple questions (e.g. the optimal design for the PCM enclosure, the
selection of the proper PCM for a PV + PCM system) aiming to form
design principles of such an application.
In a later study, the same researchers executed a series of trials to
evaluate the efficiency of different PV + PCM systems. For their analysis,
three PCM enclosure schemes and two sorts of PCM (RT25 and GR40)
examined to identify the importance of systems’ configuring on their
operating temperature evolution. Their findings revealed that the PV +
PCM operating temperature did not exceed over 30 ◦ C for about 2.2 h by
using RT25 and depth of 4 cm for the PCM enclosure. Finally, they re­
ported that the finned PCM enclosures regulated more effectively the
temperature rising of PVs, as compared with the un-finned enclosures
(Huang et al., 2006).
The ability of PCMs for thermal regulation in BIPV systems was
experimentally explored by Hasan et al. (2010) with diverse PCMs
(RT20, mixtures of capric/palmitic acid and capric/lauric acid, SP22
and CaCl2⋅6H2O) under certain irradiance levels. Four enclosure types
from perspex and aluminium in a rectangular scheme were exploited to
encapsulate the selected PCMs. A clear benefit of 10 ◦ C in the prevention
of the temperature rise for 300 min was achieved by CaCl2⋅6H2O with
TPCM,melt = 29 ◦ C, while the highest temperature decrement of 18 ◦ C for
0.5 h was seen by employing CaCl2⋅6H2O. Besides, they reported a sig­
nificant interaction between the thermal parameters (i.e. thermal con­
ductivity and melting point) and the PV module operating temperature.
Five years later, Hasan et al. (2015) implemented an experimental
procedure to check the operational parameters of three pc-Si PVs; a base
case and two in conjunction with PCMs. To this goal, two rectangular
enclosures were produced of 0.5 cm aluminum alloy and vertically
placed fins of 5 cm in width. The experiments took place on selected
dates in Ireland and Pakistan. The PCMA used was a compound of cap­
ric/palmitic acid, and the PCMB was salt hydrate CaCl2⋅6H2O. The main
outcomes demonstrated a temperature decline of 7–10 ◦ C in Ireland,
whereas the analogous measurements in Pakistan were in the range of
10–21 ◦ C. Correspondingly, PV electricity generation enhanced over
10% in the warm environment of Pakistan, while 4% more electricity
produced under the weather conditions of Ireland.
To estimate the efficiency of a PV + PCM system in a hot climate
region, Hasan et al. (2017) accomplished a year-long monitoring pro­
cess. Except for the commercial PV modules, a PCM enclosure fabricated
from 4 mm aluminum plates was exploited for the experiments. They
reported that the existence of PCM (paraffin RT42) declined the mean
value of the PV temperature by 10.5 ◦ C, achieving a rise of 5.9% in
electric power generation on an annual basis.
In parallel Nada et al. (2018) studied experimentally the response of
employing pure PCM and PCM mixed with Al2O3 nanoparticles to the
overall performance of a conventional PV module. The experimental
arrangement consisted of three PV modules of the identical type; two
connected with the chosen PCMs and the reference case. According to
their results, both PCM enclosures with and without nanoparticles could
mitigate the PV temperature by 10.6 ◦ C and 8.1 ◦ C and raising the PV
modules efficiency by 13.2% and 5.7%, respectively.
Khanna et al. (2018, 2019) have examined two PV-PCM system
configurations to optimize the PCM enclosure design. Their conclusions
are summarized as follows: (i) the ideal depth of PCM storage enclosures
without and with fins was calculated to equal 390 mm and 460 mm,
respectively, (ii) the integration of fins arranged in a spacing of 25 cm
and a width of 0.2 cm was proposed to enhance the PV + PCM system
efficiency, (iii) finned PCM enclosure was stated as capable of the PV
module’s thermal maintenance on clear-sky days, mostly for the warm
climates as the improvement in electricity generation attained 12.1%.
Wongwuttanasatian et al. (2020) examined the possibility of
applying palm wax as an operating medium for PV thermal regulation.
In their analysis, a finned PCM enclosure employed to achieve the
maximum cooling effect on the examined PV module. They highlighted
that the adopted design approach achieved a temperature decrease of
6.1 ◦ C on the PV front surface, increasing its efficiency by 5.3%.
Mostly in the literature, a rectangular enclosure formation (with or
without inner fins) with the selected PCM is fitted at the backside of the

1284
N. Savvakis et al.
PV module. Often these enclosures fabricated by aluminium are fixed
behind the PV frame with thermal paste. Obviously, the selection of the
fabrication material of the PCM enclosure is directly correlated to the
need for enhanced heat transfer from the PV module to PCM. Further­
more, the quantity of PCM to be employed is a critical parameter, as
demonstrated by the option of depth ≥ 4 cm in the most above cases.
2.2. PV/Τ + PCM applications
PV/T applications can provide both electric and thermal energy,
while the aggregated efficiency of such applications can be further
improved by incorporation of PCM. In such a system, the excessive heat
of the PV module is firstly engrossed by PCM as latent heat, resulting in
PV temperature decline and electrical efficiency increment. Subse­
quently, the working fluid in the thermal collector immersed in the PCM
soaks up the energy stored by PCM resulting in higher thermal efficiency
(Ali, 2020).
The notion of a modified PV/T + PCM application was introduced
first-ever and theoretically studied by Malvi et al. (2011). This type of
system was considered as a PV plate back coated by a copper layer with
fixed tubes, a PCM layer and an insulation plate. Based on this approach,
they developed a one-dimensional model for the parametric analysis of
significant variables (e.g. water flow rate, inlet temperature, PCM depth)
aiming to determine an optimal energy balance between the thermal
and electrical efficiency of the proposed application. The researchers
concluded that PV energy output enhancement of 9% could be realised
under certain circumstances (i.e. water flow rate of 2 L/h and 5 cm PCM
thickness). Finally, they pointed out that the melting point is related to
the local ambient.
An innovative PV/T + PCM application was evolved and tested in
Dublin by Browne et al. (2016). The experimental set up constituted of a
PV module with a thermal collector nested in a filled PCM enclosure, a
typical PV/T configuration, as well as two conventional PV modules
with and without any enclosure attached at the rear-side, respectively.
Their results via the comparative analysis of the individual subsystems
indicated that PV/T + PCM system presented the highest efficiency, as it
achieved to rise by 5.5 ◦ C the temperature of the water and to enhance
the energy generated by the PV. Also, they referred that such a system
could be used as a preheating water system.
Preet et al. (2017) accomplished a day-long experimental procedure
in the outdoor environment of Gurdaspur (India) to examine the
aggregated performance of a common PV module, a PV/T and a PV/T +
PCM systems. Their experiment was undertaken at flow velocities from
0.013 − 0.031 kg/s, while the PCM utilised in the PV/T + PCM system
was paraffin wax RT30. The main conclusions of this study were sum­
marised as follows: a) both PV/T systems presented a significant tem­
perature decline above 45% as compared to the reference case; b)the
peak energy efficiency of 12.6% was recorded for the PV/T + PCM
system.
Based on similar experimental set-up, Li et al. (2019) evaluated
under real-field conditions, the efficiency of a PV + PCM/T and PV +
PCM module in comparison with a single PV unit. Before the trial pro­
cess, two different PCM pots were manufactured by polypropylene with
and without the addition of a thermal collector to integrate the paraffin
wax with melting range 35–42 ◦ C. They found that the PCM exploitation
leads to a significant PV temperature reduction raising PV energy output
by 5.18%. Besides that, they referred to a noticeable enhancement of the
total energy (i.e. energetic sum) of the PV + PCM/T system due to its
additional capability for thermal energy generation. However, it should
be highlighted that the electric power generated by the PV + PCM/T
application was slightly lower than the corresponding value for the PV
+ PCM system.
Shastry and Arunachala (2020) investigated another type of PV/T +
PCM concept, which incorporated an additional metal matrix in the
form of a honeycomb in the PCM container. An outdoor experiment
carried out to test the overall performance of their concept comparing
1285
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
the energy output characteristics of three PV units (i.e. a commercial PV
unit, a PV/T + PCM and PV/T + PCM + Metal matrix unit). They re­
ported that the enhancement of 8.6% in PV energy conversion efficiency
appeared due to PCM + Metal matrix integration (Shastry and Aru­
nachala, 2020).
Additional investigations have been conducted by some scholars to
balance the aggregated effect of a PCM and thermal collector incorpo­
ration for PV cooling and to estimate the overall energy generation of
such a system. In these researches, various syntheses for the optimisa­
tion of the thermal conductivity and water-flow rate, as well as several
categories of PCM, have been examined. Many of these papers reported
that the PV/T + PCM concept presents high solar energy conversion
efficiency because of its potentiality to generate low-temperature ther­
mal energy that can be further exploited in pre-heating water systems.
However, a PV/T + PCM unit could only substitute solar applications in
cases that the utilisation of hot water produced is meaningful (e.g. urban
environment, industry, tourist accommodation).
2.3. Alternative PCM-centred solar systems
Recently, a more targeted analysis of PV + PCM systems is taking
place to achieve their optimal adaptation. Towards this direction,
several researchers have introduced alternative shapes of PCM enclo­
sures to enhance the PV heat removal rate, the cost-effectiveness, and
the sustainability of these solar systems.
Huang (2011) developed an alternative method for thermal regula­
tion of PVs by introducing the simultaneous utilisation of different PCM
couples in triangular cells fitted in the PCM enclosure. To check the
efficiency of this modified PV + PCM approach, a suitable adjustment of
a numerical model evolved for the single PCM exploitation took place.
Subsequently, several numerical simulations of multiple PCM combi­
nations run for the summer conditions in the UK. Two types of metal
cells shapes (i.e. triangular and half-circular) were considered for the
encapsulation of the two separate PCMs as concerns to their melting
points. In all combinations, PV + PCM unit temperature was maintained
under 30 ◦ C leading to a rise in PV-efficiency; the RT27–RT21 combi­
nation handled most efficiently the PV temperature under 22 ◦ C during
the selected period. However, RT27-RT27 combination was accepted as
a more capable option for long-term regulating of the PV temperature
rise. Finally, the proposed alternative prevailed against the typical
approach of using a single PCM, as regards to the thermal regulation
capability and temperature uniformity on the PV surfaces.
In the same pattern, Atkin and Farid (2015) examined both experi­
mentally and numerically the enhancement of the thermal management
potential for PVs by the infusion of graphite into PCM, as well as the
configuration of a PCM enclosure with external fins. To this end, three
test cases for the controlling of PV temperature were developed; a PV +
PCM unit filled in graphite-infused PCM, a PV module coupled with a
finned plate, and a PV + PCM unit that employed an externally-finned
container to embed the graphite-mixed PCM. They found that the
enclosure which incorporates graphite soaked PCM and fins is the option
of peak performance, as the PV efficiency could be increased by 12.97%.
Japs et al. (2016) tested the capability of pristine and mixed PCMs for
PV thermal mitigation. Both PCMs macro-encapsulated in bags had the
same melting point, while the mixed PCM exhibited lesser thermal
storage capacity and better thermal conductivity because of the graphite
inclusion.
As stated by the findings, the energy-economic performance of the
tested PV + PCM systems was recorded unfavourable as against the
reference case, even though the positive trend has appeared during the
1st half of the tested days. Finally, they concluded that a mixed PCM
would supply more effectively PV cooling as compared with a pristine
PCM.
Waqas et al. (2017) offered an inspired approach of applying PCM for
the thermal regulation of PVs. In their approach, the paraffin RT24 was
filled in copper pipes, which were settled at the rear layer of the PV
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Fig. 1. Schematic outline of the selected PV module and PV + PCM system prototype.

module with suitable thermal paste. To measure the effects of the pro­
Table 1
posed PV + PCM system, the researchers conducted a 2-day experi­
Characteristic parameters of the investigated type of PV module.
mental procedure in Hefei, China. The main findings indicated that a
temperature drop by 8.5 ◦ C in the PV front layer, as well as amelioration Parameter Value

of 3% in energy efficiency, is possible. As concluded, the pipe based PCM Type of module Monocrystalline solar module
enclosure was far more cost-effective than a typical aluminium rectan­ Manufacturer LUXOR
Rated power 10 Wp
gular enclosure as a significantly lower quantity of PCM was utilized. In
Number of cells 4×9
a repetition study, Waqas et al. (2019) found that the PCM (with melting Rated voltage 17.39 V
range 30–32 ◦ C) encapsulation in aluminium tubes achieved the miti­ Rated current 0.58 A
gation of PV temperature by 2.8 ◦ C (on average) during daylight hours, Open circuit voltage 21.60 V
enhancing its conversion efficiency up to 2%. Short circuit current 0.64 A
Cell size 62.5 × 31.25 mm
In 2017, Hachem et al. presented an experimental examination of the
Weight 1.5 kg
impact of utilizing diverse types of PCM (i.e. pure and mixed) on the Power tolerance 0/+5%
thermal response and energy output of a PV module. For achieving this Temperature coefficient of power − 0.49%/◦ C
goal, a testing trial consisting of three exemplar cases was developed. Temperature coefficient of current − 0.05%/◦ C
Temperature coefficient of voltage − 0.35%/◦ C
The exemplar A was a commercial PV module as the baseline, while
exemplar cases B and C were formed with PCM enclosures that included
the pure PCM and mixed PCM (in a mass of 70% PCM, 20% copper and In details, three mc-Si PV modules manufactured by LUXOR Solar
10% graphite). Their results demonstrated a mean enhancement of 3% GmbH (Solo Line LX-10M) with a nominal power of 10Wp and di­
and 5.8% in the PV efficiency due to the integration of pure PCM and mensions of 353 mm × 293 mm × 35 mm served as testing cases in the
mixed PCM, respectively (Hachem et al., 2017). experimental procedure. One PV module without any modification was
The evidence presented in this section suggests that the optimisation considered as reference, and the other twain PV modules were coupled
of the correlation between the cost of the PCM enclosure and its effi­ with the copper-based PCM enclosures to encapsulate the selected sorts
ciency is critical for further development of the PV + PCM technology. In of paraffin RT27 and RT31, respectively. Each of the PCM enclosures
that sense, an optimal system design should be based on the recognition was made of copper pipes and fittings with an inner diameter of 20 mm,
of the real needs and potential obstacles of PV + PCM application, as arranged properly in a 2 mm thick copper plate to mimic a heat sink. In
well as the gaining of the highest PCM enclosure’s performance from the such a configuration, the copper pipes with PCM were expected to play
minimum required quantity of PCM. the role of external fins. The dimensions of these tubular formations
were in good accordance with the length and the width of the PV
3. Method and materials modules. In the present study, PCMs used were paraffin waxes RT27 and
RT31 which are characterised by heat storage capacities of 179 kJ/kg
3.1. Experimental set up and 165 kJ/kg and melting temperatures of 27 ◦ C and 31 ◦ C, respec­
tively. As the PCMs are positioned at the PV modules back, any potential
Before the analysis, two similar PV + PCM systems were devised and malfunction linked to the PCM volume expansion and its density during
fabricated to enable the quantification of the gains arising from diverse the phase change process should be avoided. Therefore, the PCM
PCMs inclusion at the rear surface of conventional PV modules. These enclosure fabrication was suitably adapted considering these specific
PV + PCM prototypes were exploited to undertake real-field experi­ parameters. Hence, the peak operative volume of each these enclosures
ments monitoring their efficiency. Fig. 1 depicts an indicative outline of was 340 mL, while the total mass of the inserted PCM was approximately
the adopted PV + PCM concept. 260 g. A short overview of the technical details for the PV modules and

1286
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Table 2 data were gathered from the meteorological station installed at the
Thermal and physical properties of the selected PCMs. campus of Technical University of Crete and is part of the developed
Parameter units PCM RT 27 PCM RT 31 network of the National Observatory of Athens (Lagouvardos et al.,
values 2017).
Melting area ◦
C 25–28 27–33 The electrical measurements acquisition system comprised of a
Main melting point ◦
C 27 31 validated I-V tracer and a hosting computer. In detail, the I-V tracer was
Congealing area ◦
C 28–25 33–27 wired by means of a switch to the PV module and the PV + PCM systems
Heat storage capacity [±7,5%] kJ/kg 179 165 to enable their output current and voltage signals recording. By using
Specific heat capacity kJ/kg⋅K 2 2
Density solid kg/L 0.88 0.88
the proper commercial software (RealTerm version 2.0.0.70), the elec­
Density liquid kg/L 0.76 0.76 trical parameters (i.e. ISC, VOC, IMAX, VMAX) were measured for the three
Heat conductivity W/m⋅K 0.2 0.2 PV modules with a 10 s delay considered being simultaneous. The entire
Volume expansion % 12.5 12.5 experimental set-up is depicted in Fig. 2 and detailed info about the
Flash point C 146 157
experimental sampling devices in Table 3.
◦

the main characteristics of the selected PCMs are reported in Tables 1

and 2, respectively.
Throughout the experimental process, the three modules were Table 3
mounted on the same base fixed at an inclination of 30◦ from the hori­ Summary description of the data sampling devices and sensors.
zontal and an azimuth angle of 0◦ (south-facing) to be examined under Measurement Device Model Measurement Measurement
the same conditions. Apart from the systems to be tested (i.e. PV refer­ parameter range error

ence, PV + PCM27 system, PV + PCM31 system) and the components for Solar in-plane Kipp & Zonen CMP6 0–2000 Wm− 2
<4%
their outdoor installation, the experimental setup consisted of an irradiance pyranometer
Current I-V tracer NA 0.5–40 A
appropriate data acquisition system including sampling devices and ±2%
Voltage 10–250 V
parts utilised to monitor their thermal and the electrical performance. Back surface Omega digital HH309A − 200 to ±0.2% (rdg +
The operating temperature of PVs characterising their thermal per­ temperature data logger 1370 ◦ C 1 ◦ C)
formance was monitored utilising three K-type thermocouples, which thermometer
were centrally settled at the backside of the PVs and between of the PV Front surface Powerfix − 50 to 380 ◦ C ±0.5 ◦ C
temperature infrared
+ PCM systems’ elements. To assure enhanced conduction and precise
thermometer
temperature observations, an appropriate thermal paste was applied. Thermal image Irisys thermal 4010 NA NA
These measurements were collected by a digital data logger thermom­ camera
eter and delivered to a hosting computer through proper software. Ambient Davis Wireless − 40 to 65 ◦ C ±0.3 ◦ C (rdg
temperature1 Weather Vantage 16–38 ◦ C)
Moreover, an infrared temperature probe having an accuracy of ±0.5 ◦ C
Wind speed1 station Pro2 3–241 km/h ±5%
was used to record manually the PV modules temperature at the front Wind 0–360◦ ±3◦
surface. Supplementary, the thermal behaviour of the PV + PCM systems direction1
and PV reference could be recognised as concerns the temperature dis­ Solar 0 to 1800 W/ ±5%
tribution by employing a thermal camera (IRYSIS 4010). irradiance on m2
a horizontal
А pyranometer CMP6 (KippZonen) fixed on the top of the experi­
surface1
mental set-up connected with a digital multimeter were used to compute
1
the total incident radiation reaching the surface of the PVs. The weather Source: Lagouvardos et al. (2017).

Fig. 2. Schematic depicture of experimental set-up.

1287
N. Savvakis et al.
Fig. 3. Overall presentation of the experimental procedure adopted.
3.2. Experimental procedure
The experiments were executed in the ReSEL facilities (latitude:
35o31′ 0N, altitude: 24o04′ 0E) under the real-field conditions of Medi­
terranean coastal areas, such as Chania, Greece. Generally, the major
part of metering data was logged on 10-minute intervals, from 8:00 to
18:00. An indicative flowchart of the experimental procedure is given in
Fig. 3. The experimental measurements indicating the energy perfor­
mance of the three PV systems were gathered along the five-month
monitoring period (12 February 2019–12 July 2019). In this research,
1288
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
data from 22nd of February, 14th of March, 10th of April, 3rd and 13th
of May, 20th and 25th of June 2019 are obtained as representative for
the goal-oriented analysis.
Before the beginning of the experiments, the three PV modules
without any modification (e.g. PCM enclosures integration) were
checked for two days as concerns to their energy performance consis­
tency. According to the measurements received, they operated similarly
presenting a slight difference of 2%, which is associated with the I-V
tracer accuracy.
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Fig. 4. Variation of the operating temperature of the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems, ambient temperature, wind speed, solar irradiance during the
selected experimental days: (a) 22/2/2019, (b) 14/3/2019, (c) 10/4/2019, (d) 3/5/2019, (e) 13/5/2019, (f) 20/6/2019 and (g) 25/6/2019).

3.3. PV and PV + PCM systems performance analysis
To assess the PV and PV + PCM systems’ performance a set of in­
dicators were calculated using data logged during the experimental
procedure (i.e. solar irradiance, current, voltage, open-circuit voltage
and short circuit current, temperature):
• Instantaneous maximum PV power generation (PMAX)
• Daily PV power output (EDC,d)
• PV module’s electrical efficiency (nELEC)
• Fill factor (FF).
More specifically, the incident sunlight power on the front surface of
a PV module is calculated by (Kalogirou, 2009):
PINC = GT ⋅A
The instantaneous maximum power generation of a PV module is
computed by the formula (Kalogirou, 2009):
PMAX = IMAX ⋅VMAX
The electrical efficiency of a PV module with and without PCM is
possible to be defined by the following equation (Kalogirou, 2009):
PMAX IMAX ⋅VMAX
nELEC = = (3)
PINC GT ⋅A
The fill factor is estimated by the formula (Kalogirou, 2009):
IMAX VMAX
FF =
ISC VOC
The daily energy output over a daily period [t1, tN] is computed via
Simpsons’ rule by the simplified equation (Hansen et al.,2012):
performance requires a deep insight into the heat transfer mechanisms
involved (e.g. conduction, convection, radiation exchange). In such an
approximation, the calculation of Tmb (PV+PCM) should consider the
complexities of these mechanisms, as well as the specific features of PCM
(Huang, 2011). On the other hand, there is a significant number of
explicit equations expressing the PV module temperature, in response to
the relevant weather parameters (i.e. Tα, VW, GΤ) in the literature
(Skoplaki et al., 2008). These equations are simplest for use, and their
prior evaluation is suggested for better estimation of Tmb in different
climate zones.
Bearing in mind the shaping details of the proposed alternative PV +
PCM system (e.g. PCM quantity used, PCM container design, etc.), an
empirical model for the quick estimation of Tmb (PV+PCM) can be
formulated using multiple linear regression. More specifically, a linear
equation for the dependent variable (i.e. Tmb (PV+PCM)) using three in­
(1)
dependent variables X1,X2 and X3 representing GT, Tα and VW, respec­
tively can be given in a general form, as follows:
yi = b0 + b1 ⋅xi,1 + b2 ⋅xi,2 + ⋯ + bk− 1 ⋅xi,k− 1 + ei (6)
(2)
where yi is the predicted Tmb (PV+PCM) and assumes ith independent error
ei ~ N(0,σ2) (Savvakis and Tsoutsos, 2015; Charles Lawrence Kamuyu
et al., 2018).
Correspondingly, the proposed model can be expressed as:
Tmb(PV+PCM) = b0 + b1 ⋅GT + b2 ⋅Ta + b3 ⋅VW (7)
where b0, b1, b2, b3 are the regression coefficients for the tested system.
(4)
4. Results and discussion
4.1. PV thermal behaviour under outdoor weather conditions

t ∑N
In the current section, the experimental data of the PV modules
EDC,d = ⋅ PMAX (ti ) (5)
T i=1 operation with and without the selected PCMs are examined. To meet
this objective, the weather records, and the temperature curves of the
conventional PV module and PV + PCM systems along seven represen­
3.4. PV and PV + PCM systems operating temperature prediction
tative days were studied. Fig. 4 illustrate the evolution of the operating
temperatures of the PV reference (Tmb (reference case)/Tmf (reference case)), the
The accurate estimation of a PV + PCM system’s thermal

1289
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Fig. 5. Short-Circuit Current (ISC) and Open-Circuit Voltage (VOC) for the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems during the selected experimental days: a)
22/2/2019, b)14/3/2019, c)10/4/2019, d)3/5/2019, e)13/5/2019, f)20/6/2019 and g)25/6/2019.

1290
N. Savvakis et al.
PV + PCM27 system (Tmb (PV+PCM27)/Tmf (PV+PCM27)) and the PV +
PCM31 system (Tmb (PV+PCM31)/Tmf (PV+PCM31)), as well as the weather
parameters including in-plane solar irradiance (GT), ambient tempera­
ture (Tα) and wind velocity (VW) during the selected experimental days.
The curves related to the working conditions of the PV reference and
the PV + PCM systems during a sunny winter day of weak wind
(February 22nd, 2019) are displayed at first in Fig. 4. The Tmb (reference
case) reached its maximum value of 51.9 C at 13:00, when the GT, Tα and
◦
VW were 1006 W m , 13.4 C and 11.3 km h− 1, respectively. At the
− 2 ◦
same time, the Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31) observed lightly lower
by 2.4 ◦ C and 2.6 ◦ C, respectively. At the start of the experimental day’s
cycle, the operating temperature of the PV + PCM27 system has
increased steadily from 10.2 ◦ C at 8:00 to 40.8 ◦ C at 11:10 (in about 3.2
h) continuing under 50 ◦ C for the rest of the day. The positive impact of
the PCM27 embedding observed mainly in the period from 9:40 to
11:00, when the ΔΤ (Tmb (reference case)/Tmb (PV+PCM27)) presented a mean
value of 3.1 ◦ C. The Tmb (PV+PCM31) varied from 10.2 ◦ C at 8:00 to 40.3 ◦ C
at 11:10, while the maximum value of ΔΤ (Tmb (reference case)/Tmb
(PV+PCM31)) equalled to 4.3 C at 11:30. Additionally, the temperature
◦
deviation was presented negative, varying between − 0.2 ◦ C at 15:10 and
− 4.7 ◦ C at 17:00 for the PV-PCM27 system, indicating a slower time-
response of the PCM27-based system to the rapid decrease of GT. A
similar trend has been also recorded for the PV + PCM31 system at the
same time. In general, the effect of GT variation on Tmb (PV+PCM27) and
Tmb (PV+PCM31) can also be recognized in the temperature curves logged
on the dates of 14/3/2019 and 13/5/2019, when a smoother variation
of temperature and lag of changes as against the Tmb (reference case) noted as
the result of PCMs’ use.
Under the influence of weather on 10th of April 2019, the recorded
values of Tmb (reference case), Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31) lied within
the ranges of 13.7–43.1 ◦ C, 13.3–39.2 ◦ C and 13.4 ◦ C − 39.1 ◦ C,
respectively. In more detail, Tmb (reference case) rose almost evenly during
the first daytime hours from 13.7 ◦ C at 8:00 to 30.1 ◦ C at 10:40 and
retained between 31.9 ◦ C and 43.1 ◦ C for a period> 6 h. The maximum
Tmb (reference case) of 43.1 ◦ C was found at 13:50, which is 25.5 ◦ C greater
than Tα. The thermal profiles of the PV PCM27 and PV PCM31 systems
(i.e. Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31)curves) followed the Tmb (reference
case) curve variation. However, both PCM-based systems operated in
lower temperatures than the Tmb (reference case) values, due to the observed
synergistic effect of the PCMs and VW. That effect presented until 17:00
when their values observed higher than the reference at the end of the
experimental day’s cycle. The comparative assessment of the tested
PCMs effectiveness pointed out that PCM31 held a marginally lower
temperature than PCM27 until midday which stemmed from their
different thermal properties (i.e. melting temperature range). The peak
temperature reduction of 7.5 ◦ C obtained by the PCM31-based system at
12:30, compared to the 6.4 ◦ C by the PV + PCM27 system recorded at
the same time, against the matching values of the reference case. Be­
sides, the embedding of PCM contributed to the diminishing of the mean
PV operating temperature by about 3 ◦ C. Considering that a PCM
quantity of 0.26 kg was exploited in the tested PV + PCM systems, the
achieved temperature difference at the peak is far from negligible. This
finding explained by the calculated effective PCM mass coefficient of
0.34 kg/m2⋅oC, which is substantially lower than the reported values in
the literature (Waqas et al., 2018).
As shown in Fig. 4(f), GT increased steadily from 98 W m− 2at 8:00 to
906 W m− 2 at 13:40, while it remained above 750 W m− 2for about 4.5 h.
At the end of the experiment, the corresponding value was equal to 463
W m− 2. The VW ranged from 1.6 km h− 1/h to 11.3 km h− 1with a mean of
6.8 km h− 1, indicating a day of weak wind. The Tα fluctuated from
22.4 ◦ C at 8:00 to its peak value of 29.1 ◦ C at 13:20 with a mean value of
26.9 ◦ C. Under the given weather conditions on 20th of June 2019, the
observed values for Tmb (reference case), Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31)
were in the ranges of 28.8–55.7 ◦ C, 27.0–54.2 ◦ C and 27.4− 54.1 ◦ C,
respectively. More specifically, Tmb (reference case) grew smoothly in the
morning hours from 28.8 ◦ C at 8:00 to 50.8 ◦ C at 11:40 and retained over
1291
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
50 ◦ C for about 5 h (between 11:40 and 16:20). The peak temperature of
55.7 ◦ C was found at 14:30 when the GT, Tα and VW were 906 W m− 2,
28.7 ◦ C and 8 km h− 1, respectively. The related values of the Tmf (reference
case) were presented marginally lowered, while an identical evolution is
pointed out. As concerns to the thermal behavior of the PV + PCM27 and
PV + PCM31 systems, the Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31) recorded
following the same trend of Tmb (reference case) curve; however, both the PV
+ PCM systems maintained lower temperature than the case of reference
until 16.00 when the Tmb (reference case) equalled for 1.5 h to their corre­
sponding values (Fig. 4(f)). Comparing the impact of the PCMs
employed, PCM27 kept a slightly lower temperature than PCM31 until
noon times which can be recognised due to the differentiation in their
specific properties (i.e. thermal capacity). The maximum temperature
mitigation of 3.9 ◦ C was achieved by PCM31 at 9:00, compared to the
3.8 ◦ C of PV + PCM27 at 8:40, against the corresponding values of the
PV reference. Also, the PCM inclusion assisted in the declining of the
average PV operating temperature of about 2 ◦ C. Taking into consider­
ation that a PCM quantity of 0.26 kg was used in the tested PV + PCM
systems, the peak temperature difference cannot be considered as
negligible, since the index of effective PCM mass coefficient of 0.67 kg/
m2⋅oC is also significantly lower than the reported values in similar
studies.
The variation of the operating data of the PV reference and the PV-
PCM systems during a summer day with strong wind is presented in
Fig. 4(g). The Tmb (reference case) reached its maximum value of 55.5 ◦ C at
14:00, which is about 30 ◦ C higher than the Tα. The temperature profile
of the PV reference mimics the variation trend of the GT and Tα, while
the effect of VW can also be considered as significant. On the other hand,
the Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31) are noted mildly lower in the value
area 27.7–53.6 ◦ C, because of the mitigation influence of the embedded
PCMs. At the beginning of the test, the operating temperature of the PV
+ PCM27 system rose progressively from 27.7 ◦ C at 8:00 to 45.8 ◦ C at
10:00 (in 2 h) remaining under 50 ◦ C for a total period of about 3.6 h.
Similarly, Tmb (PV+PCM31) ranged from 28.1 ◦ C at 8:00 to 45.4 ◦ C at
10:00, while a temperature-rise rate of 3.5 ◦ C h− 1 observed after that
time for 2 h. However, the effect of PCMs’ minimised after 11:00 to
14:00 when the mean temperature deviation among the conventional
PV module and the PV + PCM systems was about 1.7 ◦ C. This limitation
appeared simultaneously with the decrease of wind velocity from 41.8
km h− 1 at 11:00 to 27.4 km h− 1at 14:00, demonstrating its significant
impact on the developed PCM enclosure as the main determinant of the
free-convective heat-exchange process. Moreover, the temperature
alteration presented its maximum value of 3.8 ◦ C at 16:30 for the PV-
PCM27 and a maximum of 3.6 ◦ C at 16:10 against the Tmb (reference case)
of 52.9 ◦ C. This phenomenon can be attributed to the cumulative in­
fluence of (i) the decreasing trend of GT, (ii) the lower values of Tα and
(iii) the high values of VW during the afternoon time. During the
experimental process, the VW ranged between 24.1 and 49.9 km h− 1, the
Tα varied from 23.4 ◦ C to 26.6 ◦ C and GT was in the range from 98 W
m− 2 at 8:00 to 920 W m− 2 at 13:40. Consequently, these results indicate
that VW, as well as the PCM inclusion, achieved a synergistic effect in PV
cooling along the testing day.
4.2. PV electrical characteristics
The temperature decrease achieved by PCM inclusion influenced the
voltage (V) and current (I) output of the tested PV modules, as defined
from the relative temperature dependence coefficients. Fig. 5(a–g) show
the variation of the short-circuit current (ISC) and open-circuit voltage
(VOC) for the PV reference, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems for
the selected days.
Indicatively, Fig. 5(b) indicates the comparing of VOC and ISC output
among the investigated systems. Along the main part of the experi­
mental day’s cycle, the cells of the conventional PV module generate
lower VOC (in the range:19.75–22.81 V) while the PV cells in the PV +
PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems observed with higher values (within
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Fig. 6. Temperature difference at the back surface between the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems, the variation of their power output and energy
conversion efficiency during specific experimental days of spring and summer: (a) 14/3/2019, (b) 10/4/2019, (c) 20/6/2019, (d) 25/6/2019.

the ranges: 20.24–22.86 V and 20.22–22.85 V, respectively) and limited
fluctuation. The deviations of the VOC (PV+PCM27) and VOC (PV+PCM31)
profiles against the related VOC (PV reference) curve are resulted mainly by
the ability of the PCMs’ employed to ensure lower operating tempera­
tures and limit their sharp changes. As concerns the response of ISC (PV
reference), ISC (PV+PCM27) and ISC (PV+PCM31), the related values were mainly
affected by the large variation of GT while the impact of the Tmb values
received by the three tested systems was practically insignificant. A
similar variation trend of the tested PV modules’ electrical parameters in
unstable weather conditions was pointed out in Fig. 5(e).
As shown in Fig. 5(c), the ISC (PV reference) elevated steadily from 0.06 A
at 8:00 to 0.68 A at 13:10, and thereafter declined to 0.28 A at 16:50
under the influence of GT variation. Proportionally, the recorded ISC
(PV+PCM27) and ISC (PV+PCM31) were 0.06 A and 0.07A at 8:00; 0.67 A and
0.66 A at 13:10; and 0.29 A and 0.28 A at 18:00. This minor alteration of
ISC (PV reference) may be caused by the higher working temperatures of the

1292
N. Savvakis et al.
Fig. 6. (continued).
reference case in comparison with the PCM-supported systems. In
contrast, VOC (PV+PCM27) and VOC (PV+PCM31) values found greater than
VOC (PV reference) along the experimental cycle while their mean values
were of 21.17 V, 21.18 V and 20.95 V, respectively. In reliance on the
fluctuation lines of VOC, a negative impact underlined for the tested PV
modules’ output due to the rising of the PV temperature. However, this
effect on the PV + PCM systems recognized as smoother, while a clear
VOC difference between the PV reference against the PCM-embedded
systems occurred between 9:00–17:00.
According to the results shown in Fig. 5(f), the ISC (PV reference) was
0.11 A at 8:00 that raised gradually 0.72 A at 13:40, and subsequently
1293
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
decreased to 0.37 A at 18:00, following the GT curve with time. Corre­
spondingly, the values for the PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems
were 0.11 A and 0.10A at 8:00; 0.71 A and 0.72 A at 13:40; and 0.34 A
and 0.36 A at 18:00. The marginal increase of ISC (PV reference) attributes to
the higher operating temperatures of the reference case as compared to
the PCM-based systems. Besides, VOC (PV+PCM27) and VOC (PV+PCM31) were
retained higher than VOC (PV reference) during the experiment with peak
values of 21.76 V, 21.64 V and 20.85 V, respectively. Based on the
variation curves of VOC, it can be highlighted that the relative values for
the PV PCM systems raised in compliance with the solar irradiance
evolution until 9:20 when a negative trend presented as the result of the
N. Savvakis et al.
Fig. 7. Daily electric energy output of the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems for the selected experimental days.
rising of the PV temperature. This temperature effect lasted for about
6.5 h, while the maximum VOC difference between the PV reference and
the PV + PCM systems appeared in two distinct periods (between
8:00–9:50 and 13:10–14:30). In correspondence, the data for the elec­
trical characteristics (i.e. ISC-VOC curves) of the experimentally evalu­
ated PVs recorded on May 3rd, 2019, presented a similar response to the
fluctuation of the weather parameters (Fig. 5(d)). The high values of
wind velocity during a summer day (June 25th, 2019) affected reason­
ably the VOC output of the PV + PCM systems, considering that a con­
stant temperature difference against the PV reference occurred. As
recognised in Fig. 5(g), the measured maximum and mean VOC of the PV
reference, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems were 20.2 V and 18.1
V, 21.4 V and 18.7 V, 21.3 V and 18.6 V, respectively; also, a gradual
decline in the VOC values took place from 9:30 to 18:00 due to the PV
modules’ temperature rise. As concerns to the measurements of ISC for
the three modules, a similar fluctuation with no significant deviations
among the PV reference and the PV + PCM systems was recorded during
the whole experimental procedure. Furthermore, the profiles of ISC (PV
reference), ISC (PV+PCM27) and ISC (PV+PCM31) were not affected by the tem­
perature rise, while the corresponding values were proportional to solar
irradiance.
4.3. Power output and conversion efficiency
The current section of this study gets ahead in analysing the essential
issues regarding the electrical efficiency of the experimentally investi­
gated cases. The recorded measurements of V and I for the PV module
and the PV + PCM systems were fully tapped to compute the power
output and solar energy conversion efficiency during the selected days.
Hereafter, the maximal and daily mean values of the energy earnings
were estimated from the variation of the power output curve along the
experiment periods.
According to the obtained results, the electricity generated by the PV
+ PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems over the major part of a typical
summer day with low wind velocity was slightly higher than the pro­
duced by the PV reference because of the temperature difference among
them, as can be identified by Fig. 6(c). In particular, the power outputs
of the PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems were 1.02 W and 0.98 W at
8:00, which corresponds to a rise of 6.2% and 2% compared to the PV
1294
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
ref, respectively. These values steadily elevated to 9.58 W and 9.34 W at
13:10 when the passive cooling effect was limited. During the period
from 14:00 to 18:00, a downward trend appeared, while the PV modules
were performing under negligible alteration. For example, at 14:50, the
power by the reference PV module, the PV + PCM27 system and PV +
PCM31 system were 8.85 W, 8.94 W and 8.76 W, respectively. Overall,
the energy output per day by the PV + PCM27 system and the PV +
PCM31 system was 69.82 Wh/day and 69.27 Wh/day, while the PV
reference generated 67.59 Wh/day.
In summary, these results revealed that both PCMs selected
contributed to PV power increment and indicated that a greater PCM
quantity could reach better results and time-consistency with the period
of high solar irradiance.
Following the power output profiles of the tested cases, a significant
improvement, ranged from 5% to 9%, in the efficiency of the PV + PCM
systems was monitored between 8:00 and 9:50 (Fig. 6(c)). After that
time, the PV modules’ efficiencies were lessening reasonably even
though the PCM-based systems operated in marginally lower tempera­
tures as compared to the reference case. The mean and the peak energy
conversion efficiencies were 10.22% and 10.92%, 10.17% and 10.88%,
9.87% and 10.57% for the PV + PCM27 system, the PV + PCM31 system
and PV the PV reference, respectively.
From Fig. 6(d), it is apparent that the PV modules cooled by the
tubular PCM enclosure presented improved efficiencies and higher
electricity production than the conventional module in the length of
time during a summer day with increased wind velocity. More specif­
ically, the ranges of power generation were from 1.17 W to 9.44 W for
the PV + PCM27, from 1.15 W to 9.39 W for the PV + PCM31 and from
1.06 W to 9.18 W for the PV reference. The mean value of the power
enhancement achieved by the PCM27 and PCM31 inclusion was 3.56%
and 2.59%, respectively. As shown in Fig. 6(d), the power output pro­
files of the tested systems follow the GT curve, while the wind effect is
notably significant. For instance, at 12:50, the power generation of the
reference PV module, PV + PCM27 system and PV + PCM31 system
were observed 9.07 W, 9.25 W and 9.26 W, respectively, when the GT,
Tα and VW were 892 W m− 2, 26.2 ◦ C and 35.4 km h− 1, respectively.
Comparing the corresponding values of 8.96 W, 9.17 W and 9.15 W, at
14:00, when the VW decreased to 26.4 km h− 1 while the GT and Tα
remained constant, the synergistic effect of wind by increasing the free-
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Table 4
Multiple linear regression analysis for the PV + PCM31 system under diverse weather conditions.
Tmb (PV + Testing conditions
PCM31) model
ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > ΚT > ΚT >
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 0.5, 0.5, 0.5,
VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ VW ≥
km h− 1 19 km 19 km 19 km km h− 1 19 km km h− 1 19 19
h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 km km
h− 1 h− 1

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 3 49,350 26,218 16,450 8739 2502 1028 <0.0001 <0.0001

Residual 425 204 2794 1735 7 9
Total 428 207 52,144 27,953

Coefficients Standard Error t-Stat P- value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Constant 4.414 4.815 0.5414 1.186 8.154 4.058 <0.0001 <0.0001 3.350 2.476 5.479 7.154
GT 0.025 0.029 0.0005 0.001 48.338 34.611 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.024 0.027 0.026 0.030
VW − 0.079 0.101 0.0388 0.025 − 2.038 4.098 0.0422 <0.0001 − 0.155 0.053 − 0.003 0.150
Tα 0.938 0.685 0.0208 0.027 45.071 25.066 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.898 0.631 0.979 0.739

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.97 0.97

R2 0.95 0.94
R2 adjusted 0.95 0.94
Standard Error 2.56 2.92
Observations 429 208

convection heat transfer from the rear side of the PV + PCM systems, can
be recognised.
Along the same lines, the results of the PV module efficiency (Fig. 6
(d)) demonstrated a clear enhancement in the energy conversion effi­
ciency of the PV modules with PCM as their variation ranged from
9.45% to 11.81% in case of using PCM27 and from 9.31% to 11.82% in
case of using PCM31. The corresponding values for the PV module
without PCM was from 9.19% to 11.21%. Thus, the average increment
of the efficiency of the PV + PCM27 and the PV + PCM31 systems
compared to the reference case was 3.74% and 2.59%, respectively.
Also, it should be underlined that the observed efficiency improvement
presented a positive trend, from 8:00 to 10:10 and 15:50 to 17:10, due to
the aggregated influence of the used PCMs and the wind velocity.
From Fig. 6(b), it becomes clear that the PV + PCM systems operated
in better efficiencies and enlarged electricity output in comparison with
the PV reference during a spring day with moderate wind velocity. The
monitored power generation of the PV + PCM27 system ranged from
0.94 W to 9.87 W, while the matching values for the PV + PCM31 system
and the PV reference were from 0.94 W to 9.93 W and from 0.96 W to
9.41 W, respectively. Hence, the highest power enhancement achieved
by the PCM27 and PCM31 embedding was 4.19% and 4.24%, respec­
tively. it should be noted analysing further the recorded energy data that
the power output curves of the researched systems meet the GT curve
trend, while the wind effect on them is observed. Indicatively, at 13:30,
the PV, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems’ power output were
equal to 9.41 W, 9.84 W and 9.93 W, respectively, under the conditions:
GT of 1033 W m− 2, Tα of 16.9 ◦ C and VW of 19.3 km h− 1. As illustrated in
Fig. 6(d), the PV efficiency improved by the PCM27 inclusion ranging
from 8.99% to 10.21%, while the corresponding values using PCM31
were in the range 9.01% to 10.22%. The efficiency range (i.e. 8.47% to
10.18%) observed for the case of the PV module without PCM reflected
its poor performance. Consequently, the average efficiency increment
achieved by the PV + PCM27 and the PV + PCM31 systems as against
the reference case was 4.14% and 4.19%, respectively.
In Fig. 7, the energy production of the PV reference, PV + PCM27
system and PV + PCM31 system is illustrated. In the selected experi­
mental days in summer, the PV + PCM27 system produced more energy
(69.72 and 70.45 Wh/day) than the generated by the PV + PCM31
system (69.27 and 69.77 Wh/day). These results correspond to a slight
average increase of 3.4% and 2.5%, respectively, when compared with
the PV reference output (67.59 and 68.09 Wh/day). Contrariwise, PV +
PCM31 system presented slightly higher energy outputs (i.e. 54.79,
48.26, 69.42, 57.72 Wh/day) in the cases that weather instability
appeared (e.g.14/3/2019, 13/5/2019, etc.), demonstrating that except
for the melting area, the heat storage capacity plays a key role in the
thermal response of a PV + PCM system under varying operating
weather conditions.
4.4. Empirical models to estimate the operating temperature of the
investigated systems
Exploiting further the available experimental data, three similar
empirical approaches considered to estimate the operating temperature
of the proposed alternative PV + PCM systems and the PV reference.
These modelling approximations correlating Tmb, GT, Tα and VW at
different conditions were established using multiple linear regression.
The sample of data (i.e. 10% of the total) utilized for the analysis was
indicative of the prevailing conditions along the experimental period
while in parallel the restrictions (ΚT ≥ 0.5) have been taken into
consideration. Then, the received results examined statistically to
evaluate the accuracy of the identified approximations.
If ΚT ≥ 0.5 and VW < 19 km h− 1:
Tmb(PV+PCM31) = 4.414 + 0.025⋅GT + 0.938⋅Ta − 0.079⋅VW [8a]
An outline of the statistical analysis results for the PV + PCM31
system is given in Table 4. GT, Tα and VW examined as independent
variables of the gained relation under specific restrictions (i.e. ΚT ≥ 0.5
and VW < 19 km h− 1). The obtained values of correlation coefficient (R
= 0.97) and coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.95) highlight that the
proposed linear equation (8a) can be applied to estimate Tmb (PV+PCM31).
Further, the adjusted coefficient of determination (R2adj) of 0.95 in­
dicates that the model can be broadened for the total of the population
data. As stated by the analysis of variance (ANOVA), the dependent
relation among the proposed equation’s variables validated since its
results recognized as statistically significant considering that the
observed F-ratio is lower than the value of 0.001. To be interpreted the
main parameters of the model, some remarks explained in more details:

1295
N. Savvakis et al. Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300

Table 5
Multiple linear regression analysis for the PV + PCM27 system under diverse weather conditions.
Tmb (PV + Testing conditions
PCM27) model
ΚT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT > ΚTT >
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5,
VW < 19 VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ VW ≥
km h− 1 19 km 19 km 19 km km h− 1 19 km km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 19 19
h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 km km
h− 1 h− 1

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 3 52,243 25,741 17,414 8580 2479 1195 <0.0001 <0.0001

Residual 424 193 2978 1386 7 7
Total 427 196 55,221 27,127

Coefficients Standard Error t-Stat P- value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Constant 3.205 6.983 0.557 1.132 5.752 6.167 <0.0001 <0.0001 2.110 4.750 4.301 9.217
GT 0.024 0.032 0.001 0.001 45.308 40.098 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.023 0.030 0.026 0.033
VW − 0.087 0.095 0.039 0.023 − 2.226 4.048 0.027 <0.0001 − 0.164 0.049 − 0.010 0.141
Tα 1.037 0.564 0.022 0.025 47.820 22.137 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.995 0.513 1.080 0.614

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.97 0.97

R2 0.95 0.95
R2 adjusted 0.95 0.95
Standard 2.65 2.68
Error
Observations 428 197

• Tmb (PV+PCM31) raises with rising GT and Tα, as a consequence of the
corresponding coefficients positive sign.
• Conversely, Tmb (PV+PCM31) diminishes with increasing VW, as the
corresponding coefficient displayed a negative sign.
• The executed t-tests for the regression coefficients linked with the Tα
and GT (independent variables), yielded p < 0.001, so these variables
deemed as statistically significant. Contrariwise, the p-value of
0.0422 (≫0.0001) for the coefficient related to VW constituted an
indication of its minor statistical significance.
• By virtue of t-values, the predictor variables are arranged in the
following manner: GT, Tα and VW
If ΚT ≥ 0.5 and VW ≥ 19 km h− 1:
Tmb(PV+PCM31) = 4.815 + 0.029⋅GT + 0.685⋅Ta + 0.101⋅VW [8b]
By the results indicating the PV + PCM31 system’s thermal behav­
iour (Fig. 4.), in cases, the lower temperatures observed due to the
higher VW. Thus, the determination of a correlation under the specific
constraints (i.e. KT ≥ 0.5 and VW ≥ 19 Km h− 1) characterized as a
reasonable option. Correspondingly, multiple linear regression

Table 6
Multiple linear regression analysis for the PV reference under diverse weather conditions.
Tmb (PV Testing conditions
reference) model
ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > 0.5, ΚT > ΚT > ΚT >
0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ 19 0.5, 0.5, 0.5,
VW < 19 VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 km h− 1 VW ≥ 19 VW ≥ VW ≥
km h− 1 19 km 19 km 19 km km h− 1 19 km km h− 1 19 19
h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 h− 1 km km
h− 1 h− 1

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 3 68,744 26,120 22,915 8707 4742 1408 <0.0001 <0.0001

Residual 628 188 3035 1162 5 6
Total 631 191 71,779 27,282

Coefficients Standard Error t-Stat P- value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Constant 8.214 8.347 0.386 1.057 21.255 7.895 <0.0001 <0.0001 7.455 6.261 8.972 10.433
GT 0.029 0.032 0.000 0.001 85.241 41.503 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.028 0.030 0.029 0.033
VW − 0.091 0.088 0.022 0.022 − 4.123 4.086 <0.0001 <0.0001 − 0.135 0.045 − 0.048 0.130
Tα 0.810 0.594 0.013 0.025 64.536 23.750 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.785 0.545 0.834 0.644

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.98 0.98

R2 0.96 0.96
R2 adjusted 0.96 0.96
Standard 2.20 2.49
Error
Observations 632 192

1296
N. Savvakis et al.
Fig. 8. Simulation results and experimental data for the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems during two typical summer days (July 5th and July 12th,
2019) of weak wind (0–19 km h− 1).
employed to develop a linear equation among Tmb (PV+PCM31), GT, Tα and
VW. The developed equation (8b) presented a satisfactory ability to
predict the Tmb (PV+PCM31) as depicted by the statistical analysis results
(Table 4). In detail, the R, R2 and R2adj found equal to 0.97, 0.94 and
0.94, respectively, determining a high correlation between the regres­
sion variables. Moreover, the significance of the proposed model, as
concerns the estimation of the dependent variable (i.e. Tmb (PV+PCM31)),
is illustrated by the F-ratio value (<0.0001). To be explained the vari­
ables of the linear regression model, the main observations can be out­
lined as follows:
• Tmb (PV+PCM31) raises with rising GT, Tα and VW, because of the
regression coefficients positive sign. The observed relation among
1297
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
Tmb (PV+PCM31) and VW is converse than expected since a synergistic
effect of PCM31 and VW has been recorded in temperature variation
curves (Fig. 4). However, the small number of observations and
seasonality seemed to play a key role to form this result.
• The explanatory variables identified as significant, under the values
of the corresponding coefficients (p < 0.001) by the undertaken t-
tests.
• In reliance on t-values, the regression variables are ranked as follows:
GT, Tα and VW.
In a similar line with the analysis carried out for Tmb (PV+PCM31)
estimation under the diverse weather condition, the details related to
the statical investigations for the Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV reference)
N. Savvakis et al.
Fig. 9. Simulation results and experimental data for the PV-ref, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems during a summer day (June 25th, 2019) of high wind (>19
km h− 1).
estimation models summarized in Table 5 and Table 6, respectively.
4.4.1. Empirical models validation
Following the statistical analysis section, the developed empirical
equations validated by applying experimental data as illustrated in
Figs. 8 and 9. More precisely, the available data of three sunny days in
Chania utilized to simulate the operating temperature curves of the
investigated systems (i.e. PV + PCM27, PV + PCM31 and PV reference).
The prevailing weather conditions (i.e. GT, Tα and VW) were compliant
to the set constraints. In the sequel, the simulation results compared
1298
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
with the corresponding real-field results observed for the experimental
setup concurrently. As shown in Fig. 8(a–b), the simulation outcomes for
the PV reference, PV + PCM27 and PV + PCM31 systems during two
typical summer days of weak wind (i.e. 0–19 km h− 1) exhibited satis­
factory match with the experimental results. In the same lines, the
measured and modelled results for the PV reference, PV + PCM27 and
PV + PCM31 systems during a summer day of high wind (>19 km h− 1)
presented limited deviation as can be seen in Fig. 9(a–b). Mainly, the
observed errors appeared in the morning and afternoon times when the
effect of the irradiance rapid changes took place. The mean typical
N. Savvakis et al.
errors linked to the estimation of Tmb (reference case), Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb
(PV+PCM31 are calculated as 0.4 C, − 0.3 C and 0.5 C, respectively,
◦ ◦ ◦
while the corresponding maximum errors equalled to 5.5 ◦ C, 5.1 ◦ C and
5.2 ◦ C recorded at afternoon times.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In this research, the capabilities of PCM inclusion to alleviate the
impact of high temperatures on the PV module’s efficiency were
examined. To this aim, two alternative PCM enclosures were devised
and fabricated to encapsulate the selected sorts of paraffin RT27 and
RT31. The formed PV + PCM systems, as well as a conventional PV
module as a reference, were utilised to perform real-field experiments in
southern Greece. For the performance assessment of the testing PV and
PV + PCM systems, a set of relevant indicators was calculated using data
logged during the experimental procedure (February 2019 - July 2019).
Based on the undertaken analysis of the results from the testing systems,
the main conclusions derived are summarised as follows:
• The peak temperature reduction against the reference that achieved
by the inclusion of the PCM27 and PCM31 was 6.4 ◦ C and 7.5 ◦ C
(during a spring day), respectively. Although these values considered
as moderate, the effective PCM mass coefficient was equal to 0.34
kg/m2 oC.
• The design of PCM enclosures in tubular form gained enhanced free
convection coefficient, especially in times of high wind velocities, as
demonstrated by the observed temperature profiles of the PV +
PCM27 and PV + PCM31 in these periods.
• PV + PCM 27 and PV + PCM 31 systems exhibited an improved daily
energy production by 4.19% and 4.24%, respectively, while the
increment in the PV conversion efficiency by PCM incorporation was
in the range of 2.86–4.19%.
• Taking into consideration that 0.34 kg/m2 of PCM mass required to
decrease 1 ◦ C of PV temperature, further research adjusted on the
developed PV + PCM concept will take place, by optimizing the
quantity the used PCMs, varying the type of PCMs and life cost
analysis implementation.
• The development of separate empirical models to estimate the Tmb
(reference case), Tmb (PV+PCM27) and Tmb (PV+PCM31) values under outdoor
conditions was accomplished. According to the obtained results,
more detailed investigation to correlate Tmb and VW should take
place, so that the synergistic effect of high-wind and PCM inclusion
on PV cooling to be clarified.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would express their appreciation to Dr Kostas Lagou­
vardos (National Observatory of Athens) for the provision of site mete­
orological data, Prof. Fotis Mavromatakis (Hellenic Mediterranean
University) for his support in the I-V tracer development and Rubitherm
GmbH for their offer of PCM RT31.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.10.053.
1299
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
References
Ali, H.M., 2020. Recent advancements in PV cooling and efficiency enhancement
integrating phase change materials-based systems – a comprehensive review. Sol.
Energy 197, 163–198.
Atkin, P., Farid, M.M., 2015. Improving the efficiency of photovoltaic cells using PCM
infused graphite and aluminium fins. Sol. Energy 114, 217–228.
Browne, M.C., Norton, B., McCormack, S.J., 2016. Heat retention of a photovoltaic/
thermal collector with PCM. Sol. Energy 133, 533–548.
Chander, S., Purohit, A., Sharma, A., Nehra, A. S.P., M.S. Dhaka, M.S., 2015. A study on
photovoltaic parameters of mono-crystalline silicon solar cell with cell temperature,
Energy Reports, vol. 1, pp. 104–109.
Charles Lawrence Kamuyu, W., Lim, J.R., Won, C.S., Ahn, H.K., 2018. Prediction model
of photovoltaic module temperature for power performance of floating PVs. Energies
11 (2), 447.
Groulx, D., Biwole, P.H., Bhouri, M., 2020. Phase change heat transfer in a rectangular
enclosure as a function of inclination and fin placement. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 151,
106260.
Hachem, F., Abdulhay, B., Ramadan, M., El Hage, H., El Rab, M.G., Khaled, M., 2017.
Improving the performance of photovoltaic cells using pure and combined phase
change materials – experiments and transient energy balance. Renew. Energy 107,
567–575.
Hansen, C.W., Stein, J.S. and Riley, D., 2012. Effect of time scale on analysis of PV system
performance. SANDIA Report.
Hasan, A., McCormack, S.J., Huang, M.J., Norton, B., 2010. Evaluation of phase change
materials for thermal regulation enhancement of building integrated photovoltaics.
Sol. Energy 84 (9), 1601–1612.
Hasan, A., McCormack, S.J., Huang, M.J., Sarwar, J., Norton, B., 2015. Increased
photovoltaic performance through temperature regulation by phase change
materials: materials comparison in different climates. Sol. Energy 115, 264–276.
Hasan, A., Sarwar, J., Alnoman, H., Abdelbaqi, S., 2017. Yearly energy performance of a
photovoltaic-phase change material (PV-PCM) system in hot climate. Sol. Energy
146, 417–429.
Huang, M.J., Eames, P.C., Norton, B., 2004. Thermal regulation of building-integrated
photovoltaics using phase change materials. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 47 (12–13),
2715–2733.
Huang, M.J., Eames, P.C., Norton, B., 2006. Phase change materials for limiting
temperature rise in building integrated photovoltaics. Sol. Energy 80 (9),
1121–1130.
Huang, M.J., 2011. The effect of using two PCMs on the thermal regulation performance
of BIPV systems. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95 (3), 957–963.
Japs, E., Sonnenrein, G., Krauter, S., Vrabec, J., 2016. Experimental study of phase
change materials for photovoltaic modules: energy performance and economic yield
for the EPEX spot market. Sol. Energy 140, 51–59.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2009. Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems. Elsevier/
Academic Press.
Kamkari, B., Groulx, D., 2018. Experimental investigation of melting behaviour of phase
change material in finned rectangular enclosures under different inclination angles.
Exp. Therm Fluid Sci. 97, 94–108.
Khanna, S., Reddy, K.S., Mallick, T.K., 2018. Optimization of finned solar photovoltaic
phase change material (finned pv pcm) system. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 130, 313–322.
Khanna, S., Newar, S., Sharma, V., Reddy, K.S., Mallick, T.K., 2019. Optimization of fins
fitted phase change material equipped solar photovoltaic under various working
circumstances. Energy Convers. Manage. 180, 1185–1195.
Lagouvardos, K., Kotroni, V., Bezes, A., Koletsis, I., Kopania, T., Lykoudis, S.,
Mazarakis, N., Papagiannaki, K., Vougioukas, S., 2017. The automatic weather
stations NOANN network of the National Observatory of Athens: operation and
database. Geosci. Data J. 4 (1), 4–16.
Li, Z., Ma, T., Zhao, J., Song, A., Cheng, Y., 2019. Experimental study and performance
analysis on solar photovoltaic panel integrated with phase change material. Energy
178, 471–486.
Lobera, Diego Torres, Valkealahti, Seppo, 2013. Dynamic thermal model of solar PV
systems under varying climatic conditions. Sol. Energy 93, 183–194.
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.
Mavromatakis, F., Kavoussanaki, E., Vignola, F., Franghiadakis, Y., 2014. Measuring and
estimating the temperature of photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy 110, 656–666.
Nada, S.A., El-Nagar, D.H., Hussein, H.M.S., 2018. Improving the thermal regulation and
efficiency enhancement of PCM-Integrated PV modules using nano particles. Energy
Convers. Manage. 166, 735–743.
Preet, S., Bhushan, B., Mahajan, T., 2017. Experimental investigation of water based
photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) system with and without phase change material
(PCM). Sol. Energy 155, 1104–1120.
Radziemska, E., 2003. The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon
solar cells. Renew. Energy 28 (1), 1–12.
Savvakis, N., Tsoutsos, T., 2015. Perfomance assessment of a thin film photovoltaic
system under actual Mediterranean climate conditions in the island of Crete. Energy
90 (Part 2), 1435–1455.
Shastry, D.M.C., Arunachala, U.C., 2020. Thermal management of photovoltaic module
with metal matrix embedded PCM. J. Storage Mater. 28, 101312.
Siddiqui, M.U., Arif, A.F., Kelley, L., Dubowsky, S., 2012. Three-dimensional thermal
modeling of a photovoltaic module under varying conditions. Sol. Energy 86 (9),
2620–2631.
N. Savvakis et al.
Skoplaki, E., Boudouvis, A.G., Palyvos, J.A., 2008. A simple correlation for the operating
temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 92 (11), 1393–1402.
Tsitoura, M., Michailidou, M., Tsoutsos, T., 2016. Achieving sustainability through the
management of microclimate parameters in Mediterranean urban environments
during summer. Sustain. Cities Soc. 26, 48–64.
Waqas, A., Jie, J., Xu, L., 2017. Thermal behavior of a PV panel integrated with PCM-
filled metallic tubes: an experimental study. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 9 (5),
053504.
1300
Solar Energy 211 (2020) 1283–1300
Waqas, A., Ji, J., Bahadar, A., Xu, L., Zeshan, Modjinou, M., 2019. Thermal management
of conventional photovoltaic module using phase change materials—an
experimental investigation. Energy Explorat. Exploit. 37 (5), 1516–1540.
Waqas, A., Ji, J., Xu, L., Ali, M., Alvi, J., 2018. Thermal and electrical management of
photovoltaic panels using phase change materials – a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 92, 254–271.
Wongwuttanasatian, T., Sarikarin, T., Suksri, A., 2020. Performance enhancement of a
photovoltaic module by passive cooling using phase change material in a finned
container heat sink. Sol. Energy 195, 47–53.