Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x

Methodology for predicting the PV module temperature based on actual

and estimated weather data
Nouar Aoun
Unité de Recherche en Energies Renouvelables en Milieu Saharien, URERMS, Centre de Développement des Energies Renouvelables, CDER, 01000 Adrar, Algeria

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

Keywords: In this work, five different models reported in the literature for estimating the PV module temperature were
Photovoltaic compared and evaluated. Seven cases have been proposed; the latter differ with respect to the nature of input
Module temperature parameter data of solar radiation and ambient temperature (i.e., measured or estimated). The cases were clas­
Category
sified into three categories, where the first category contained data on the measured solar radiation and esti­
Weather
Measured
mated ambient temperatures (three different models). The second uses the estimated solar radiation and ambient
Estimated temperature data. Finally, category three only uses measured data of both parameters. In summary, all models
performed well year-round, with a mean square error (RMSE) between 0.45 and 5.7 ◦ C, and the best results were
observed in the hot months (April to October).

1. Introduction
The upward growth in the installation of photovoltaic power systems
around the world requires an accurate estimation of the energy to be
acquired before the implementation of projects [1]. In fact, predicting
the energy produced by any photovoltaic system (regardless of the
location and the mode of installation) requires knowledge of some
parameter values, such as solar radiation, ambient temperature, module
temperature, wind speed, physical properties of the various elements
forming the PV module, etc. [2,3]. Indeed, since these parameters are
not always available at the intended location, accurate prediction of
their values is required to reduce the error between the predicted and
measured PV energy [4]. The literature reports several models that differ
according to their difficulty and the number of input variables consid­
ered. The energy produced by any photoelectric module/system is
particularly influenced by the module temperature. PV cell tempera­
tures greater than 25 ◦ C negatively affect the PV energy efficiency [5]. In
[2], the authors indicate that increasing the PV cell temperature by
10 ◦ C results in a 4% energy loss. For this reason, accurate knowledge of
the photovoltaic cell temperature is essential for the correct prediction
of the energy produced [5]. In the literature, different models have been
suggested for predicting PV cell temperature. The simplest explicit
model is the NOCT model, which depends only on ambient temperature
and solar radiation [6]. The complexity of the models increases ac­
cording to the increase in input elements. In this respect, some re­
searchers added wind speed as an input parameter and studied its effect
on the models’ accuracy [7]. Others focused on studying models that
combine these three parameters (ambient temperature, solar radiation,
and wind speed) [8,9]. Moreover, additional experimental parameters,
such as empirical coefficients [10], PV module efficiency [11], and heat
transfer parameters [12], were combined. To compare the different
models in terms of accuracy, some of the PV cell temperature models
found in the literature and that used the abovementioned input pa­
rameters have been compiled and exhaustively reviewed in [5,13]. To
improve and enrich the research in this field, other approaches used
artificial intelligence methods such as artificial neural networks [14],
genetic programming [15], and support vector machines [16].
Furthermore, the International Electrotechnical Commission for the
estimation suggested the use of the open-circuit voltage measurement,
which was referenced under the IEC 60904-5 standard [2,17].
It should be noted that all the above models employed the actual
weather datasets as input parameters. Unfortunately, these data are not
always available due to the cost of data collection or the difficulty of
obtaining measuring devices. For this reason, the forecasting of PV cell
temperature using modeled (estimated) weather data is the best choice.
Many research papers have attempted to predict meteorological
data. In fact, solar radiation modeling is the parameter that has received
the most attention from researchers. Several methods were used; the
latter can be divided into conventional methods and intelligence
methods using satellite or ground-based datasets [18–23]. On the other
hand, since ambient temperature is an important parameter in many
fields, such as agriculture and energy, a number of researchers have

E-mail address: nouar.aoun@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100182
Received 13 July 2021; Received in revised form 23 December 2021; Accepted 10 January 2022
Available online 13 January 2022
2590-1745/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N. Aoun
tried to predict its values [24]. Generally, most models are based on
maximum and minimum ambient temperature datasets combined with
other parameters, such as solar radiation, humidity, pressure,
geographic location, sunrise and sunset time [25,26]. In addition, the
phenomena of heat convection and heat radiation were utilized [27].
Moreover, machine learning-based approaches such as artificial neural
networks, adaptive neuron-fuzzy inference systems, and support vector
regression methods were applied [28–30].
In this work, five different models reported in the literature were
compared and evaluated for estimating the PV module (back) temper­
ature. The choice of these models was made according to the input pa­
rameters utilized. The choice was made after reviewing models that used
or not wind speed (Skoplaki model [13] and NOCT model [11]), models
that contained measured parameters (Ross model [31] and Sandia
model [10]), and others that used physical properties of materials
(Thermal model [12]). Although these models have been studied in
many papers, the novelty of the study lies in comparing and evaluating
the effect of estimated weather values on the accuracy and effectiveness
of the models. The results of the models obtained using the estimated
weather values and the actual weather data were compared with the
actual PV module temperature measured on the back surface of the PV
module using a K-type thermocouple sensor. Accordingly, seven cases
were suggested, divided into three categories. The first category con­
tained data on actual solar radiation and the ambient temperature
values estimated by the three models designated in the paper as model 1
[32], model 2 [26], and model 3 [25]. The second category used the
estimated solar radiation data obtained by the Yaiche method [33] and
the estimated ambient temperature values (model 1 [32], model 2 [26],
and model 3 [25]). The last category utilizes only actual data of both
parameters (solar radiation and ambient temperature).
2. Site and experimental data descriptions
Outdoor measurements were taken under a hot desert climate in the
Renewable Energy Research Unit in the Saharan Environment (URER-
MS), Adrar (27.88◦ N, longitude: − 0.27◦ E, and altitude: 269 m), Algeria.
One of the main characteristics of the Adrar region is that it is charac­
terized by a high level of solar radiation throughout the year [34]. The
PV module chosen for the study is a monocrystalline type (SYP80S-M)
with a glass/cells/tedlar configuration. The module was installed facing
Fig. 1. The different outdoor experimental facilities.
2
Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182
the south with an inclined angle of ~ 28◦ . The module temperature was
measured by a K-type thermocouple placed on the rear of the PV mod­
ule. Ambient temperature and wind speed were measured by the
meteorological station NEAL (New Energy Algeria) [35]. The inclined
solar radiation was measured using a Kipp & Zonen pyranometer
installed on the plane of the PV module. Fig. 1 shows the different fa­
cilities (PV module, pyranometer, thermocouples and meteorological
station) used in the outdoor experiment.
The datasets were collected from January 2015 to December 2015
from sunrise to sunset with a one-minute recording interval and stored
via Fluck Hydra 2548 data acquisition. Table 1 shows the minimum and
maximum values of weather data recorded at the site under study in
2015. The measurements showed that solar radiation (It), ambient
temperature (Ta) and wind speed (Ws) ranged from 0 to 1369 W/m2,
− 0.7 to 48.4 ◦ C and 0 to 15.7 m/s, respectively. In general, weather
fluctuations in the same month (day) affect the accuracy of the PV
module temperature results.
3. Methodology
Module (back) temperature was estimated using five different
methods, namely, Skoplaki [13], NOCT [5,11], Ross [31], Sandia [10],
and Thermal [12,36]. The methodology is based on classifying each
selected method into three categories, as shown below:
Category 1: divided into three cases depending on the ambient
temperature model used:
• Case I: using the experimental solar radiation data and the ambient
temperature estimated by model 1 [32].
• Case II: using the experimental solar radiation data and the ambient
temperature estimated by model 2 [26].
• Case III: using the experimental solar radiation data and the ambient
temperature estimated by model 3 [25].
Category 2: divided into three cases, where solar radiation was
estimated by using the method of Yaiche et al. [33] and the ambient
temperature was estimated by one of the proposed models (models 1, 2
and 3):
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Table 1
Minimum and maximum meteorological data observed in 2015.
Months It (W/m2) Ta (◦ C) Ws (m/s) Months It (W/m2) Ta (◦ C) Ws (◦ C)

Jan Max 1278 27 10,3 Jul Max 1118 48,4 14,4

Min 0 − 0.7 0 Min 0 25.1 0
Fab Max 1307 27.6 15.7 Aug Max 1202 47.7 12.2
Min 0 7.2 0 Min 0 28.8 0
Mar Max 1369 34.3 11.4 Sep Max 1281 44.4 15.7
Min 0 5 0 Min 0 22.2 0
Apr Max 1337 41.9 12.7 Oct Max 1355 41.3 9.6
Min 0 13.3 0 Min 0 19 0
May Max 1235 45.9 11.7 Nov Max 1251 37.5 9.7
Min 0 18.4 0 Min 0 5.3 0
Jun Max 1171 47.4 10.6 Dec Max 1221 25.8 8.7
Min 0 22.2 0 Min 0 5.3 0

• Case IV: using estimated solar radiation (Yaiche et al. [33]) and
ambient temperature (model 1) [32].
• Case V: using estimated solar radiation (Yaiche et al. [33]) and
ambient temperature (model 2) [26].
• Case VI: using estimated solar radiation (Yaiche et al. [33]) and
ambient temperature (model 3) [25].
Category 3: Using only experimental data of the solar radiation and
ambient temperature (case VII).
Fig. 2 summarizes the methodology applied in this paper to predict
the module temperature, consisting of the experimental input data to be
utilized later, the estimated solar radiation [33], and the estimated
ambient temperature (models 1, 2, and 3). Finally, the temperature
value of the PV module is estimated according to the three categories
presented in Section 3.
4. Mathematical models
4.1. Solar radiation
The first parameter affecting the forecasting of PV module temper­
ature is solar radiation, where accurate knowledge of the solar radiation
value is very important for the precision of the different models. In fact,
actual solar radiation data (instantaneous or daily) are not always
available due to the impossibility of installing measurement equipment
at every location because of the high cost of equipment and its main­
tenance, in addition to the lack of qualified personnel [37].
In the literature, various models have been proposed and investi­
gated to estimate solar radiation on a tilted surface [38–42]. In this
work, the model proposed by Yaiche et al. [33] was presented and uti­
lized to estimate the module temperature. Later, this model was devel­
oped in [43], in which the solar irradiance on an inclined plane was
estimated every 5 min using horizontal irradiation data. The accuracy of
the model was verified in three different locations with different envi­
ronmental conditions, which gave satisfactory results with a relative
root mean square error range between 4.7 and 6.41%. As an overview,
the authors combined the Perrin Brichambaut [44] and Liu and Jordan
[38] models to estimate the inclined solar radiation under clear sky
conditions. Then, they used the proposed cloudiness factors presented
by Yaiche et al. [33], Ni and Nd (which are used to determine the state of
the sky (Table 1 in [33]) to transform both models into an anisotropic
model able to estimate the solar radiation under all-sky conditions [43].
The methodology of the Perrin Brichambaut [44], Liu and Jordan [38],
and combined models are detailed below [33,43]:

• Brichambaut model: The model is based on the utilization of the

Linke turbidity factor to estimate the direct and diffuse solar radia­
tion at a horizontal plane for clear skies [44]. The Linke turbidity
factor TL for clear skies is expressed by [32,45]:
TL = T0 + T1 + T2 (1)

where:
T0 = 2.4 − 0.9sin(∅) + 0.1(2 + sin(∅) )Ahe − 0.2Z (2)

T1 = 0.89Z (3)

T2 = (0.9 + 0.4Ahe )0.63Z (4)

where Ø (27.82◦ ) and Z (263.9 e-3 km) are the latitude and altitude of
the plane, respectively. In addition, Ahe is the winter-summer alterna­
tion [32]:
[ ]
360(n − 121)
Ahe = sin (5)
365

where n is the day of the year, which varies between 1 (1 January) and
Fig. 2. The procedure flowchart.

3
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

365 (31 December). ( )

1 + cos(β)
The direct diffuse and global radiations on the horizontal plane are Di = Dh (17)
formulated by the following expressions [45]: 2

• Direct radiation (Sh): presented by following equation:

[ )− 1 ]
(
9.4sin(h) • Reflected radiation on a tilted plane
Sh = I0 Ct exp − TL 0.9 + sin(h) (6) ( )
T1 1 − cos(β)
Dref = ρ0 (Sh + Dh ) (18)
2
2
where I0 is the solar constant 1370 W/m , and h is the sun-elevation
which represents the angle between the sun-direction and the horizon where ρ0 is the ground albedo (ρ0 = 0.2).
surface and its mathematical formula is as follows [46]:
• Global radiation: Finally, the global radiation on the titled plane
sin(h) = cos(∅)cos(δ)cos(ω) + sin(∅)sin(δ) (7)
and during clear sky conditions is given by:
where the hour angle (ω) and the declination angle (δ) can be calculated Gi = Si + Di + Dref (19)
by [46,47]:
ω = 15(TST − 12) (8) • Yaiche method
{ }
δ = 23.34sin
360(284 + n)
(9) After estimating the solar radiance values under clear-sky conditions
365 using Brichambaut and Jordan model’s, Yaiche et al. [33] modified
The earth-sun distance (Ct) can be calculated by the following these models using the proposed cloudiness factors. The developed
correction expression [46]: mathematical equations are presented below [33,43]. The modified
Brichambaut model was rewritten as follows:
360n
Ct = 1 + 0.033cos (10) Ghc = Ni Sh + Nd Dh (20)
365
Next, a comparison between the estimated (Eq. (20)) and measured
solar radiance (Ghm) are made after entering the different values of
cloudiness factors Ni and Nd (Table 1 in [33]). Then, the new cloudiness
• Diffuse radiation (Dh): presented by the following equation:
factor values (N*i and N*d) are adopted, which correspond to the lowest
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
Dh = I0 exp − 1 + 1.06log(sin(h) ) + a − a2 + b2 (11) value of the absolute error of the value of solar radiation, as represented
in the following equation [43]:
( * *)
where: Ni , Nd = min(Ni ,Nd ) (Ghm − Ghc (Ni , Nd ) ) (21)
a = 1.1 (12) Eventually, by using the new cloudiness factors (N*i and N*d) in the
clear-sky models of Liu and Jordan [38], the global solar radiation under
b = log(T1 + T2 ) − 2.8 + 1.02(1 − sin(h) )2 (13) all- sky conditions and different incidence tilted surfaces was estimated
by the following formula [43]:

G*ic = Ni* ∙Si + N*d ∙Di + Dref (22)

• Global radiation (Gh): The global solar radiation is the sum of the
direct and diffuse radiations:
Gh = Sh + Dh (14)
• Liu & Jordan: This model is an isotropic model that assumes that
solar diffuse radiation is uniform over the sky dome and is based on
the correlations between the diffuse fraction and the clearness index
[38,46,48]. The global solar radiation on a tilted surface using the
Liu and Jordan model is represented by the sum of the direct (Si),
diffuse (Di) and ground-reflected (Dref) radiations, as shown below:
• Direct radiation
Si = Sh Rb (15)
4.2. Ambient temperature
Several models for the prediction of ambient temperature have been
reported in the literature [28,30,49]. However, most of them do not
accurately predict the ambient temperature during short periods (such
as sinusoidal methods). Furthermore, it also requires a long time for the
observation of weather patterns, e.g., ambient temperature, wind (speed
and direction), humidity, and solar radiation (such as the artificial
neural network), which is not always available. In this study, three
models were chosen to estimate the ambient temperature. The models
were selected because they are simple and require only the maximum
and minimum ambient temperature, where two of the models represent
a sinusoidal function (expressed by Eqs. (23) and (24), respectively) and
the other an exponential function (expressed by Eq. (25)), see Table 2.

where Rb is the factor of inclination of the direct radiation and is

expressed by:
cos(∅ − β)cos(δ)cos(ω) + sin(∅ − β)sin(δ)
Rb =
cos(∅)cos(δ)cos(ω) + sin(∅)sin(δ)
where (β) is the inclination angle of the plane (β = 28)
• Diffuse radiation on an inclined surface
4.3. PV module temperature
As one of the most important factors affecting PV system efficiency,
(16)
estimating the PV cell temperature value has aroused researchers’ in­
terest. Many studies in the literature have attempted to obtain more
accurate values. For example, the international standard IEC 60904-5
presents a specific approach to calculate cell temperature devices
using their open-circuit voltage [2]. Moreover, models based on mete­
orological parameters (solar radiation, wind, and ambient temperature)
were suggested [8]. On the other hand, artificial intelligence approaches

4
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Table 2
Formulas used to determine ambient temperature and PV module temperature.
Parameter Correlations Models Equations References Remarks
{ }
Ambient Tmax + Tmin Tmax − Tmin π(TST − 1) Model 1 (23) [32] TST is the true solar time in decimal hours since sunrise; Tmax and
Ta = + sin
temperature 2 2 ( 12 ) Tmin are the maximum and minimum ambient temperature
Tmax + Tmin Tmax − Tmin π(14 − TST) Model 2 (24) [26] during the day.
Ta = + cos
2 2 12
Ta = Y0 + Model 3 (25) [25]
( ( ) )
97.275 TST − Xc 2
√̅̅̅ exp − 2 Where:
π w(Xc )
w(Xc )
2 ( )
Tmax + Tmin (26)
Y0 = − 0.369 + 0.854
2
Xc = 12.34 + 0.328(Tmax − Tmin ) (27)
w(Xc ) = 97334.6 − 23517.399Xc + (28)
2127.83Xc 2 − 85.438Xc 3 + 1.2845Xc 4
PV Module 0.32 Skoplaki (29) [13]
Tc = Ta + ( )I
temperature Ws T
8.91 + 2.0∙
0.67
IT NOCT (30) [11]
Tc = Ta + (TNOCT − 20)
800
Tc = Ta + kross IT Ross (31) [31] kross = 0.02–0.05 K/m2/W [13,56] (depend on the PV module
type and installation mode [12]). For different mounting types of
solar panels, the Ross coefficient values are tabulated in Table 1
in [13].
Tc = Ta + IT e(a+b∙Ws ) Sandia (32) [10] a= − 3.56 and b= − 0.075, for the Glass/silicon cells/polymeric
layer configuration and the open rack installed, (see Table 1 in
[10]).
( )
τα − ηp IT Thermal (34) [12] Tgr and Tsky are the ground and sky temperatures, respectively,
Tc = + Ta εglass (=0.85) and εback (=0.91) are the coefficient of emissivity of
Uloss
the front and back cover PV module, respectively [7]; and σ is the
Stefane Boltzman constant (5.6697. 10-8Wm− 2 K− 4).
( )( )
Uloss = εglass σ Tc2 +Tsky
2
Tc +Tsky +
( )( )
εback σ T2c +T2gr Tc +Tgr +
(2.8 + 3Ws ) (35)
Tgr = 17.898 + 0.951Ta (36)
Tsky = 0.0552Ta1.5 (37) [57,58]

are often used [28]. In this paper, five popular models were presented • Thermal model: Unlike the above models, this model utilizes the
and evaluated according to the three categories explained in the meth­ physical properties of materials such as transmission and absorption
odology (Section 3); see Table 2. of the cover at the front and back of the PV module. [52]. This
method is based on the energy balance theory, i.e., the incident en­
• Skoplaki model [13]: The authors presented a comprehensive over­ ergy is equal to the sum of the PV energy supplied and losses per unit
view of different implicit and explicit approaches for the PV oper­ area by radiation, convection, and conduction [36,53]. The mathe­
ating temperature and proposed a simple correlation suitable for any matical formulation of the resulting energy balance is expressed by
PV array mounting [50]. The proposed model is based on wind speed [12]:
(Ws), solar radiation (It), and ambient temperature (Ta), as seen in
ταIT = ηp + Uloss (Tc − Ta ) (33)
Table 2 (Eq. (29)).
• Standard model (or NOCT model) [11]: the NOCT (nominal oper­
where Uloss represent the thermal losses of the PV system by radiation
ating cell temperature) model estimates the module temperature
(with sky and ground) and convection (influence of the wind) [54,55],
using the NOCT (TNOCT) temperature (available in the manufacturer
τα is the transmission-absorption (=0.81) [11], ηp is the photovoltaic
datasheet), ambient temperature, and solar radiation values. The { [ ]}
module efficiency ηp = ηref ∙ 1 − αp ∙(Tc − 25) , ηref is the PV module
TNOCT is defined as the PV cell temperature under specific environ­
mental conditions, defined as solar radiation of 800 W/m2, an efficiency at STC and αp is the maximum power temperature coefficient
ambient temperature of 20 ◦ C, and wind speed of 1 m/s. The mea­ (◦ C− 1).
surement is achieved by the open circuit [51]; generally, this model Where, after the rearrangement of Eq. (33), the PV module temper­
performs better under good ventilation conditions [5]. The model ature was expressed by Eq. (34)-(37), as shown in Table 2.
was formulated with Eq. (30).
• Ross model: In [31], an explicit linear equation was developed for 5. Statistical evaluation
estimating the operating PV temperature (Eq. (31)), which depends
on ambient temperature, solar radiation and Ross coefficient “kross” For the accuracy of the suggested methods, statistical evaluation of
(indicates the difference between the cell and ambient temperatures the mean bias error (MBE), the root mean square error (RMSE), the
as a function of solar radiation). coefficient of determination (R2), the relative root mean square error
• Sandia model (or King model) [10]: The Sandia method (Eq. (32)) is (rRMSE), and the mean percentage error (MPE) was performed [59–61].
an empirical model that applies the data of the wind speed (Ws), 1 ∑
N
( )
ambient temperature (Ta), solar radiation (It), and two empirical MBE = Tc,e − Tc,m (38)
N 1
coefficients related to the PV module construction and mounting
materials, a and b [51]. In this paper, the difference between back- N ( )
side and cell temperature is not taken into consideration. 100 ∑ Tc,e − Tc,m
MPE = (39)
N 1 Tc,m

5
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ shown in Fig. 5. The measured and estimated values present good
√1 ∑ adherence on all days except January 06 and 07, during which the sky
N
( )2
RMSE = √ Tc,e − Tc,m (40)
N 1 was cloudy and partly cloudy, respectively. This deterioration in the
results is because a condition for the validity of the Yaiche method is that
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
N (
the value of the clarity index exceeds a certain threshold. In fact, in this
∑ )2
1
N
Tc,e − Tc,m study, the condition was not taken into account.
rRMSE =
1
∑N (41) Table 3 presents the statistical evaluation of the solar radiation re­
sults using the Yaiche method on the selected days. On the two cloudy
1
N 1 Tc,m
days of January 06 and 07, high RMSE values were found (160.46 and
∑N ( )2
Tc,m − Tc,e 111.03 W/m2, respectively). However, on the other days, the RMSE
R2 = 1 − ∑ N ( 1 (42)
)2 values varied from 30.8 to 61.6 W/m2. The results obtained are less
1 Tc,m − Tc,average
accurate than those obtained in [43] due to the time interval employed
The indices (e) and (m) represent the estimated and measured values, (1 min in this study and 5 min in [43]) and not taking into account the
respectively. N is the number of data considered. clarity index condition. In general, this model is effective for predicting
Due to the difficulty of determining the best model by using these the value of solar radiation, especially in areas that are usually charac­
statistical values, the Global Performance Index (GPI) was used. This terized by clear weather throughout the year, such as the area under
method combines the abovementioned indicators. Higher GPI values study.
indicate that the model is more accurate [61]. The GPI mathematical
expression of the ith model is expressed by:
6.3. Instantaneous module temperature
∑
5
( )
GPI i = αj Xi − Xij (43)
i=1 The estimated instantaneous module temperature of selected days
using the five PV module temperature models was compared with the
where for the MBE, MPE, RMSE, and rRMSE indicators, αj equals 1, actual data as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Furthermore, the actual and
whereas for R2 it is − 1. Xi is the median of the scaled values of indicator estimated solar irradiance were added. The comparison was performed
j, and Xij is the scaled value of indicator j for model i. according to cases III, VI, and VII presented in the methodology (section
3).
6. Results and discussions The selected sample days were chosen in two different months, cold
(January) and hot (July), and according to the type of sky (cloudy or
6.1. Ambient temperature validation sunny days). This choice is very practical to compare different physical
models and determine their accuracy, whether using actual weather
As mentioned above, two model types were used to estimate the data of ambient temperature and solar radiation or their predicted
ambient temperature: sinusoidal (models 1 and 2) and exponential values.
(model 3). Figs. 3 and 4 show, for comparison purposes, the PV module It is observed that the modeled module temperature using the NOCT
temperatures estimated using sinusoidal models and exponential model, model is exaggerated compared to the experimental data. This is due to
respectively, according to the seven mentioned cases alongside the the working principle of the NOCT model which is specially designed to
instantaneous experimental data. determine the PV junction cell temperature value. The junction cell
The sinusoidal models (models 1 and 2) give incompatible instan­ temperature value is typically higher than the PV back-surface module
taneous module temperature results with actual data throughout the of 1 to 3 ◦ C [5]. These results are in agreement with those obtained in
day. On the other hand, good compatibility was observed by using the [62], which confirms that the model is not the best choice to predict the
exponential model (model 3). It is clear that the use of sinusoidal models PV module temperature. In addition, the accuracy of NOCT when using
as input elements to estimate the instantaneous values of the PV module weather elements according to the condition in case VII is lower than
temperature is not preferred. that in the other cases despite its dependence on the use of actual
weather values. This means that the impact of the weather forecast error
6.2. Solar radiation validation affects the accuracy of the models, either in a positive or negative way.
For the Ross model, despite its simplicity, the modeled curve fitting
The estimated solar radiation model developed by Yaiche et al. was shows good agreement with the empirical values when actual weather
tested during daylight selected sample days in January and July 2015 as data are used (case VII). The results are consistent with those presented

Fig. 3. Estimation of the PV module temperature by the Skoplaki method based on estimation of ambient temperature by models (1) and (2) concerning cases I, II, IV
and V.

6
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Fig. 4. Estimation of the PV module temperature by the Skoplaki method based on estimation of ambient temperature by model (3) concerning cases III, VI and VII.

Fig. 5. Measured and estimated solar radiation during selected sample days.

in [5]. By comparing the NOCT and Sandia models, it is clear that both
Table 3
models produced overestimation of PV module temperature data. These
Statistical evaluation of the solar radiation on the selected days.
results correspond to those observed in [63]. Generally, the accuracy of
Days RMSE (W/m2) rRMSE (%) MBE MPE R2 (%) the results varies according to the day and the PV module temperature
06/01/2015 160.46 46.2 21.95 − 249.13 60.6 model employed, as well as the weather values used as input elements.
07/01/2015 111.03 66.6 95.43 − 511.63 82.3 Table 4 exhibits the statistical evaluation (S.E) of the best results
20/01/2015 30.79 4.8 − 16.62 − 47.21 99.3 obtained by the developed methods on the selected days. The RMSE and
28/07/2015 61.56 11.4 − 12.36 2.37 97.1
29/07/2015 36.59 8.0 − 1.59 3.12 98.6
R2 values varied from 1.018 to 8.465 ◦ C and from 46.9 to 98.9%,
30/07/2015 33.01 7.5 7.78 − 0.27 98.9 respectively. The highest RMSE was obtained by the NOCT method
based on case VI in the methodology. Surprisingly, this value was

7
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Fig. 6. Instantaneous estimated and measured PV module temperatures of 6 to 9 and 20 January 2015.

observed on 20 January, which was a clear-sky day, where the observed results is that wind speed is not included in the model (see Eq. (30))
RMSE and R2 values of the solar radiation were perfect with R2 = 99.3% despite the effect of wind convection on cooling or heating (the sirocco)
and RMSE = 30.79 W/m2 (see Table 3). In addition to the working of the PV modules [63].
principle of the NOCT model mentioned above, the reason for these On the winter days of 06-07 and 20 January, the best results were

8
N. Aoun
Fig. 7. Instantaneous estimated and measured PV module temperatures from 28 to 31 July 2015.
achieved by the Ross method using actual weather data as input pa­
rameters (case VII). Concerning the summer days, from 28 to 30 July,
the best models are Sandia (case III), Ross (case VI), and Skoplaki (case
VI). This indicates that the effectiveness of the models is affected by the
kind of weather data used in the forecast as well as by the actual
measured weather values. In general, except for the NOCT model, all PV
temperature models perform better on winter days than on summer
days. On January 07, all PV temperature models performed better and
achieved the best RMSE values.
9
Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182
The performance of the models is affected by many factors, the most
important of which are wind speed, ambient temperature and solar ra­
diation. By comparing the second term in Eqs. (29)-(32), i.e. kross,
kskoplaki = ( 0.32 ), knoct = (TNOCT − 20)
, and ksandia = e(a+b∙Ws ) , it is clear
800
Ws
8.91+2.0∙0.67
that the k coefficients are inversely proportional to the wind speed value
which affects the performance of the temperature models (as shown in
Fig. 8). These results are consistent with those obtained in [7], where the
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Table 4
The statistical evaluation (S.E) of the developed methods during the selected days in January and July.
Method S.E 06 January 07 January 20 January 28 July 29 July 30 July

Skoplaki RMSE, C◦
3.088 1.435 2.164 8.010 2.795 7.744
rRMSE 0.011 0.005 0.007 0.025 0.009 0.024
MBE, ◦ C 1.122 1.335 0.844 − 6.145 1.535 − 6.039
MPE, % − 0.384 − 0.461 − 0.291 1.859 − 0.476 − 1.484
R2 0.889 0.989 0.945 0.801 0.954 0.835
GPI 0.554 1.767 0.739 0.000 0.208 0.061
Case VII VII VII III VII III
NOCT RMSE 4.659 3.619 8.465 4.565 4.356 3.881
rRMSE 0.016 0.013 0.029 0.014 0.013 0.012
MBE 1.980 0.151 7.078 1.178 − 0.985 − 1.359
MPE − 0.700 − 0.069 − 2.379 − 0.369 0.286 0.403
R2 0.748 0.469 0.810 0.846 0.844 0.886
GPI 1.275 1.746 1.053 0.544 0.159 0.286
Case VI III VI VI VI VI
Ross RMSE 2.522 1.018 1.701 2.659 3.706 3.005
rRMSE 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.011 0.009
MBE − 0.238 0.242 0.646 1.200 − 0.412 − 1.178
MPE 0.073 − 0.088 − 0.226 − 0.385 0.104 0.338
R2 0.909 0.971 0.970 0.959 0.899 0.976
GPI 1.874 2.344 1.293 0.593 1.191 2.346
Case VII VII VII VII VII VII
Sandia RMSE 4.885 1.716 3.536 5.764 6.870 6.570
rRMSE 0.017 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.021 0.020
MBE − 1.144 1.543 0.701 − 3.890 − 5.001 − 5.024
MPE 0.350 − 0.534 − 0.255 1.172 1.511 1.512
R2 0.750 0.977 0.836 0.862 0.855 0.904
GPI 0 2.043 0.662 0.000 0.012 0.000
Case VI VII VI III VI VI
Thermal RMSE 5.300 3.171 6.400 4.596 5.136 4.225
rRMSE 0.018 0.011 0.022 0.014 0.016 0.013
MBE 2.509 1.069 4.981 − 1.428 − 2.093 − 2.021
MPE − 0.879 − 0.382 − 1.681 0.429 0.632 0.607
R2 0.685 0.641 0.814 0.836 0.812 0.880
GPI 1.355 2.360 0.901 0.227 0.122 0.193
Case VI III VI III VI VI
GPI 4.07 1.23 2.11 0.56 0.31 2.32
Method Ross Sandia Ross Skoplaki

authors indicated that the coefficient k is strongly dependent on the
wind speed. They found that the k coefficient ranged mainly between
0.012 and 0.037 m2K/W at high and low wind speeds, respectively. In
addition to the above, the kind of solar radiation and ambient temper­
ature used to estimate the PV module temperature affects the accuracy
of the results, where the actual weather data minimize the error between
the estimated and actual temperatures.
On the hot month days, an increase in the RMSE value is observed. As
summer temperatures rise throughout the day, solar panels store this
heat for a longer time. When the PV module begins to be exposed to
sunlight (the same at the end of the day), a clear difference is produced
between the measured (using thermocouple sensor) and estimated
temperature. This is due to the stored heat, where the authors in [64]
indicated that the heat capacity of the PV module dumps delays the
actual PV module temperature variation..
6.4. Monthly average PV module temperature
Table 5 shows the best values of the statistical indicators obtained
using the developed methods. All the results were achieved according to
the seven cases mentioned in the methodology, even those containing
ambient temperatures estimated using sinusoidal models (models 1 and
2).
For choosing the most suitable case for each method, the GPI indi­
cator was employed. It is observed that all methods perform better
(regardless of the case methodology used) with RMSEs ranging from
0.45 to 5.76 ◦ C. Generally, the Skoplaki and Sandia models are clearly
the most accurate, and the Skoplaki model is the best. The best results
obtained from both methods were obtained using cases I to IV, and VII.
Except for case IV, the results were obtained using the actual solar
radiation (cases I to III and VII), which reduced the prediction errors.
Since Table 5 presents the best statistical indicator values obtained
using the developed methods, only one sample of case V that provided
better results was reported. This means that the least accurate results are
those relying on weather data according to case V in the methodology,
which used the estimated data of solar radiation and ambient temper­
ature (model 2). On the other hand, the best performing PV temperature
models are those that use weather data according to case VII in the
methodology (using the actual data of solar radiation and ambient
temperature), followed by case III (used the actual solar radiation and
estimated ambient temperature (model 3)) and case VI (using the actual
solar radiation and ambient temperature data (model 3)). In addition,
from Table 5, some other results are noted and listed as follows:
- It is clear that the estimated ambient temperature according to
models 1 and 2 negatively affects the accuracy of the results for pre­
dicting the photovoltaic module temperature.
- The Sandia method performs better by using cases I through IV
although these cases rely on the estimated ambient temperature data as
input.
- The performance of each model varies from month to month. For
Skoplaki, except for November and December, RMSE values are less
than 1◦ for all months. For the Sandia model, the RMSE is below 1.6◦ for
all months except January and November. Clearly, the Skoplaki model
works best when actual weather data are used as input parameters.
However, the Sandia model interacts well with modeled weather data.
- Generally, the highest RMSE values were obtained using the NOCT
method, in which higher values were observed in the cold months
(January-March, November, and December).
- Overall, the NOCT method performs better when using the meth­
odology of case VI over the year, except for the months of February,

10
N. Aoun
Fig. 8. Variation in the coefficient k and wind speed through January 07 and July 29.
September, and October, in which better performance is obtained when
using case III.
Fig. 9 shows the dispersion plots between the estimated and
measured PV module temperatures (using only the best results obtained
by each method). In general, all the developed methods provided good
results throughout the year. As shown in the figure, an overestimation of
the PV module temperature was recorded using the NOCT and thermal
models over the cold months (November, December, and January to
March). However, a slight underestimation of the predicted PV module
temperature using the thermal model was noticed through the hot
months (April to October).
The overestimation of the temperature in the cold months observed
with the NOCT and thermal models is due to several reasons, among
which the NOCT model does not take into account the effect of wind
speed [65]. Indeed, strong winds blowing on PV solar panel surfaces
may lead to an increase in the difference between the predicted and
measured module temperatures of more than 5 ◦ C [5]. Likewise, during
the night, the photovoltaic module loses the stored temperature due to
the great decrease in the ambient temperature compared to the daytime.
On the other hand, at the beginning of the day, when the PV module
starts exposed to sunlight, a clear difference between the measured and
predicted module temperatures is observed due to the variance in the PV
module temperature and the actual temperature. On an overall basis,
during the hot months (April to October), the temperature values are
close to the equality line (1:1), indicating that the models have become
11
Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182
more accurate. This is due to the weather stability in these months,
which reduces the errors in estimating the ambient temperature and
solar radiation, and thereby leads to an increase in the accuracy of the
module temperature prediction.
7. Conclusion
In this work, five models for estimating the PV module temperature
for a monocrystalline technology installed under a harsh climatic area
(Adrar) were evaluated. These models require weather data (solar ra­
diation and ambient temperature) as input parameters, which are not
always available. To address the unavailability of these parameters, data
estimation was carried out by mathematical models, where models were
used to estimate the ambient temperature. Two of these mathematical
models are sinusoidal and the third is exponential. Meanwhile, one
model was used to estimate the solar radiation under all skies on various
surfaces.
Three categories based on seven cases were examined and assessed.
The first category uses the measured solar radiation with an estimate of
the ambient temperature (three cases according to the ambient tem­
perature model used). The second employs estimated data for solar ra­
diation and ambient temperature (three cases). The last category uses
only measurement data from both parameters (one case). All proposed
models (i.e., ambient temperature, solar radiation, and module tem­
perature) were assessed and compared with experimental data. The
N. Aoun Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182

Table 5
Statistical evaluation (S.E) for the developed methods.
Method S.E Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2
Skoplaki R 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.95
MBE 0.14 − 0.63 − 0.17 − 0.40 − 0.11 − 0.05 0.55 0.01 − 0.29 − 0.16 − 1.62 − 1.45
RMSE 0.62 0.96 0.68 0.64 0.58 0.45 0.68 0.48 0.61 0.70 1.79 1.54
MPE − 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.01 − 0.17 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.53 0.49
rRMSE 0.21 0.32 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.58 0.51
GPI 1.15 1.23 1.36 1.78 1.39 1.13 0.36 0.94 1.93 0.78 0.23 0.25
Case VII VII VII VII VII VII VII VII VII VII I II
NOCT R2 0.60 0.52 0.78 0.78 0.66 0.80 0.52 0.57 0.89 0.79 0.79 0.43
MBE 3.65 3.84 4.97 1.00 0.84 0.92 1.15 − 0.19 0.18 0.76 3.89 5.49
RMSE 4.75 4.70 5.70 2.46 2.49 2.33 2.44 1.86 1.66 2.33 4.94 5.76
MPE − 1.23 − 1.27 − 1.64 − 0.32 − 0.27 − 0.30 − 0.36 0.06 − 0.06 − 0.24 − 1.29 − 1.84
rRMSE 1.59 1.55 1.87 0.78 0.78 0.73 0.76 0.57 0.52 0.74 1.62 1.93
GPI 2.77 3.73 4.47 6.50 7.43 8.29 8.65 8.35 6.89 6.33 4.62 3.69
Case VI III VI VI VI VI VI VI III III VI VI
Ross R2 0.67 0.61 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.89 0.76 0.69 0.94 0.80 0.83 0.52
MBE − 2.90 − 0.81 − 2.06 − 0.57 − 2.66 − 1.88 − 1.34 − 0.47 − 1.22 − 1.31 − 1.78 − 0.79
RMSE 4.11 2.60 3.13 1.94 3.30 2.50 2.13 1.58 1.87 2.34 3.24 1.74
MPE 0.96 0.26 0.66 0.18 0.83 0.58 0.42 0.14 0.38 0.41 0.57 0.26
rRMSE 1.37 0.86 1.03 0.61 1.04 0.78 0.66 0.49 0.59 0.74 1.06 0.58
GPI 0.21 0.52 0.08 0.96 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.42 1.75 0.59 0.20 0.14
Case II VII II VII II V I VII VII VII I II
Sandia R2 0.87 0.87 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.87
MBE − 1.43 − 0.26 0.23 − 0.88 − 0.37 − 0.09 0.12 0.07 − 0.16 − 0.23 − 1.79 − 0.40
RMSE 2.44 1.58 1.46 1.27 1.05 0.89 0.85 0.82 1.03 1.09 2.50 0.94
MPE 0.47 0.08 − 0.08 0.28 0.11 0.03 − 0.04 − 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.58 0.13
rRMSE 0.81 0.52 0.48 0.40 0.33 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.35 0.82 0.32
GPI 0.29 0.07 0.01 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.21 1.39 0.14 0.42 1.64
Case III I IV II II IV IV II II I III III
Thermal R2 0.90 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.94
MBE 2.44 1.37 1.04 − 1.85 − 2.32 − 2.63 − 2.55 − 2.86 − 1.97 − 0.57 1.26 2.29
RMSE 2.87 1.86 1.65 2.11 2.45 2.78 2.73 2.90 2.17 1.08 1.83 2.36
MPE − 0.82 − 0.45 − 0.35 0.58 0.73 0.82 0.80 0.89 0.62 0.18 − 0.42 − 0.76
rRMSE 0.96 0.62 0.54 0.67 0.77 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.68 0.34 0.60 0.79
GPI 2.75 3.48 4.02 2.25 2.20 2.16 2.52 2.64 3.42 4.72 4.33 3.57
Case VII III VI III III III III III III VI VI VI
GPI 4.77 1.54 1.58 1.63 2.31 2.48 1.71 1.36 1.4 0.5 0.98 1.06
Best Method Skoplaki (VII) Sandia (IV) Skoplaki (VII, I) Sandia (III)

cloudy days (6 and 7 January, respectively).

Skoplaki NOCT Ross Sandia Thermal In general, all the developed methods yield good results throughout
the year (regardless of the case methodology used) with RMSEs ranging
330 between 0.45 and 5.7 ◦ C. Similar to case VII (using the measured
Hot months weather data), the PV module temperature models perform better when
Estimated temperature (K)

applying the third and sixth cases whereas case V shows the lowest
320 results.

Cold months
310 CRediT authorship contribution statement
Method R2
Skoplaki 99.59 Nouar Aoun: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Su­
NOCT 98.82
300 pervision, Data curation, Validation.
Ross 99.29
Sandia 99.6
Thermal 97.27
Declaration of Competing Interest
290
290 300 310 320 330 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Measured temperature (K) interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Fig. 9. Scatter plots between estimated and measured module temperatures
(the best result found for each method. References

statistical errors of the various models were presented and evaluated to
highlight the best-performing models from each case. The sinusoidal
models (ambient temperature) gave inconsistent results with the
experimental data throughout the day whereas the exponential model
gave good results. On the other hand, for six days in winter (06–07 and
20 January) and summer (28 to 30 July), the Yaiche method exhibits
satisfactory results for all the selected days except for cloudy and partly
[1] Malvoni M, Leggieri A, Maggiotto G, Congedo PM, De Giorgi MG. Long term
performance, losses and efficiency analysis of a 960 kWP photovoltaic system in
the Mediterranean climate. Energy Convers Manag 2017;145:169–81. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.04.075.
[2] Mavromatakis F, Kavoussanaki E, Vignola F, Franghiadakis Y. Measuring and
estimating the temperature of photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy 2014;110:656–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2014.10.009.
[3] Roumpakias E, Stamatelos A. Comparative performance analysis of grid-connected
photovoltaic system by use of existing performance models. Energy Convers Manag
2017;150:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.08.001.

12
N. Aoun
[4] Barykina E, Hammer A. Modeling of photovoltaic module temperature using
Faiman model: sensitivity analysis for different climates. Sol Energy 2017;146:
401–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.03.002.
[5] Santiago I, Trillo-Montero D, Moreno-Garcia IM, Pallarés-López V, Luna-
Rodríguez JJ. Modeling of photovoltaic cell temperature losses: a review and a
practice case in South Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:70–89. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.03.054.
[6] Sohani A, Sayyaadi H, Moradi MH, Nastasi B, Groppi D, Zabihigivi M, et al.
Comparative study of temperature distribution impact on prediction accuracy of
simulation approaches for poly and mono crystalline solar modules. Energy
Convers Manag 2021;239:114221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114221.
[7] Kaplani E, Kaplanis S. Thermal modelling and experimental assessment of the
dependence of PV module temperature on wind velocity and direction, module
orientation and inclination. Sol Energy 2014;107:443–60. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SOLENER.2014.05.037.
[8] Obiwulu AU, Erusiafe N, Olopade MA, Nwokolo SC. Modeling and optimization of
back temperature models of mono-crystalline silicon modules with special focus on
the effect of meteorological and geographical parameters on PV performance.
Renew Energy 2020;154:404–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.103.
[9] Coskun C, Toygar U, Sarpdag O, Oktay Z. Sensitivity analysis of implicit
correlations for photovoltaic module temperature: a review. J Clean Prod 2017;
164:1474–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.080.
[10] King DL, Boyson WE, Kratochvil JA. Photovoltaic array performance model. Sandia
Rep No 2004–3535 2004;8:1–19. https://doi.org/10.2172/919131.
[11] Mattei M, Notton G, Cristofari C, Muselli M, Poggi P. Calculation of the
polycrystalline PV module temperature using a simple method of energy balance.
Renew Energy 2006;31:553–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2005.03.010.
[12] Aoun N. Outdoor testing of free standing PV module temperature under desert
climate: a comparative study. Int J Ambient Energy 2021;42:1484–91. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01430750.2019.1611640.
[13] Skoplaki E, Boudouvis AG, Palyvos JA. A simple correlation for the operating
temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2008;92:1393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2008.05.016.
[14] Ceylan I, Erkaymaz O, Gedik E, Gurel AE. The prediction of photovoltaic module
temperature with artificial neural networks. Case Stud Therm Eng 2014;3:11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2014.02.001.
[15] Sohani A, Sayyaadi H. Employing genetic programming to find the best correlation
to predict temperature of solar photovoltaic panels. Energy Convers Manag 2020;
224:113291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113291.
[16] May Tzuc O, Bassam A, Mendez-Monroy PE, Dominguez IS. Estimation of the
operating temperature of photovoltaic modules using artificial intelligence
techniques and global sensitivity analysis: a comparative approach. J Renew
Sustain Energy 2018;10:033503. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5017520.
[17] Huang BJ, Yang PE, Lin YP, Lin BY, Chen HJ, Lai RC, et al. Solar cell junction
temperature measurement of PV module. Sol Energy 2011;85:388–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.11.006.
[18] Zhou Y, Liu Y, Wang D, Liu X, Wang Y. A review on global solar radiation
prediction with machine learning models in a comprehensive perspective. Energy
Convers Manag 2021;235:113960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.113960.
[19] Antonopoulos VZ, Papamichail DM, Aschonitis VG, Antonopoulos AV. Solar
radiation estimation methods using ANN and empirical models. Comput Electron
Agric 2019;160:160–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.03.022.
[20] Mujabar S, Chintaginjala VR. Empirical models for estimating the global solar
radiation of Jubail Industrial City, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. SN Appl Sci 2021;
3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-04043-9.
[21] Srivastava S, Lessmann S. A comparative study of LSTM neural networks in
forecasting day-ahead global horizontal irradiance with satellite data. Sol Energy
2018;162:232–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.005.
[22] Jiang H, Lu N, Qin J, Tang W, Yao L. A deep learning algorithm to estimate hourly
global solar radiation from geostationary satellite data. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;114:109327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109327.
[23] Makade RG, Chakrabarti S, Jamil B. Development of global solar radiation models:
a comprehensive review and statistical analysis for Indian regions. J Clean Prod
2021;293:126208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126208.
[24] Bensahal D, Yousfi A. Hourly air temperature modeling based on atmospheric
pressure, global solar radiation and relative humidity data. Iran J Energy Environ
2018;9:78–85. https://doi.org/10.5829/ijee.2018.09.02.01.
[25] Chabane F, Moummi N, Brima A, Moummi A. Prediction of the theoretical and
semi-empirical model of ambient temperature. Front Energy 2016;10:268–76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-016-0413-y.
[26] Moummi N, Moummi A, Aoues K, Mahboub C, Youcef Ali S. Systematic forecasts of
solar collector’s performance in various sites of different climates in Algeria. Int J
Sustain Energy 2010;29:142–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786460903556139.
[27] Zhang X, Tan SC, Li G. Development of an ambient air temperature prediction
model. Energy Build 2014;73:166–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2014.01.006.
[28] Yakut E, Süzülmüş S. Modelling monthly mean air temperature using artificial
neural network, adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and support vector
regression methods: a case of study for Turkey. Netw Comput Neural Syst 2020;31:
1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954898X.2020.1759833.
[29] Altan Dombaycı Ö, Gölcü M. Daily means ambient temperature prediction using
artificial neural network method: a case study of Turkey. Renew Energy 2009;34:
1158–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.07.007.
13
Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182
[30] Cifuentes J, Marulanda G, Bello A, Reneses J. Air temperature forecasting using
machine learning techniques: a review. Energies 2020;13. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en13164215.
[31] Ross, G. R. Interface design considerations for terrestrial solar cell modules 1976.
[32] Ben Ammar R, Ben Ammar M, Oualha A. Photovoltaic power forecast using
empirical models and artificial intelligence approaches for water pumping systems.
Renew Energy 2020;153:1016–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.065.
[33] Yaiche MR, Bouhanik A, Bekkouche SMA, Malek A, Benouaz T. Revised solar maps
of Algeria based on sunshine duration. Energy Convers Manag 2014;82:114–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.063.
[34] Aoun N, Bouchouicha K. Estimating daily global solar radiation by day of the year
in Algeria. Eur Phys J Plus 2017;132. doi:10.1140/epjp/i2017-11495-7.
[35] Aoun N, Chenni R, Bouchouicha K. Performance evaluation of a mono-crystalline
photovoltaic module under different weather and sky conditions. Int J Renew
Energy Res 2017;07.
[36] Fuentes MK. A simplified thermal model for flat-plate photovoltaic arrays. Sandia
Rep 1987;60.
[37] Al-Mostafa ZA, Maghrabi AH, Al-Shehri SM. Sunshine-based global radiation
models: a review and case study. Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:209–16. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2014.04.021.
[38] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct,
diffuse and total solar radiation. Sol Energy 1960;4:1–19. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0038-092X(60)90062-1.
[39] Reindl DT, Beckman WA, Duffie JA. Evaluation of hourly tilted surface radiation
models. Sol Energy 1990;45:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(90)90061-
G.
[40] An J, Yan D, Guo S, Gao Y, Peng J, Hong T. An improved method for direct incident
solar radiation calculation from hourly solar insolation data in building energy
simulation. Energy Build 2020;227:110425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2020.110425.
[41] Yoon K, Yun G, Jeon J, Kim KS. Evaluation of hourly solar radiation on inclined
surfaces at Seoul by Photographical Method. Sol Energy 2014;100:203–16. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.11.011.
[42] Notton G, Paoli C, Vasileva S, Nivet ML, Canaletti J-L, Cristofari C. Estimation of
hourly global solar irradiation on tilted planes from horizontal one using artificial
neural networks. Energy 2012;39:166–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2012.01.038.
[43] Takilalte A, Harrouni S, Yaiche MR, Mora-López L. New approach to estimate 5-
min global solar irradiation data on tilted planes from horizontal measurement.
Renew Energy 2020;145:2477–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.165.
[44] Capderou M. Atlas Solaire de l’Algérie. Algérie: Office des Publications
Universitaires; 1987.
[45] Gairaa K, Benkaciali S, Guermoui M. Clear-sky models evaluation of two sites over
Algeria for PV forecasting purpose. Eur Phys J Plus 2019;134:1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1140/epjp/i2019-12917-2.
[46] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 2nd ed. Wiley
Interscience: New York, NY, USA; 1991. doi:10.1002/9781118671603.fmatter.
[47] Cooper PI. The absorption of radiation in solar stills. Sol Energy 1969;12:333–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(69)90047-4.
[48] Loutzenhiser PG, Manz H, Felsmann C, Strachan PA, Frank T, Maxwell GM.
Empirical validation of models to compute solar irradiance on inclined surfaces for
building energy simulation. Sol Energy 2007;81:254–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2006.03.009.
[49] Adhikari RS, Kumar A. Estimation of hourly ambient air temperature data from its
daily averages for India. Int J Energy Res 1996;20:949–55. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1099-114X(199611)20:11<949::AID-ER198>3.0.CO;2-C.
[50] Durrani SP, Balluff S, Wurzer L, Krauter S. Photovoltaic yield prediction using an
irradiance forecast model based on multiple neural networks. J Mod Power Syst
Clean Energy 2018;6:255–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40565-018-0393-5.
[51] Correa-Betanzo C, Calleja H, De León-Aldaco S. Module temperature models
assessment of photovoltaic seasonal energy yield. Sustain Energy Technol
Assessments 2018;27:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.03.005.
[52] Davis MW, Fanney AH, Dougherty BP. Prediction of Building Integrated
Photovoltaic Cell Temperatures | NIST 2001;123.
[53] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: a survey
of pertinent correlations. Renew Energy 2009;34:23–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2008.04.009.
[54] Cooper PI. The effect of inclination on the heat loss from flat-plate solar collectors.
Sol Energy 1981;27:413–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(81)90006-2.
[55] Palyvos JA. A survey of wind convection coefficient correlations for building
envelope energy systems’ modeling. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28:801–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.12.005.
[56] Nordmann T, Clavadetscher L. Understanding temperature effects on PV system
performance 2003.
[57] Ouzzane M, Eslami-Nejad P, Badache M, Aidoun Z. New correlations for the
prediction of the undisturbed ground temperature. Geothermics 2015;53:379–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTHERMICS.2014.08.001.
[58] Swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. Q J R Meteorol Soc 1963;89:
339–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49708938105.
[59] Aoun N, Bouchouicha K, Bailek N. Seasonal performance comparison of four
electrical models of monocrystalline PV module operating in a Harsh Environment.
IEEE J Photovoltaics 2019;9. doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2917272.
[60] Aoun N, Bouchouicha K. Simple correlation models for estimation of horizontal
global solar radiation for Oran, Northwest Algeria. Int J Eng Res Africa 2017;32:
124–32. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.32.124.
N. Aoun
[61] Obiwulu AU, Chendo MAC, Erusiafe N, Nwokolo SC. Implicit meteorological
parameter-based empirical models for estimating back temperature solar modules
under varying tilt-angles in Lagos, Nigeria. Renew Energy 2020;145:442–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.136.
[62] Mora Segado P, Carretero J, Sidrach-de-Cardona M. Models to predict the
operating temperature of different photovoltaic modules in outdoor conditions.
Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2015;23:1267–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2549.
[63] Trinuruk P, Sorapipatana C, Chenvidhya D. Estimating operating cell temperature
of BIPV modules in Thailand. Renew Energy 2009;34:2515–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.027.
14
Energy Conversion and Management: X 14 (2022) 100182
[64] Tina G. A coupled electrical and thermal model for photovoltaic modules. J Sol
Energy Eng Trans ASME 2010;132:0245011–245015. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4001149/455831.
[65] Akhsassi M, El Fathi A, Erraissi N, Aarich N, Bennouna A, Raoufi M, et al.
Experimental investigation and modeling of the thermal behavior of a solar PV
module. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2018;180:271–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2017.06.052.