Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Comparison of heat sink and water type PV/T collector for

polycrystalline photovoltaic panel cooling
Usman Jamil Rajput, Jun Yang*
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B9, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Cylindrical pin fin heat sinks are not used to cool a panel, which we have done so in the present work and
Received 3 April 2017 tested it's performance against a traditional single-channel PV/T collector. An older 20 Watt poly-
Received in revised form crystalline solar cell photovoltaic panel with a standard efficiency of 11.7% is elevated to a high tem-
25 September 2017
perature by indoor halogen light of intensity 1378.4 W m
2 in this study. The temperature of 81.7± 2.3  C
Accepted 30 September 2017
temperature at the front and 88.6  C at the rear under at 0 m2 s
1 wind speeds are lowered using a
Available online 2 October 2017
cylindrical pin fin heat sink (fin density 1.22 fin cm
2). A channel of aspect ratios a* ¼ 0.08 was attached
to the rear of the panel as the collector configuration. Temperatures dropped to 58.4  C with heat sink
Keywords:
Photovoltaic cooling
and 47.9 using the collector. The analysis suggests that heat flux of 667.2 W m
2 at the rear of the bare
Natural convection heat transfer panel with no cooling is enhanced by 30 and 41.5% by the heat sink and PV/T collector by natural
A heat sink methods. We strongly urge exploration of using the cylindrical pin fin heat sinks to cool the panel under
PV/T collector stagnant wind conditions.
Renewable energy © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Natural cooling requires no external power consumption and su-

Global climate destabilization as a result of the anthropogenic
emission of greenhouse gases is today's most urgent issue. More
than half of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are
comprised of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. It is
important to eliminate these harmful emissions from the atmo-
sphere. This is being steadfastly performed using Photovoltaic (PV)
technology over the last few decades [1,2]. PV technology's appli-
cability is supported by the abundant 1.08 1018 kWh of solar
energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Intelligent implementation
of PV panels in the last two decades has successfully reduced
hunger, provide safe drinking water, improve health, and ensuring
environmental sustainability [3,4]. Efficiencies of Pc-Si panels have
increased from 11.7% to ¥ 16% in recent times, however, the 11.7%
efficient PV panels are still abundant and reported to suffer from
the declination of the performance when the cell temperatures rise
above 25  C [5].
The 11.7% efficient Pc-si solar cell PV panels have been subjected
to tremendous cooling trials [6e8]. Forced convection at the rear of
the panel is common over natural cooling/passive cooling method.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jyang@eng.uwo.ca (J. Yang).
persedes active cooling with regards to overall energy savings. Two
popular methods not analyzed together in one experimental setup,
to passively cool PV panels are heat sink versus single-channel PV/T
collector. Unfortunately, the strengths of passive cooling between
these configurations have been assessed in separate studies; while
it is unclear how far behind the strength of natural cooling is the
heat sink.
This has come to the attention of the authors of the present
work when considering the fact that cylindrical pin fin heat sink
with high radiation emissivity surfaces has not been used to cool PV
panels. Henceforth it is vital that this particular kind of heat sink
experiment against the best method of PV cooling in literature; the
single channel PV/T collector, in order to clarify heat sink potential
and address possibilities of future work.
1.1. Literature review
Various recent reviews, i.e. that of Shukla et al. [9], state the
importance of laying out cooling schemes to better the perfor-
mance of Photovoltaic panels. A drop in the electrical power output
of 0.2e0.5% with a 1  C in crystalline PV modules has been observed
(for 11.7% efficiency PC-Si panels). Temperatures above 40  C have
been recognized to be surely detrimental to power output. The
older generation polycrystalline modules that are globally

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.090
0960-1481/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
480 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

Nomenclature l Wavelength (nm)

n Fluid Kinematic viscosity (m
2 s)
A Area (m2) r Fluid Density (kg m
3)
b Height of heat sink s Stefan-Boltzmann constant (W K
4 m
2)
c Specific heat capacity (kJ kg
1 K
1)
Е Effectiveness of heat sink Subscripts
G Irradiance (W m
2) a Ambient air
g Acceleration due to gravity (m s
2) base Base of heat sink
h Heat transfer coefficient (W m
2 K
1) conv convection
H Height of Photovoltaic panel(m) el electrical
k Thermal conductivity (W m
1 K
1) f Front of PV panel
l Length of one pin-fin (m) fin Fin surface
L Characteristic length of heat transfer (m) Max Maximum
ƞel Panel Electrical efficiency (%) pv photovoltaic
Nu Nusselt number r Rear of photovoltaic panel
Pr Prandtl Number rad Radiation
P Power output of the panel (W) th Thermal
q Heat transfer rate (W) w Water
q00 Heat flux (W m
2)
Ra Rayleigh's Number Abbreviations
S Spacing of fins (mm) CPV Concentrating Photovoltaic
t time (s or minutes as specified) CPV/T Concentrating Photovoltaic Thermal
T Temperature ( C) EVA Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
W Width of Photovoltaic panel (m) NIR Near infra-red
Pc-Si Polycrystalline silicon
Greek symbols PV Photovoltaic
h Efficiency (%) PV/T Photovoltaic thermal
a* Horizontal aspect ratio of channel PVC Poly-Vinyl Chloride
b Volumetric expansion coefficient (K
1) STC Standard Test Condition
D Change in quantity UV Ultra-violet
ε Emissivity VIS Visible
q Inclination from the ground ( )

commercially available have been investigated for their large effi-
ciency decline by early investigations of Evans' [10] and King et al.
[8]. It is concluded that if the irradiance is greater than
945.8 W m
2then cell temperatures will be above 60  C and effi-
ciency will drop to 9.1%. The happenings observed are air bubbles
formation at the rear Tedlar surface, internal Pc-Si cell damage and
in some cases, and recorded complete loss of functionality [11].
Avoidance of these occurrences is an utmost priority to state of the
art PV modules.
One method to avoid temperature arising issues is direct liquid
contact at the rear of the panel [12]. In recent work, PVs under light
concentration has been lowered from 80  C into 30  C using water
spraying. Jet impingement lower cell temperatures from 110  C to
40  C, as per work by Roy & Dey [13]. However, these methods are
forced and utilize external power source. To avoid power input to
the cooling system, passive methods have to be deployed [14].
Motorized water spraying at the rear of a 40 W PV panel lowers
temperatures from 57  C to 32  C and maintains factory rated ef-
ficiencies of 16% [15], yet this technique negatively impact overall
power conservation of the device. Jakharet al. [16] has reported that
forced/active cooling method may drop extreme temperatures
from 80  C is cooled to an average of 42  by; (i) jet pipe cooling, (ii)
PV/T collector cooling, (iii) micro-channel heat sink cooling (iv)
liquid immersion and (vi) and jet impingement, which have not
been reported to be dominant over passive cooling methods. Such
studies are needed to overcome the burden forced/active cooling
has on the overall power output of the PV panel setup.
Some plate fins have been implemented behind CPVs in earlier
studies [17]. Buoyancy difference between the hot fluid near the
heat sinks and the ambient air causes natural flow and enhanced
the heat transfer as compared to with the heat sink. Results show a
120% enhancement in heat transfer coefficient at the rear of the
panel (increased from hconv ¼ 7.46 W m
2 K
1 to 17.86 W m
2 K
1).
Experimental work on cooling other high-temperature CPVs with
plate fin heat sink was succeeded by Natarajan et al. [18], in more
recent times. The numerical worked reports 68.3  C cell tempera-
ture declination to 51.9  C by only three plate fins at the rear of a
particular cell. The coefficient of heat transfer was kept constant of
5.8 W m
2 K
1 signifying stagnation of wind. Similarly, Huang et al.
[19] was able to acquire lower panel temperatures to 25  C by
natural convection using plate-fin heat sinks. Unfortunately, there
is a discontinuation of using natural convection techniques in more
recent time on concentration photovoltaic modules.
More studies proceeded to plate fins with the Peltier effect to
decrease temperatures from 97  C lessened to 77  C while 77  C
diminished to 57  C [20]. Chandrasekhar et al. [21] lowered cell
temperature from 49.2  C to 43.3  C by evaporative cooling and
natural convection using plate fins along with a wetting coil.
Literature in heat transfer states that cylindrical pin fin heat sinks
have been reported to have stronger cooling abilities from com-
bined convection and radiation heat transfer over the plate fins
when stagnant wind conditions prevail [22,23]. It is questionable as
to why cylindrical pin fins have not been implemented in current
studies if the plate natural convection heat transfer wasn't favor-
able. The most dominant form of cooling is the PV/T collector over
all other methods, as the comparison and individual studies
 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
mentioned above have stated.
Jakharet al. [13] and Laminate & Chemisana [24] recently
concluded that water PV/T collector designed used for PV panels
are the most effective means to cool a concentration photovoltaic
module as well. In tubular form collectors, tubes are attached to
the rear of the panel which carries water while in channel types,
square or rectangular arrays are used instead. Water carries forth
the heat dissipated by the panel in the tubes to a cold reservoir in
an efficient manner for the purpose of cooling and household
water heating. Jakharet al. [25,26] connected their tube & sheet
CPV/T collector to a ground heat pipe to allow the coolant to
enter the collector at very cold temperatures lower cell temper-
ature drastically; from 90  C to 25  C. Older PV panels in the tube
and sheet collectors experimented by Dubey & Tiwari [27]
demonstrated the full electrical efficiency of ƞel ¼ 0.11,
Tcell ¼ 45  C when using cold inlet. It has been deciphered from
experience that in increasing number of pipes and utilizing
mediocre flow strengths yields low cell temperatures from
higher heat extraction from the panel [28]. In more recent work,
nanotechnology has been incorporated in the coolant;
Aluminum-oxide, Zinc-Oxide, and titanium oxide to enhance
heat extraction. Sustenance of near full operational electrical
efficiency between 14 and 15% and a minimum temperature drop
of 20  C is acquired [29]. Nanofluids in tube and sheet collector
has in other works, shown heat transfer coefficient of hconv z
200e300 W m
2 K
1 [30], one of the highest ever recorded. In
terms of which geometry is more favorable for cooling; the au-
thors of the present study cite literature stating that rectangular
channels of large aspect ratio are better. Nusselt number of single
channel, aspect ratio a* ¼ 0, is Nu ¼ 5.385 [31] while Nu ¼ 4.36 is
present in tubes of tube and sheet collector [23]. In more recent
times Nahar et al. [32] have attempted to implement single
channel PV/T collector design. They report an average of z 60  C
cell temperature with low inlet velocities. Other recent studies
deployed single channel below PV panel with air as the working
fluid, while water has a higher thermal conductivity and prom-
ises to be a better coolant and should be used instead [33]. Such
has been shown by the historical trends of earlier work. Sandnes
& Rekstad [34], adapted numerous square channels of the aspect
ratio of 1 which drastically decreased panel temperature from
54  C to 8  C but in a cold climate. Nusselt numbers accordingly
are Nu ¼ 3.61. Proceeding this study, Chow et al. [35] and Ji et al.
[36] designed multiple channel-PV/T collector (a* ¼ 0.5) yielding
Nusselt numbers of Nu ¼ 4.11. Finally, He et al. [37] implemented
a collector with channel aspect ratio of a* ¼ 0.2 and acquired the
best cooling with Nu ¼ 5.35 in the channel. Certainly, this device
must be compared to the technique of PV cooling using a passive
heat sink when the light concentration is present. Such work is
missing in previous studies.
1.2. Motivation
We have cited comparison studies on various cooling methods
on CPVs and noticed that older methods to cool non-concentrating
PV panels; such as plate fin heat sink and PV/T collector are being
utilized but without the implementation of natural convection due
to heating issues. We cited work that emphasizes using cylindrical
pin fin heat sink over flat plate heat sink if natural convection
cooling is desired. Furthermore, recent studies compare all new
devices with the more traditional design such the water channel-
PV/T collector to compare cooling strength. Thus forth we objec-
tify the cylindrical heat sink against a single-channel PV/T collector;
for a desire to test the natural convection cooling using these
appendages.
481
1.3. Layout
This body of this investigation initiates with addressing the
needs of experimenting a passively cooling PV panels by the cy-
lindrical heat sink and the important aspect of comparing this
proposed idea with traditional PV/T collector. Preceding this argu-
ment an experimental methodology section is defined that exper-
iments on a bare panel, a panel with the heat sink, a water
conduction problem and a single channel PV/T collector. Water
conduction was tested alongside the PV/T collector to verify that the
collector has cooling strengths larger than conduction heat transfer.
This makes the collector a valid comparison tool to the heat sink.
The remaining part of the work presents cooing data and the pa-
rameters acquired to quantify the cooling phenomena and future
work that addresses improvements.
1.4. Methodology
A commercial Pc-Si with rated electrical efficiency of ƞ el ¼ 11.7%
was purchased from Kyocera (model number KS20). This opaque
device contains layers consisting of glass/EVA/TiO2/Si/EVA/PE-Al
and Tedlar [42]. It has a total area of 0.183 m2 and 36 cells. The total
measured thickness of this device is 4.5  10
3 m and it rests on an
open rack mount inclined at 30 from the ground. The vendor
specifications of performance are I max ¼ 1.20 A, V max ¼16.9 V,
Pmax ¼ 20 W under AM 1.5 spectra of intensity 1000 W m
2. A heat
sink was attached it's rear. Sparrow &Vemuri [40] used cylindrical
fin densities of 0.31e1.17 fins cm
2that yield buoyancy effects
signified by the Rayleigh number Ra ¼ 0.8  105e15  105 and heat
transfer a Nusselt number of Nu > 80. Such results at the rear of the
panel would provide significant cooling results as we predicted.
Clear coated cylindrical appendages are preferred over plate fins by
Aihariet al. [41] for densities 1.86e9.90 fins. cm
2. Nevertheless,
15% reduction in heat loss would occur when the fins are facing
downwards.
A single channel PV/T collector was created with the expectation
of a Nusselt number Nu ¼ 5.385 signifying superiority in all PV
panel cooling efforts. The Nusselt numbers as a function of aspect
ratio are found in heat transfer related text [38], which Zondag et al.
[39] has mentioned being consulted for future work in designing
PV/T collectors. Our fabricated PV/T collector had a measured aspect
ratio a* ¼ 0.08. Polyvinyl carbonate was used as the body. We in-
clined all devices at 30 from the ground in our setup. Armstrong &
Hurley adapted q ¼ 35 [42], while Rowland et al. [43] have sur-
veyed PV panel potential in North American regions of Toronto and
Ottawa with orientations between 32 < q < 38.1, facing south.
2. Experimental setup
197 aluminum (clear/aluminum plated) pin fins heatsink with
an aluminum base of dimensions 0.127  0.127 m (square) were
attached to a prime surface of the panel's rear. They were pur-
chased from Coolinnovations®. Polyurethane foam was used to
cover the remaining surfaces of the PV panel (Fig. 1). Only 4 cells
were exposed at the front in this configuration. The rear of the
panel and the heat sink is joined together with ARTIC SILVER ad-
hesive. The geometry of pins are diameter of d ¼ 4.35  10
3 m,
length of l ¼ 66.7  10
2 m and each are spaced at S ¼ 9.01  10

3
m when arranged in staggered formatted. This heat sink had a fin
population density of 1.22 fins cm
2.
For passive cooling to be present from this heat sink, a sub-
stantial difference in temperature of the heat sink and ambient air
has to occur, and the characteristic length of heat transfer has to be
large. Previous studies have incorporated these two factors and
provided criteria to achieve natural convection at the heat sink,
482 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

5. Heat sink
1. Bare PV panel 3. PV/T Collector
6. PV/T collector cross section
2. PV with Heat Sink 4. Bare PV panel rear

1
x= 0.471 m

5
x= 0.330 m

2
x= 0.190 m

x= 0.052 m

x= 0 m
3
0.025 m

0.025 m

0.025 m
0.025 m
z= 0 m

z= 3.33 x 10-3 m
z= 6.67 x 10-3 m

Water Outfllow

7
x= 0.471 m PC

x= 0.330 m

NI-cDAQ-9211
x= 0.190 m
Water

Inflow x= 0.052 m
x= 0 m

Fig. 1. Experimental setup.

 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
present when Rayleigh number surpasses 1708. Criteria to attain
passive cooling from reviewed work is S/d ¼ 1.75e3.5, l/
L ¼ 0.16e3.7, which was adhered to from our selection of the heat
sink. Accordingly, the characteristic length of the pin fin heat sink of
the present study is L ¼ 0.124 m [41].
A 25 mm channel was attached at the rear of the pc-Si panel
using aluminum clamps to create the single channel PV/T collector.
It contained an inlet and outlet zone which was connected to a cold
reservoir in a closed loop by 6.35 mm diameter polymer tubes. The
reservoir was placed at the top edge of the channel and was insu-
lated from the surrounding. The back of the channel was a thin
3.175 mm PVC cover and it was allowed to lose heat to the sur-
rounding. There was no need to insulate the back cover of the
channel since thermal conversion efficiency of this collector was
not the scope of our work. The sides of the PV/T collector were
6.35 mm thick PVC walls with polyurethane foam insulation. This
simulated the boundary wall conditions of; heated upper wall and
adiabatic side walls. Thermosiphoning was achieved by buoyancy
differences between the hot water at the outlet and cold reservoir,
verified by dye tracking in the system.
2.1. Temperature acquisition
The front temperatures of the panel were measured using an
MTP 1328 IR (Infra-Red)temperature reader (range 20 < T < 170 ,
resolution 0.1  C and accuracy ± 1  C). 36 points over the cells of the
Pc-si PV panels were measured. Rear PV panel temperatures were
recorded using K-type thermocouples (range 5  C < T < 150  C and
accuracy ± 1  C) on four locations illustrated in Fig. 1. There was a
longitudinal variation of temperature at the rear surface of the
panel and this was recorded on localities of; x ¼ 0.052 m, 0.190 m,
0.330 m and 0.471 m. With the heat sink attachment, the heatsink
base and fins were considered as the rear of the panel. Tempera-
tures were measured four points on the heat sink base and of four
fins. Fins were subjected to mid and tip temperature measurements
using the K-type thermocouples.
The side walls of the channel were measured to be adiabatic
with this temperature reader. The rear panel temperature of the
PV/T collector and that of the water cavity was acquired by im-
mersion temperature readers; J-type thermocouples with range
10 < T < 650  C and accuracy ± 1  C. The inlet temperature and
outlet temperature of the channel were also measured to state the
temperature gain. All measured variables mentioned and the
equipment utilized are summarized in Table 1.
2.2. Selective power measurements
The power was illustrated to provide the effect of utilizing a
different light source than natural solar light that is successful in
raising panel temperatures. The data also demonstrate power
declination recorded over three experimental cycles with 95%
confidence interval, under halogen light source. Transient power
was measured on the bare panel, the PV/T collector and water
Table 1
List of variables measured, instruments used and respective accuracies.
Variable Measuring instrument Accuracy
Tf MTP 1328 IR Temperature reader ± 1 C
Tr K-Type thermocouples ± 0.1  C
Two J-Type temperature probes ± 0.1  C
Ta NI-cDAQ-9211 ± 0.1  C
G TES Pyranometer 1333R ± 1.0 W m
2
(400< l < 1100 nm)
V DAQ USB 628 xM 0.0048 V
483
Table 2
Comparison of 20 Watt Kyocera Pc-Si cell PV panel (KS20) performance at STC Vs
under halogen light.
AM 1.5 spectra STCa Halogen lightb
I max 1.20 A 0.81 A
V max 16.90 V 15.1 V
P max 20.0 W 12.20 W
G 1000 W m
2 1378.4 W m
2
a
Values specific to STC (standard test conditions) entailing Tcell ¼ 25  C under
1000 W m
2 of the 1.5 AM spectra.
b
Values specific to the present study with Ta ¼ 21.5  C, 0 m s
1 wind speeds
under Halogen light.
cavity. The heat sink covered a small surface of the panel and thus
the power from the panel with this attachment was not acquired.
Power acquisition setup contained resistors attached parallel to
the panel for transient power measurement. Maximum power
point tracking method was applied to acquire the correct resistor
ratings for transient power output. A 100 U 100 Watt power resistor
(resolution of ±1% of reading) was connected in parallel with the
bare panel under the halogen light which yielded the maximum
power of 12.2 Watts at steady state for configuration 1. The voltages
were converted to power output using Ohms' law on LABVIEW.
Fluke millimeters (Model 87-5, resolution ± 0.05% of voltage) dis-
played the current and the voltage from the power resistor. The
total resistance needed to monitor power over time was calculated
to be 19.4 ohms. Four power resistors of values 4.905, 5.058, 3.940
and 4.965 U were used (true values attained using a YOKOGAWA
model 7556 digital multimeter). Table 2 contains the difference of
the vendor specifications as compared to that of the same panel
under artificial halogen light.
2.3. Halogen lamp solar simulator
Four 500 W, 240 V, halogen lamp floodlights were placed at 0.475
± 0.25 m normal distance from the panels that provided the irra-
diance magnitude of 1378.4 W m
2. This simulator was character-
ized by first illuminating a wood surface. The halogen lights were re-
oriented to acquire the most uniform temperatures on the wood
that proceeded to show the best possible uniform irradiance. Wood
has low thermal conductivity and the temperatures remained un-
biased from one another allowing easy adjustment of the lamps.
Steadiness in irradiance for was acquired by cooling of the halogen
lights via a pedestal fan to maintain a constant bulb temperature. A
surface area of 0.274 ± 0.002 m2 was irradiated with halogen light
and 84points on it were measured for temperature. Adjustments to
the halogen light fixture were made to acquire the temperature non-
uniformity of 6.81% that required a surface area of experimentation
to be reduced to 0.183 m2± 0.002 m2. The non-uniformity in irra-
diance on this surface was 4.81%. Spatial non-uniformity is the ratio
of the mean value by the difference between the maximum and
minima values over a specific space [44]. The simulator was steady
state. A spectrophotometer (Ocean Optics USB 2000 þ RAD)
measured the spectral intensity on this surface. Its range was
l ¼ 200e900 nm, accuracy; 0.03e10.0 nm of the full width at half
maximum of the spectrum. The spectral distribution was achieved
for a wavelength range of l ¼ 300e894 nm and was steady over time
shown in Fig. 2. The amounts of UV light between 300< l < 400 nm,
VIS light within 400 < l < 700 nm and NIR radiation between
700 < l ¼ 1100 nm [45]. UV, VIS and NIR radiation was compared to
the spectrum of AM 1.5 spectra [46] and Global irradiance.
We conclude that our halogen light solar simulator is deficient
in UV light, VIS light and is low NIR radiation in comparison. The
global and AM 1.5 spectrum is the spectra achieved from a sun-
484 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

facing collector surface tilted 37 from the ground. In contrast, our
halogen simulator contains 74% of VIS light 26.4% NIR radiation and
0.7% UV light. The AM 1.5 spectra have 54.2% VIS light 42.85% of NIR
radiation while no UV light is reported. Class A, B, and C have non-
uniformity criteria of <1%as well as lower irradiance of
1000 W$m
2while mentioning approximately 20 W$m
2 of UV
light [45]. Although our simulator is deviant, we calculate that UV
light of intensity 9.6 W m
2, VIS light 1020.0 W m
2 and NIR ra-
diation 367 W m
2 are present.
2.4. Equipment calibration & DAQ
The deficiency of UV light was expected to lower power output
from the panels, a prediction affirmed. The total indoor irradiance
from halogen light for our experiments was of 1378.4 W m
2. It was
necessary that a high-intensity is utilized so that the panel is
elevated to high temperatures as those of the literature reviewed
on CPVs.
The spectrophotometer came pre-calibrated by the vendor
Ocean optics. The spectrum of halogen light was mapped on
Spectra Suite® software installed on a personal computer. The
calibration of the pyranometer was performed against an SSL-52
solar meter (accuracy of± 1  10
3 W m
2). There was a linear
relationship between the measured and true values in these
devices.
The MTP 1328 IR temperature reader was calibrated against a K-
type digital 1312A thermometer by a tedious procedure. IR tem-
perature reader read temperatures of a hot masking tape while
the true temperature of this masking tape was acquired by the K-
type thermocouple. The k-type thermocouple had orange
5  C < T < 150  C and accuracy ± 1  C. It was found that the
emissivity of the temperature reader had to be set to ε ¼ 0.92 to
agree with the true temperature values. The range of temperature
measurement by the MTP 1328 IR temperature reader was within ±
1% of the reading for 20 < T < 112  C.
The surface mountt k-type thermocouples attached at the panel

x 104
7

a.u 4

0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 nm

(nm)
G (W•m-2)
G

120

80

400

0.56
0.46
0.35
0.25
0.153
0.440
0 0.295
0.148
0
X (m)
Y(m)
Fig. 2. The Halogen light spectral distribution (above) and irradiance distribution (below) on the panels.
 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
rear (bare panel without cooling) and heat sink were calibrated
against K-type digital 1312A thermometer in a hot water bath.
Linear relationship against true values was achieved with minimal
bias error. The J-type thermocouples used with the PV/T collector
and water cavity (to acquire conduction reference) were calibrated
by placing them in an insulated hot water bath along with a high
accuracy thermometer as a reference (Kessler-2150, 76 mm im-
mersion, range T ¼
36
154  C).
The water in the bath was allowed to cool down and data was
recorded at different bath temperatures. Calibration equations
were obtained for all the thermocouples and were incorporated in
the Lab VIEW program. Two National Instruments data acquisition
system cards (NI-cDAQ-9211, 4 channels) were used to acquire the
signal for the temperature sensors. These cards were mounted on a
chassis (NI-cDAQ-9711) and connected to the Lab VIEW software
(Signal Express edition 2012). All the DAQ's were 18 bit systems of
which's uncertainty was included in the recorded variables, i. e:
temperatures and voltages.
3. Results
The errors of the values provided in this research study propa-
gated to the reduced values of heat transfer coefficient and heat
transfer flux. Experimental repeatability is assured by a 95% con-
fidence interval of the mean. Propagation of uncertainty method
was used according to earlier work [47]. PV panel temperatures
decreased significantly by the heat sink and the channel. The heat
sink lags slightly behind the cooling performance by the channel.
Nonetheless, the temperature of the front of the panel's relay that
surely, passive cooling by cylindrical pin fins is not undermined
(Fig. 3). The bare panel reaches steady state at t ¼ 20 min, heat sink
at t ¼ 32 min, the channel at t ¼ 140 min while water cavity is
unsteady throughout the experimental time period. The bare panel
demonstrates an isothermal front surface temperature of Tf ¼ 83.7
± 1.4  C. There is slight non-uniformity of the temperatures in the
bare panel due to the non-uniformity of the irradiance. These
temperatures are lowered to Tf ¼63.2 ± 1.3  C by the heat sink, also
regarded as isothermal. Non-isothermal boundary occurs on the
front of the channel, which is at an average of Tf ¼ 51.0 ± 1.6  C.The
front of the bare panel is cooler than the rear when using air as the
coolant, while vice versa when using water as the coolant.
The rear of the panel without any cooling is regarded as
isothermal at Tr ¼ 88.1± 1.4  C, while heat sink shows lower tem-
peratures of Tr ¼ 58.7  C. The base is at a temperature of 66.5±
1.2  C. The rear temperatures of the heat sink mimic the trends
witnessed from the bare panel, with a lower magnitude. The similar
behavior of the bare panel is due to the identical coolant (air) and
an increase in heat capacity when the heat sink is present. The heat
capacity of the bare panel is smaller than that with the heat sink.
Over time, the heat gain by the bare panel becomes zero
(t ¼ 20 min) and at steady state, it is losing heat to the surrounding
air by convection and radiation. The heat sink increases the heat
capacity and thus large amount of time it takes for the dissipation
from the cells to the surrounding.
Thermosiphoning in the PV/T collector allows cold surface
temperatures of the panel near the inlet of 31.5± 1.2  C and 72.6±
1.42  C near the outlet. Water enters the channel at14.56± 0.4  C
and exits at 66.2± 1.5  C. This yields a low rear panel temperature of
58.4  C.
It is to note that the 20 Watt power by this panel is only attained
under steady intensity simulated solar light (AM 1.5 spectra) at
25  C cell temperatures. This is deviant from our conditions in the
laboratory. The halogen light simulator had deficient UV light and
thus lower power output from the panel was recorded. The power
output of the PV/T collector is more superior to the bare panel
485
(Fig. 4). The initial power output at near is 11.4 W of PV/T collector
which declines non-linearly with rising rear and front surface
temperatures.
The data of power output in Fig. 5 convey the strongest cooling
method from our findings. The power output of the bare panel is
9.96 Watts at steady state while PV/T collector power deteriorates
to 11.03 Watts with rear temperatures of Tr ¼ 48.1  C. Its maximum
power measured is 11.25 Watts at Tr ¼ 38.1  C at a time of 20 min.
The heat sink was not recorded for power output due to incomplete
illumination of the cells.
The temperatures of the front and rear can mislead to the
conclusion that the heatsink is cooling by strong natural convection
heat transfer and that the PV/T collector is behaving like the ideal
single channel PVT collector in previous studies. There are possi-
bilities that the heatsink is cooling the panel by conduction and
radiation heat transfer and no natural convection is present and
thus passive cooling cannot be claimed. Due to the clear coated
finish with high radiation emissivity of the heat sink, radiation heat
transfer would be a major component of the overall heat loss.
However, the other form of heat loss can be conduction if the
convective heat transfer is suppressed due to low Rayleigh number
at the heat sink. This is a phenomenon reported in the literature
due to the high density of the fins. Furthermore, it is probable that
there is no convection due to the absence of buoyancy effects when
the heat sink is facing downward. To avoid unimpeded claims, a
data analysis was required.
Data analysis
The data analysis was conducted using energy balance on col-
lectors as well as utilizing heat transfer correlations of previous
work. The reduction process assumes energy conservation; the
irradiance on the panel is equal to the heat losses on the surfaces
and electrical power output (electric power output exempted from
heat sink calculations). It is assumed that the transmittance of the
glass is equal to unity. The transmission of solar light is taken as 1
when the angle between the glass and incident light is 90 [39]. The
system of equations starts with the energy balance equation for the
bare panel:
00 00 00 00
Gð1
hel Þ ¼ qconv;f þ qconv;f þ qrad;f þ qrad;f (1)
00 00
The sum of qconv;f and qrad;f in Eq. (1) is the total rear heat flux
of the panel, while radiation term in water channel and the water
conduction problem is zero. The front surface heat loss from all the
panels in this research work are attained by the relation of Churchill
& Chu [48]:

 
1 1
RaðxÞ cosq
ðRacr Þ3
3
NuðxÞjup facing ¼ 0:14
1
þ ½ 0:57ðRacr cosqÞ4 (2)
Nu(x) is the local Nusselt number on the front surface and Ra (x) is
the local Rayleigh number. The above relations are applicable to
isothermal wall boundary conditions as they are for isoflux walls
[49]. Eq. (2) can be used for ranges 107< Ra(x) cosq< 1011 and
15 < q < 75 and 0 < Pr< ∞. When Racr > 2  109, turbulent natural
convection occurs. Laminar natural, when Ra < Ra cr, is the mode of
convective heat transfer on all surfaces exposed to ambient air.
Panel rear, heat sink base and channel and cavity back cover natural
convection heat transfer to the environment are acquired from
Ref. [50]:
,"   9 #49
1 0:437 16
NuðxÞj down facing ¼ 0:670 RaðxÞ cosq 4 1þ (3)
Pr
486 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

Fig. 3. Front surface/glass temperatures over 36 cells of Kyocera Pc-si panel under G ¼ 1378.2 W m
2 with different configurations at t ¼ 140 min.

This equation is used for isoflux walls conditions and is within

1% accuracy for isothermal, inclined below 60 within 105< Ra < 10
00
qconv;r
9
and for fluids with Pr > 0.74. The local Rayleigh number in Eqs. (2) hconv; rjbare panel ¼ (5)
Tr
Ta
and(3) is attained by:
This coefficient is used to attain the convective heat flux by
using Newton's law of cooling equation for the bare panel [52]. The
local heat flux is integrated over the respective heat transfer length
 
to acquire average value above. Radiation heat loss is summed with
bL3 Tf =r
Ta
RaðxÞ ¼ (4) the convective heat loss to demonstrate the comparative rear heat
ay loss flux of the panel.
Term Tf is the front temperature and Tr the rear. For the Radiation heat loss from the front glass is acquired by assuming
front of the heat sink, channel, and cavity, Tf/r reduces to Tf. The emission to the ground and ambiance. Front glass radiation emis-
above equation is used for the Rayleigh numbers present at the sivity is ε ¼ 0.90 and rear panel EVA material emissivity is ε ¼ 0.85
base of the heat sink base. The Rayleigh number on the back [52]. View factor of radiation to the ambiance and ground are both
cover of the collector and cavity are acquired by the same considered in the formula for radiation heat transfer calculation,
equation with Tf/r relating to the temperature of the back cover. the Stefan-Boltzmann law [42]. The convective heat transfer flux
The characteristic length, L, is the heat transfer length, b is the from the heat sink is:
thermal expansion coefficient of the adjacent fluid and a and y  00 
are its thermal diffusivity and kinematic viscosities of this fluid. 00
GA
qconv;f þ qconv;f Af
qrad;r
All thermo-physical properties are calculated at men fluid h conv; r jheat sin k ¼    (6)
temperature. Tavg
Ta Afins þ Abase
Heat transfer coefficient at the rear of the panel is [51]:
 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491 487

100

90 88.81
Rear panel temperatures, Tr (°C)

80

70
66.5
60 58.45

50
47.58
40
Bare panel

30 Heat sink

20 Water conduction reference

single-channel PV/T collector

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (minutes)
Fig. 4. Rear temperatures, Tr ( C) of the pc-Si panel with various cooling methods Vs Time (minutes) called out steady state temperature under G ¼ 1378.4 W m
2 (halogen light).

2
In this equation, T avg is the average temperature of the heat sink base ¼ 0.0139 m . Front surface convection and radiation heat loss
(base and fin) equal to 53.5  C at steady state and varying during the are acquired by Stefan-Boltzmann law [41]. The radiation heat loss
experimental time period, Af ¼ 0.016 m2 and A fin ¼ 0.176 m2and A by the heat sink is:

Fig. 5. Cooling by water type PV/T with single, power comparison to bare panel/no cooling and water conduction reference, under G, ¼ 1378.4 W m
2 (halogen light).
488 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491

1500
Pr =7.4 (water)
1400
1300
1200
1100
rear heat transfer flux , Qr (W •m-2)

1000
949.4
900
872.2
800
759.4
700
672.2
600
500 PV.T collector

400 Pr =0.71 (air)

Heat sink

300 Water conduction

200 Bare panel
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Time (minutes)
Fig. 6. The rear heat transfer flux of a 20 Watt Kyocera pc-Si solar cell PV panel with various cooling configurations.

h  i  adapted from the heat transfer model of Barcohen& Herman [40]:
q rad; r jheat sin ¼ ε b2 þ 2l b2 4
Tfin
Ta4 (7) h   i
MCw ddtTw þ qb
The surface finish of the commercially purchased heat sink in hconv; r jcavity ¼ (10)
ð Tb e Tw Þ Af
the present study is clear coated with emissivity ε ¼ 0.99, attained
from formulas in previous work [41,53]. The characteristic length of
Here the mass of water is M ¼ 4.75 kg (measured in the laboratory),
heat transfer for the heat sink is L ¼ 0.084 m [49].
q b is the heat transfer rate from the back PVC cover (from con-
The energy models of collectors are used to attain the heat
vection and radiation), dTw the temperature change of the water
transfer flux and coefficient at the rear of the panel in the PV/T
during the time interval dt. The heat input into the water is
collector we used. The convective heat transfer coefficient is:  
calculated by the termMCw dT w
dt
and the heat lost at the back of
Cpv DTpv
q conv; r jPV=T collector ¼ Gð1
hel Þ

00 00

qf (8) the cavity is given by qb.
Dt
The heat transfer in this cavity is between the rear of the panel
Here DTpv is the temperature change of the panel, calculated from and the water. Af is the front or rear area of the panel, C w is the
the average of the back and the front surface between Dt, q00 f is the specific heat capacity of the water taken as 4181 J kg
1 K
1. The heat
total convective and radiation heat loss from the front. The panel transfer into the water is calculated for an interval of 3 s using the
temperature above, T pv is basically the mean of the average front change in temperature of the water, dTw, attained from experi-
and average rear temperature. This is the mean of the front surface mental data. The water temperatures of the device over time were
of the glass and the panel rear on four locations measured in Fig. 1. 3e4  C lower than the rear during the experiment. This assumption
The heat capacity of the pc-Si panel is C pv ¼ 1003.57 J k
1 [54], was used for the term Tw in Eq (10). The rate of heat loss from the
acquired from previous work. The time step Dt ¼ 1 s is used for this back cover of the cavity, q b, is the average heat loss between time t
analysis. Lower time steps demonstrated no difference in the values and t þ dt, attained by the Nusselt number correlation from pre-
q00 conv,r in the above equation. The heat transfer coefficient at panel vious studies [55].
rear with PV/T collector is finally:
00
qconv;r 4. Discussion
h conv; r jchannel ¼ (9)
Tr
Tw
The bare panel dissipates heat from the front and rear by natural
The heat transfer coefficient of the panel with the cavity is convection and radiation heat transfer. Convection and radiation
 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
625
354.0 322.9
177.1
115.8
125
(W •m-2• k-1)
73.4
44.8
25
conv
hr,
4.4
4.4
5
1.256
1.2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
time (minutes)
Fig. 7. The comparative rear convective heat transfer coefficients of the Kyocera 20 Watt Pc-si PV panel with various cooling method under halogen light of intensity
G ¼ 1378.4 W m
2.
heat losses are nearly equal in strength in the bare panel. Without
winds, under the halogen lamp solar light simulator, natural con-
vection, and radiation rid the excess heat in the cells. After 32 min
steady state is acquired by the bare panel. The convective heat
losses are the main concern of the present study. They are laminar
at the front and rear of the bare panel that is the configuration
without cooling. The strength of buoyancy is signified by the Ray-
leigh number at the front of value Ra ¼ 5.55  108 at Pr ¼ 0.714 and
Nu ¼ 64.4, while Ra ¼ 2.2  108 at Pr ¼ 0.711 and Nu ¼ 83.3 at the
rear. The rear heat flux is enhanced by 30% using the heat sink
(Fig. 6). The heat transfer rate (in Watts) t the rear is enhanced by
51% by the heat sink. This is due to the 12 times larger surface area
the heat sink offers as compared to the bare panel. The heat rate the
front surface decreases by almost 68% as compared to the bare
panel. Thus there is a significant pull of heat towards the rear by the
cylindrical pin fin heat sink. The analysis suggests that the rate of
heat transfer by convection is 45% of the total heat rate at the heat
sink, the rest being due to radiation.
The coefficient of convective heat transfer at the base of the heat
sink is hconv, base ¼ 3.58 W m
2 k
1 while at the fins is
hconv,fin ¼ 1.02 W m
2 k
1. The overall coefficient is
hconv,r ¼ 1.3 W m
2 k
1 (Fig. 6). Fortunately, clear coated pin fins
offer a high radiation emissivity which provides high radiation heat
loss, compensating for the weak natural convection. Nevertheless,
the combination of natural convection and radiation heat transfer
has successfully provided a large decrease in temperature of the
panel, without external power consumption.
The effectiveness of the heat sink is E ¼ 1.53, calculated from
relations in previous studies [56]. The effectiveness criterion of
E > 2 is recommended by the previous literary material. Hence
more improvements are needed. The overall efficiency of a heat
489
141.5
26.6 PV/T collector
Heat sink
water conduction
4.4 Bare panel
4.4 4.4
1.32 1.3
1.256
sink is h ¼ 0.69. This heatsink is 69% of the ideal condition, a
condition when the fins would be at base temperature. The buoy-
ancy effects on the heat sink base are moderate, concluded by
Rayleigh number calculations of Ra ¼ 8.26  105. According to this
Rayleigh number, the natural convection heat transfer Nusselt
number should be Nu ¼ 9.2, as directed by previous work [41]. The
Nusselt number of our study is Nu ¼ 3.04. Henceforth, buoyancy
strength and effectiveness of the heat sink are needed to be
improved in the future by optimizing the geometry.
The PV/T collector enhances the heat flux at the panel rear to
1338.4 W m
2 k
1 in the earlier stages of the experiment which
decays to 951.2 W m
2 at steady state (Fig. 6). Thermosiphon flow
of water and channel geometry provides an overall 41.5%
enhancement of heat transfer flux at the rear. The front surface heat
losses are greatly reduced and the majority of the heat generated by
the panel is dissipated at the rear into the water. The collector is
dominant over the heat sink when analyzing the heat fluxes
however it is certain the heat sink provided a significant amount of
competition during the transient to steady-state time period.
Cooling by heat sink is via radiation and natural convection. This is
deciphered from the data in Fig. 7, that illustrates the convective
heat transfer coefficient only.
The convective heat loss coefficient in the channel decays from
357 W m
2 k
1 to 141 W$m
2 k
1 over time. The heat loss in
the channel is above that of water conduction with
hconv,r ¼ 25.7 W m
2 k
1. Current flow strength is quantified from
Reynolds number of Re ¼ 12.1, from non-dimensional relations in
past work [57]. The Nusselt numbers that should arise in the
channel from this Reynolds number from correlations of previous
studies are are Nu (x) ¼ 5.94, 5.385, 5.385, 5.385 and 5.385 for the
locations w; x ¼ 0, 0.052, 0.19, 0.33 and 0.471 m in the channel [23].
490 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
We have attained slight deviation from these values, Nu(x) ¼ 5.94,
5.57, 5.36 and 5.13 at these locations. The integral mean Nusselt
number is the channel is Nu ¼ 5.67 ± 0.23.
The strength of cooling of the channel is greater when ther-
mosiphon initiates (after 21 min) and decreases due to environ-
mental heat losses by the collector. The front heat loss increases
from Nu ¼ 22.2 to 46.1 from 21 to 140 min. The Rayleigh number
increases from Ra ¼ 4.60  107to 2.178  10 at the front. The back
cover of the channel dissipates heat to the environment by laminar
natural convection and radiation. The heat losses at the back of the
channel can be nullified by adding insulation because the scope of
the work involved the comparison of a PVT collector with
Nu ¼ 5.385 in the channel.
We conclude that the PVT collector performance suffices for
comparison to the heat sink since it is provided the cooling effect of
standard single channel heat exchanger geometry. Future work is
required to explore the benefits of the heat sink and make it
competitive with the water type single-channel PV/T collector.
5. Future recommendations
Steps are needed to attain higher Rayleigh numbers at the heat
sink which would increase the intensity of natural convection heat
transfer and may reduce a number of fins. This advantage to be
sought would involve a careful balance between reducing fin ma-
terial and acquiring strong natural convection. It has been proven in
this study that with weak natural convection, radiation heat
transfer with clear surface finish fins of density 1.22 finscm
2 will
cool the panel. We also emphasize the comparison of the new and
optimized heat sink to be done with the channel PV/T collector and
that the data of the present work is referenced to. This is to check
that the newer findings are superior to those of the present work, i.
e: higher heat transfer coefficient and flux from heat sink. It is
imperative that the PV/T collector be utilized in future work to
serve as a reference of a better device, as per the opinion of past and
the present study. A competitive heat sink with passive cooling is to
be striven for. The newer and improved device is to be compared
with a more optimized PV/T collector for fair work. Such measures
include insulation at the back of the collector to contain the heat in
the water and conform to earlier practices. The flow intensity of the
water is to be increased in the future by insulating the device and
acquiring higher thermal output or by undergoing improvements
of thermosiphon flow rates. This is because the Nusselt number in
the channel can be higher than the calculated Re ¼ 12.1 of the
present study. For instance, with Re ¼ 60: Nu(x) ¼ 6.95, 5.62, 5.385,
5.385 and 5.385 are present along the channel signifying larger
cooling than Nu ¼ 5.67 attained in the present work. The following
experimental procedures are to be undertaken after improvements
in the configurations:
i. Experimentation with variation of irradiance indoors
ii. Experimentation with variation of wind speeds and ambient
temperature
iii. Experimental work outdoors with light concentration and
comprehensive evaluation of heat transfer parameters
6. Conclusion
The present study has for the first time implemented a novel
passive method to cool a PV panel at extreme temperatures; a cy-
lindrical pin fin heat sink of density 1.22 fincm
2. The analysis
confirms that natural convection is present from the clear coated
aluminum heat sink facing downwards. The buoyancy forces state
that the natural convection is laminar in nature. The heat sink
contains 197 cylindrical fins coated with a clear finish with radia-
tion emissivity of ε ¼ 0.99 and the geometries used are diameter of
d ¼ 4.35  10
3 m, length of l ¼ 66.7  10
2 m and each is spaced at
S ¼ 9.01  10
3 m in staggered formatted. We suggest a compar-
ison to all passive methods to PV/T collector with water as the
coolant operating in a thermosiphon loop since it is superior.
However, these results yield a change of 25  C and 36.5  C in panel
temperature using the heat sink and single-channel PV/T collector
from an 88.1  C panel (measured at the rear of the KS20 pc-Si PV
module). Future recommendations are given to improve the natural
convection heat transfer of the heat sink so that it may better the
PV/T collector. Future work is listed to acquire more comprehensive
results for real life scenario. The present study outlines the pre-
liminary associated heat transfer coefficients and heat fluxes that
are to be consulted for these future studies.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Government of Southern Ontario,
Canada for funding this research. We would like to express our
sincere gratitude to our friends at the Mechanical and Materials
Engineering department at Western University, Canada, and our
friends at the University Machine Shop, Western University.
References

[1] M. Súri, et al., Potential of solar electricity generation in the European Union
member states and candidate countries, Sol. Energy 81 (10) (2007)
1295e1305.
[2] V. Quaschning, Energy, climate change and renewable energy sources, in:
Understanding Renewable Energy Systems, Bath Press, 2003, pp. 19e23. Bath.
[3] J. Byrne, B. Shen, W. Wallace, The economics of sustainable energy for rural
development: a study of renewable energy in rural China, Energy policy 26 (1)
(1998) 45e54.
[4] M. Ding, et al., A review on China‫ ׳‬s large-scale PV integration: progress,
challenges and recommendations, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53 (2016)
639e652.
[5] M.A. Green, et al., Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 45), Prog. Photovoltaics
Res. Appl. 23 (1) (2015) 1e9.
[6] E. Skoplaki, J. Palyvos, On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic
module electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations, Sol.
Energy 83 (5) (2009) 614e624.
[7] S. Dubey, J.N. Sarvaiya, B. Seshadri, Temperature dependent photovoltaic (PV)
efficiency and its effect on PV production in the worldea review, Energy
Procedia 33 (2013) 311e321.
[8] D.L. King, J.A. Kratochvil, W.E. Boyson, Photovoltaic array performance model
[Internet], Sandia National Laboratories, 2004 (Accessed 21 March 2017).
Available from: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access control.cgi/2004/
043535.pdf.
[9] A. Shukla, et al., Cooling methodologies of photovoltaic module for enhancing
electrical efficiency: a review, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 160 (2017)
275e286.
[10] D. Evans, Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output, Sol.
Energy 27 (6) (1981) 555e560.
[11] M. Munoz, et al., Early degradation of silicon PV modules and guaranty con-
ditions, Sol. Energy 85 (9) (2011) 2264e2274.
[12] Y. Wang, et al., Experimental study on direct-contact liquid film cooling
simulated dense-array solar cells in high concentrating photovoltaic system,
Energy Convers. Manag. 135 (2017) 55e62.
[13] A. Royne, C.J. Dey, Design of a jet impingement cooling device for densely
packed PV cells under high concentration, Sol. Energy 81 (8) (2007)
1014e1024.
[14] S. Nizeti
c, et al., Experimental and numerical investigation of a backside
convective cooling mechanism on photovoltaic panels, Energy 111 (2016)
211e225.
[15] S. Nizeti
c, et al., Water spray cooling technique applied on a photovoltaic
panel: the performance response, Energy Convers. Manag. 108 (2016)
287e296.
[16] S. Jakhar, M. Soni, N. Gakkhar, Historical and recent development of
concentrating photovoltaic cooling technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
60 (2016) 41e59.
[17] A. Luque, et al., Some results of the euclides photovoltaic concentrator pro-
totype, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 5 (3) (1997) 195e212.
[18] S.K. Natarajan, et al., Numerical investigations of solar cell temperature for
photovoltaic concentrator system with and without passive cooling ar-
rangements, Int. J. Therm. Sci 50 (12) (2011) 2514e2521.
[19] M. Huang, P. Eames, B. Norton, Thermal regulation of building-integrated
 U.J. Rajput, J. Yang / Renewable Energy 116 (2018) 479e491
photovoltaics using phase change materials, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 47 (12)
(2004) 2715e2733.
[20] H. Najafi, K.A. Woodbury, Optimization of a cooling system based on Peltier
effect for photovoltaic cells, Sol. Energy 91 (2013) 152e160.
[21] M. Chandrasekar, T. Senthilkumar, Experimental demonstration of enhanced
solar energy utilization in flat PV (photovoltaic) modules cooled by heat
spreaders in conjunction with cotton wick structures, Energy 90 (2015)
1401e1410.
[22] A.D. Kraus, A. Aziz, J. Welty, Convection with simplified restraints, in:
Extended Surface Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2002,
pp. 6e7.
[23] A.D. Kraus, A. Aziz, J. Welty, Heat transfer considerations, in: Extended Surface
Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2002, pp. 171e172.
[24] C. Lamnatou, D. Chemisana, Photovoltaic/thermal (PVT) systems: a review
with emphasis on environmental issues, Renew. Energy 105 (2017) 270e287.
[25] S. Jakhar, M.S. Soni, N. Gakkhar, Parametric modeling and simulation of
photovoltaic panels with earth water heat exchanger cooling, Geotherm.
Energy 4 (1) (2016) 10.
[26] S. Jakhar, M. Soni, N. Gakkhar, Performance analysis of earth water heat
exchanger for concentrating photovoltaic cooling, Energy Procedia 90 (2016)
145e153.
[27] S. Dubey, G. Tiwari, Thermal modeling of a combined system of photovoltaic
thermal (PV/T) solar water heater, Sol. Energy 82 (7) (2008) 602e612.
[28] F. Yazdanifard, E. Ebrahimnia-Bajestan, M. Ameri, Investigating the perfor-
mance of a water-based photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector in laminar and
turbulent flow regime, Renew. Energy 99 (2016) 295e306.
[29] M. Sardarabadi, M. Passandideh-Fard, Experimental and numerical study of
metal-oxides/water nanofluids as coolant in photovoltaic thermal systems
(PVT), Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 157 (2016) 533e542.
[30] Y. Khanjari, F. Pourfayaz, A. Kasaeian, Numerical investigation on using of
nanofluid in a water-cooled photovoltaic thermal system, Energy Convers.
Manag. 122 (2016) 263e278.
[31] W.M. Rohsenow, J.P. Hartnett, Y.I. Cho, Forced convection, internal flow in-
ducts, in: Handbook of Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1998,
p. 5.68.
[32] A. Nahar, M. Hasanuzzaman, N. Rahim, Numerical and experimental investi-
gation on the performance of a photovoltaic thermal collector with parallel
plate flow channel under different operating conditions in Malaysia, Sol. En-
ergy 144 (2017) 517e528.
[33] S. Singh, et al., Modeling and parameter optimization of hybrid single channel
photovoltaic-thermal module using genetic algorithms, Sol. Energy 113
(2015) 78e87.
[34] B. Sandnes, J. Rekstad, A photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector with a polymer
absorber plate. Experimental study and analytical model, Sol. Energy 72 (1)
(2002) 63e73.
[35] T. Chow, W. He, J. Ji, Hybrid photovoltaic-thermosyphon water heating system
for residential application, Sol. Energy 80 (3) (2006) 298e306.
[36] J. Ji, et al., A sensitivity study of a hybrid photovoltaic/thermal water-heating
system with natural circulation, Appl. Energy 84 (2) (2007) 222e237.
[37] W. He, et al., Hybrid photovoltaic and thermal solar-collector designed for
natural circulation of water, Appl. Energy 83 (3) (2006) 199e210.
[38] J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Water Heating: Active and Passive, in Solar
491
Engineering of Thermal Processes, Wiley New York, New York, NY, 1980,
pp. 487e489.
[39] H. Zondag, et al., The yield of different combined PV-thermal collector designs,
Sol. energy 74 (3) (2003) 253e269.
[40] E. Sparrow, S. Vemuri, Orientation effects on natural convection/radiation
heat transfer from pin-fin arrays, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 29 (3) (1986)
359e368.
[41] T. Aihara, S. Maruyama, S. Kobayakawa, Free convective/radiative heat
transfer from pin-fin arrays with a vertical base plate (general representation
of heat transfer performance), Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 33 (6) (1990)
1223e1232.
[42] S. Armstrong, W. Hurley, A thermal model for photovoltaic panels under
varying atmospheric conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (11) (2010) 1488e1495.
[43] I.H. Rowlands, B.P. Kemery, I. Beausoleil-Morrison, Optimal solar-PV tilt angle
and azimuth: an Ontario (Canada) case-study, Energy Pol. 39 (3) (2011)
1397e1409.
[44] M. Victoria, et al., Characterization of the spatial distribution of irradiance and
spectrum in concentrating photovoltaic systems and their effect on multi-
junction solar cells, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 21 (3) (2013) 308e318.
[45] K. Emery, Solar simulators and IeV measurement methods, Sol. cells 18 (3)
(1986) 251e260.
[46] R. Hulstrom, R. Bird, C. Riordan, Spectral solar irradiance data sets for selected
terrestrial conditions, Sol. Cells 15 (4) (1985) 365e391.
[47] J.P. Holman, Analysis of Experimental Data. in: Experimental Methods for
Engineers, 8 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2010, pp. 110e113.
[48] S.W. Churchill, H.H. Chu, Correlating equations for laminar and turbulent free
convection from a vertical plate, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 18 (11) (1975)
1323e1329.
[49] T.L. Bergman, F.P. Incropera, A.S. Lavine, Free Convection.In:Fundamentals of
Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2011,
pp. 599e624.
[50] T. Fujii, H. Imura, Natural-convection heat transfer from a plate with arbitrary
inclination, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 15 (4) (1972) 755e767.
[51] T.L. Bergman, F.P. Incropera, A.S. Lavine, One-dimensional Steady-state Heat
conduction.In:Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, NY :John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 2011, pp. 164e171.
[52] G. Notton, et al., Modelling of a double-glass photovoltaic module using finite
differences, Appl. Therm. Eng. 25 (17) (2005) 2854e2877.
[53] N. Matsumoto, T. Tomimura, Y. Koito, Heat transfer characteristics of square
micro pin fins under natural convection, J. Electron. Cool. Therm. Control 4
(03) (2014) 59.
[54] A. Jones, C. Underwood, A thermal model for photovoltaic systems, Sol. Energy
70 (4) (2001) 349e359.
[55] A. Bar-Cohen, A. Herman, Experimental investigation of transient natural
convection heat transfer in vertical enclosures (constant heating), Lett. Heat
Mass Transf. 4 (2) (1977) 111e118.
[56] T.L. Bergman, F.P. Incropera, A.S. Lavine, One-Dimensional, steady-state con-
duction, in: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 2011, pp. 155e160.
[57] M.Y. Okiishi, B. Munson, D. Young, Dimensional analysis, similitude and
modelling, in: Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. 2006, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY, 2006, p. 347.