Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology, an International

Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Optimization of operational parameters for a photovoltaic panel cooled

by spray cooling
Faruk Yesildal ⇑, Ahmet Numan Ozakin, Kenan Yakut
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Atatürk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey

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

Article history: This paper presents the optimization of parameters involved in the application of air assisted water spray
Received 25 May 2020 on the PV panel surface. The effect of spray cooling on panel performance was examined. The increase of
Revised 2 December 2020 cell temperature, hence a decrease of electrical efficiency, was obtained experimentally for a conven-
Accepted 8 April 2021
tional PV panel. In order to prevent a decrease in efficiency, effective parameters were determined.
Available online 28 April 2021
These parameters were examined in 3 levels as spraying time, spray flow rate, nozzle air flow rate, nozzle
to panel distance and solar irradiance. Then, 32 experiments were carried out according to the experi-
Keywords:
mental plan obtained using Response Surface Method. As the result, optimum values for highest electrical
PV/T
Spray parameters
efficiency were obtained as 49.8990 s for spraying time, 0.0180 m3/h for spray flow rate, 2 m3/h for nozzle
Optimization air flow rate, 50 cm for nozzle to panel distance and 700 W/m2 for solar irradiance. The most effective
Response surface methodology parameters were determined to be spray flow rate, spraying time and solar irradiance, respectively. An
Efficiency appropriate correlation with these parameters was proposed for electrical efficiency.
Ó 2021 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Photovoltaic cells will show short and long-term degradation if
the temperature exceeds a certain limit. In order to maintain PV
system efficiency, it is necessary to keep the cell surface tempera-
ture as low as possible. The spray cooling mechanism is a good way
to maintain the efficiency of the PV panel by maintaining low oper-
ating temperature throughout the operating time. Since operating
temperature plays a critical role in influencing the electrical output
and efficiency of solar PV, it is necessary to consider the possible
ways to maintain the appropriate temperature for solar panels.
The efficiency of a PV panel is not only strongly dependent on solar
radiation, but also on the operating temperature [1]. Numerous
experimental and numerical studies have been carried out, espe-
cially aiming to reduce the cell temperature. [2–3]
Researchers have applied several methods to improve the over-
all performance of PV panels. Grubišić et al. (2016) examined and
discussed the current developments in cooling techniques and
temperature control of photovoltaic (PV) panels [1]. In a similar
study, researchers [4] presented an alternative cooling technique
involving the application of water spray on photovoltaic (PV) panel
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fyesildal@atauni.edu.tr (F. Yesildal), ahmet.ozakin@atauni.edu.
tr (A.N. Ozakin), kyakut@atauni.edu.tr (K. Yakut).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
surfaces. The total spray cooling effect on panel performance under
peak solar irradiance conditions was investigated by simultane-
ously cooling both sides of the PV panel. Based on the experimental
results, 7.7% increase in electrical grid output and 5.9% increase in
PV panel electrical efficiency were achieved under peak solar irra-
diation conditions. The average panel temperature also reduced
from 54 °C to 24 °C during the simultaneous front and rear PV
panel cooling with high spray rates of 144, 189 and 225 L/h.
Researchers determined equivalent power losses as 2.7, 3.5 and
4.2 W and performed an economic feasibility analysis for the pro-
posed water spray cooling technique.
In another study [5], where the possibility of improving the per-
formance of the photovoltaic water pumping system was investi-
gated, water was sprayed onto the photovoltaic cells, which
reported to have increased power of the cells. Researchers reported
that they had increased the efficiency of the solar module from
3.26% to 12.5% by spraying the cells with water.
Moharram et al. [6] studied a cooling system based on water
spraying on PV panels. A mathematical model was used to begin
cooling the PV panels when the temperature of the panels reached
the maximum allowable temperature (MAT). A cooling model was
developed to determine how long it takes to cool PV panels down
to the recommended normal operating temperature of 35 °C. For
this purpose, scholars used two models: experimentally validated
heating rate model and cooling rate model.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2021.04.002
2215-0986/Ó 2021 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut
Nomenclature
A area [m2]
d orifice diameter [m]
G solar irradiance [W/m2]
H nozzle to surface distance [m]
Q volumetric flow rate [m3/h]
S/N signal to noise ratio [-]
t spraying time [s]
T temperature [K]
I current [A]
V voltage [V]
Subscripts
a air
conv. convection
Eff. efficiency
Exp. experiment
l liquid
pred. prediction
oc open circuit
sc short circuit
s surface, solar
sq square
sp spray
It is well known that the electrical efficiency of PV systems can
be maintained by preventing panel temperature from increasing.
In the study by [7], in order to control the temperature and main-
tain the cell efficiency, the researchers investigated the possibility
of assembling a cooling system to existing PV units without chang-
ing the original module structure. Researchers investigated the
selected methods to cool the front of the module with water. As
a result, researchers identified principles that could improve the
energy and economic performance of the system and the overall
performance of the PV. In the model, researchers used the correla-
tion previously proposed by Rybicki and Mudawar [8] for PF-5052.
Some researchers have also studied the optical behavior of concen-
trators to get better electrical output in pv systems. [9–11]
In the study by [12], researchers presented the performance of
solar photovoltaic modules in relation to normalized power out-
put, efficiency and performance ratio. Researchers aimed to
increase the efficiency, and performance and to develop an effi-
cient cooling system by placing photovoltaic modules in the refrig-
erated air duct used in most offices, homes and other buildings.
Performance comparisons were made for two PV modules; one
cooled and the other non-cooled. The cooled module exhibited
6% and 7.2% higher performance and electrical efficiency, respec-
tively, compared to the non-cooled module.
Irwan et al. [13] in an indoor test discussed how to maintain the
electrical efficiency of PV panels by using a DC water pump to pro-
vide water flow over the front surface of the PV panel in order to
overcome efficiency decrease problem. Experimental results
showed that lower operating temperatures provide increased
power output. In addition, researchers reported that using a
water-cooling mechanism, in response to a decrease of 5–23 °C
in the operating temperature, the PV panels’ power output
increased by 9–22 W. The results suggest that an increase in PV
panel efficiency could reduce the system’s return on investment
and extend the life of the PV panel.
In a numerical study conducted by [14], researchers presented
various designs to cool a PV module. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) software (ANSYS-Fluent) was used to simulate the models
presented. They placed water channels on or under the panel to
2
Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983
w water
Symbols
q fluid density
r surface tension
g efficiency
Abbreviations
Adj adjusted
CCD Central Composite Design
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
DF Degree of Freedom
DOE Design of Experiment
FC Face Centered
CCD Central Composite Design
MS Mean square
PV Photovoltaic
RSM Response Surface Method
SS Sun of Squares
MS Mean Square
cool the module. In both designs, aluminum fins were installed
into the water channels. Pressure drop, water outlet temperature
and heat flux were calculated at various Reynolds numbers. As a
result, researchers reported that with increased Reynolds numbers,
the average outlet temperature of the refrigerant decreased, while
heat flux and pressure drop increased.
The study by [15], also related to PV panel cooling, presents the
results of an experimental study on the effects of evaporative cool-
ing on a PV panel efficiency. An effective experimental set was
designed under outdoor conditions. Researchers conducted and
analyzed a series of experiments demonstrating the effectiveness
of the method under real conditions Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Com-
pared to a reference PV panel, a reduction of more than 20 °C in
PV panel temperature and an increase of about 14% in electrical
energy generation efficiency was achieved.
In another study by [16], researchers proposed a solution to
improve the efficiency of monocrystalline PV panels. Therefore,
they used a device that covers the surface of the panels with a
water film, both cleaning the panel off dust and debris and reduc-
ing the module’s operating temperature concurrently. They moni-
tored the PV panel temperature using a thermo-vision camera for
cases with or without water film.
In the study by [17], investigating the external performance of
a photovoltaic (PV) module, the authors performed a detailed
energy and exergy analysis in order to calculate the operating
and electrical parameters, exergy loss components, and exergy
efficiency of a typical PV module. They also developed a new
equation for the exergy efficiency of a PV system. In many previ-
ous studies [18–21], exergy efficiency was calculated based on
the total exergy output of the system, though in this study they
calculated the exergy efficiency of the PV system based on exergy
loss. They also suggested that PV module temperature had a great
effect on exergy efficiency, that exergy efficiency could be
improved by expelling heat from the PV module surface, and also
proposed some effective methods such as spraying water onto the
PV module top surface. In addition, some researchers have con-
ducted studies based on overall energy and exergy analysis in
PV / T systems [22–26].
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983

Some studies have focused on the optimization of photovoltaic used to clarify models after identifying important factors using
system parameters. In the parametric study by [27], research has screening designs or factorial designs [32]. The difference between
been conducted to investigate the effect of geometric changes of a response surface and factorial design is the addition of square
impinging air jets in thermal solar collector on heat transfer and terms that allow modeling the curvature in a response, making
friction. To optimize the most appropriate design parameters for them useful for understanding or matching. In addition, determin-
efficiency, researchers used the design approach based on Taguchi. ing the levels of variables that optimize a response and selecting
The optimization parameters were determined as the jet diameter working conditions are other advantages. There are two main
ratio (Dj / Dh), the distance between the jets in the x-axis direction types of response surface designs: These are Central-Composite
and the distance between the jets in the y-axis direction. Design and Box-Bohemian Designs. Central Composite designs
In the parametric and numerical optimization study by [28], can adapt a full quadratic model. It is used when it entails serial
researchers analyzed various heat exchanger design parameters experimentation because these designs may contain information
(such as number of channels, manifold width, input/output ports from a correctly arranged factoring tests. Central composite
locations and conical channels) on photovoltaic system perfor- designs are particularly useful in sequential tests. Because of its
mance using fourteen different designs in CFD. Researchers made similar advantages and suitability for the problem, Central Com-
changes to the various parameters and observed their effect on posite Design (Face Centered) was chosen in this study. This vari-
the system performance. The performance parameters were deter- ety of design requires 3 levels of each factor, as in this study.
mined as surface average temperature and homogeneity for photo- Thirty-two experiments were performed to obtain the values of
voltaic system cooling quality. It was found that the optimized the electrical efficiency response parameter in accordance with
design was a new V-shaped heat exchanger design. The design the test plan given in Table 2.
had a lower average temperature, nonhomogeneous dispersion
and lower pumping power.
2. Experimental setup
In another optimization study [29], the researchers aimed to
estimate the thermal efficiency for the input temperature, flow
The experiments were carried out for different spray water flow
rate and solar radiation to the PV/T system. They used three differ-
rates (0.012, 0.015 and 0.018 m3/h) and nozzle air flow rates (2, 2.4,
ent approaches and found that the ANN (artificial neural network)
2.8 m3/h) depending on the test plan (Table 3) prepared according
model provided the best performance.
to RSM for PV cooling. The experimental set-up is illustrated in
Some previous studies related to spray-cooling PV along with
Fig. 2. Highlight Solar PV panels were used in the experiments.
the operating conditions and parameters examined are given in
The specifications of the examined panel are given in Table 4. Der-
Table 1.
mix DXF-HSA air assisted external mixing flat fan nozzle was used
Spray cooling has a significant impact on the performance of the
for spraying (see Fig. 1). Compressed air from the constant pressure
PV cell, even at low flow rates, the performance of the system is
air tank (3 bar) significantly improves atomization when it encoun-
significantly improved [31]. As it is elicited from the literature,
ters pressurized water from the nozzle. External-mixing type air-
although there have been some experimental studies on spray
assist nozzle is high-velocity gas or steam that impinges on the liq-
cooling PV panels, there are few studies about the optimization
uid at or outside the liquid discharge orifice. Its advantage over the
thereof. Therefore, this study reports the results of the experimen-
internal-mixing type is that problems of back pressures are
tal study to determine the optimum values of the parameters using
avoided because there is no internal interaction between liquid
the response surface methodology (RSM) / Central Composite
and gas [33]. Much finer and a more homogenous atomization is
Design (Face Centered) for spray cooling of a PV panel. The
obtained compared to pressurized nozzles. Homogeneous droplet
decrease in cell temperature is of great importance in terms of
distribution and smaller characteristic diameters are other advan-
electrical efficiency as well as long-term feasibility.
tages over pressured nozzles. During air assisted spray cooling,
temperature measurements were taken from the bottom of the
1.1. Response Surface Method and Experimental Layout PV panel with K-type thermocouples and recorded with Novus
FieldLogger datalogger (See Fig. 2). The air assisted spraying
Response surface methodology is an advanced design technique images taken during the experiments are given in Figs. 4, 5, and 6.
that helps understand and optimize the response. RSM is often The PV panel is positioned at an inclination angle of 15° to the
Table 1 flat surface (see Fig. 3.). The aim of this positioning is to prevent the
Studies on spray-cooling photovoltaics in the literature. accumulation of liquid on the surface during spray application. In
industrial applications, PV panels are also inclined (depending on
Application Operating Efficiency / Power Author
conditions / the angle of incidence of sun light and geographical conditions).
material As can be seen in Figs. 4, 5, and 6, with increasing air flow, dro-
Front side and backside 225 L/h spray flow 5.9%, maximum [2] plet size decreases and a more homogeneous distribution is
spray cooling rate, 52 °C surface power loss: 4.2 W obtained. At the lowest air flow conditions (2 m3/h), it is seen that
temp. atomization quality decreases with increasing spray water flow
225 W PV water 15 to 50 L/h spray Electrical power [3] rate. This means that the minimum value for the nozzle air flow
pumping system flow rate, increased from
needs to be avoided. Thus, even at lower water flow rates,
with water spray G = 740 W/m2 55.4 W to 66.9 W.
Minimization the 45 °C maximum Panel efficiency: [4] increased spray homogeneity will allow for more efficient cooling.
amount of electrical panel temperature 14.7%
energy and water
2.1. Theoretical Aspect of the Spray Cooling Heat Transfer
Cooling by utilizing a 4.4 L/min-m2 Efficiency: 10.3% [30]
film of water on the spray flow rate
module surface Overall heat transfer through the PV panel by spray cooling can
Indoor water spray 413, 620, 821 and Power output was [8] be expressed as follows:
cooling 1016 W/m2 solar increased by 9–22%.
irradiance Q_ ¼ Q_ conv  Q_ rad  Q_ pv ð1Þ
Water spraying, Aluminum heat Maximum power: [9]
Numerical, SIMPLE sink 80 W Convective and radiative heat transfer from the PV panel via
Algorithm
spray cooling are calculated as follows [34]:
3
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983

Table 2
Design parameters and their values.

Design Parameters Symbols Units Levels

Low Medium High
Spraying time t [s] 20 40 60
Spray flow rate Ql [m3/h] 0.012 0.015 0.018
Nozzle air flow rate Qa [m3/h] 2 2.4 2.8
Nozzle to surface distance H [cm] 40 50 60
Solar irradiance G [W/m2] 700 800 900

Table 3
Design of Experiments.

Exp. No Design Parameters Response variable

t[s] Ql [m3/h] Qa [m3/h] H [cm] G [W/m2] Efficiency (g%)
1 40 0,015 2,4 40 800 10,26
2 20 0,018 2 40 700 9,512
3 40 0,015 2,4 60 800 10,29
4 40 0,015 2,8 50 800 10,13
5 60 0,012 2 60 900 11,04
6 60 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,5
7 20 0,018 2,8 60 700 9,56
8 60 0,018 2 40 900 11,1
9 20 0,012 2 40 900 10,21
10 20 0,018 2 60 900 10,4
11 20 0,018 2,8 40 900 10,34
12 60 0,018 2,8 60 900 11,2
13 20 0,012 2 60 700 9,4
14 60 0,018 2,8 40 700 10,21
15 60 0,012 2 40 700 9,9
16 40 0,015 2,4 50 900 10,9
17 20 0,012 2,8 40 700 9,5
18 60 0,012 2,8 60 700 10
19 40 0,012 2,4 50 800 10,05
20 20 0,015 2,4 50 800 9,8
21 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,1
22 40 0,015 2 50 800 10,12
23 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,155
24 60 0,018 2 60 700 10,2
25 40 0,018 2,4 50 800 10,21
26 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,14
27 40 0,015 2,4 50 700 9,95
28 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,125
29 60 0,012 2,8 40 900 11,435
30 20 0,012 2,8 60 900 10,268
31 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,125
32 40 0,015 2,4 50 800 10,125

Fig. 1. DXF-HSA external mixing air-assisted flat nozzle (dl = 1.4 mm; da = 0.7 mm
(4 orifice)).

Q_ conv ¼ hsp As ðT s  T sp Þ
Q_ rad ¼ r
As ðT 4s  T 41 Þ
where r is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, e the emissivity.
Q_ pv ¼ W ¼ Isc V oc
The accumulated heat that decreases the electrical efficiency of
the PV panel is removed from the cell body though convection (Eq.
(2)). As can be seen in Eq. (1), Q_ pv decreases as the heat to be
removed from the cell increases.
ð2Þ Fig. 2. Experimental setup (1.Halogen projector 2.Spray nozzle 3.Flowmeter 4.
Spray liquid tank 5.Pressured air tank 6.Compressor 7.PV panel 8.Data logger 9.PC).
ð3Þ
3. Results and discussion
ð4Þ
In this study, experiments were conducted under different radi-
ation intensities (700–800-900 [W/m2]). The temperature rises of
the photovoltaic cells were recorded under these solar irradiances
without any cooling. For conventional PV panels (with no cooling
application), efficiency versus cell temperature under different
4
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut
Table 4
Specifications of the PV panel.
STC: Standart Test Condition (1000 W/m2), Cell
Temperature: 25 °C
Maximum power at STC
Tolerance
Open circuit voltage
Short circuit current at STC
Maximum power voltage
Maximum power current
Dimensions
Fig. 3. PV panel positioning.
Fig. 4. Spraying images (Ql = 0.012 [m3/h], Qa = a) 2 [m3/h], b) 2.4 [m3/h], c) 2.8
[m3/h]).
Fig. 5. Spraying images (Ql = 0.015 [m3/h], Qa = a) 2 [m3/h], b) 2.4 [m3/h], c) 2.8
[m3/h]).
Fig. 6. Spraying images (Ql = 0.018 [m3/h], Qa = a) 2 [m3/h], b) 2.4 [m3/h], c) 2.8
[m3/h]).
Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983
solar irradiances are plotted in Fig. 7. It can be seen that the max-
imum efficiency for 900 W/m2 is obtained as 13.03% at 25 °C. In
case of no cooling application, the efficiency under the same solar
irradiance value decreased by 39.7% under steady-state conditions.
50 W The maximum efficiency for 800 W / m2 irradiance was obtained as
± %3 12.2% at 25 °C. In case of no cooling application, the efficiency
22.0 V under the same solar irradiance value decreased by 41.46% under
3.03 A
18.2 V
steady-state condition. The maximum efficiency for 700 W/m2
2.75 A irradiance was obtained as 11.4% at 25 °C. In case of no cooling
630x550x25 mm application, the efficiency of the same solar irradiance value
decreased by 40.86%. Spraying was impinged to PV surface when
the panel surface temperature reached 40 °C to control the
decrease in efficiency. In accordance with 32 experiments con-
ducted according to the experimental layout, the surface tempera-
ture was reduced by spraying and the electrical efficiency was
gained between 9.4% and 11.435%. In other words, after achieving
thermal balance under 900 W/m2 irradiance, the electrical effi-
ciency is around 7.9% in the non-cooled system, whereas it raises
to 10.2% with spray cooling. For 800 W/m2, the electrical efficiency
is around 7% in non-cooled system, whereas this efficiency is
around 9.8% in the case of spray cooling. These efficiency values
for 700 W/m2 are 6.8% and 9.4%, respectively. Consequently, when
systems operating under the same conditions are compared, the
efficiency increase is between 2.3 and 2.8%. It is seen from the
obtained results that the decrease in efficiency caused by the
increase of cell temperature of PV systems is prevented by spray
cooling application.
3.1. Application and Analysis of Response Surface Method
RSM is a method of mathematical and statistical techniques
useful for improving, developing and optimizing processes [35].
Unlike conventional methods, the interactions among process vari-
ables can be determined by statistical techniques. In this study,
response surface methodology (RSM) is used to find optimal effi-
ciency conditions for spray cooling of a PV panel. The main goal
of the present study is to optimize the spray cooling parameters.
Spraying time (t), spray flow rate (Ql), nozzle air flow rate (Qa),
nozzle to panel distance (H), and solar irradiance (G) are selected
as design parameters considering that they affect PV system effi-
ciency. Thus, efficiency is chosen as objective function. Indepen-
dent design variables and objective function are provided as a
closed function in the following form:
g ¼ f ft; Q l ; Q a ; H; Gg ð5Þ
RSM is utilized to explain relationship between the design
parameters and the objective function (efficiency) in polynomial
form. The variance analysis has been performed to show validity
of this function. In this study, a second-order (quadratic) polyno-
Fig. 7. The effects of cell temperature on electrical efficiency at different radiation
intensities (for non-cooled conditions).
5
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983

mial model was selected. This polynomial model is then used to
change the objective function in the definition of the optimization
problem after determining the goodness of a model using statisti-
cal and experimental tests. The regression equation, which is an
algebraic representation of the response surface, is used to define
the relationship between response and model terms. The sec-
ond–order model was obtained for the response variable (the effi-
ciency) and can be defined by the following equation:
Eff ¼ 5:387 þ 0:01832t þ 17:2Q l þ 0:004812G
The model determination coefficient is greater than 0.95; this
means that 98,87% of the data is explained by the best model
(see Table 5). It is necessary to define how much of the original
data variation the model describes. This can be done using the
coefficient of determination, the value of R2. It is useful to estimate
its predictive capability, if the model is used for prediction [36].
The Pareto chart (Fig. 8) is used to compare the relative magni-
tude of the effects and the statistical significance of the main,
square and interaction effects. The effects are plotted in descending
Table 5
Model summary chart.
S R-sq R-sq (adj) R-sq (pred)
0.0508521 99.60% 98.87% 87.97%
order of absolute values. The reference line in the graph shows
which effects are significant. Any effect that goes beyond this ref-
erence line is statistically significant. Based on the results of Pareto
graph in Fig. 8, it is seen that spray flow rate (B), spraying time (A)
and solar irradiance level (E) are statistically significant. It is obvi-
ous that the spray flow rate has the greatest effect. Nozzle-to-
surface distance (D) also appears to have minimal effect.
Null hypothesis (HO) for lack of fit test is that the model accu-
rately determines the relationship between response and predic-
ð6Þ
tors. Generally, a significance level of 0.05 (called alpha or a) is
preferred. The importance of statistical terms in an optimization
is determined using a variance analysis. Results of variance analy-
sis for efficiency are presented in Table 6. P  a indicates that lack
of fit is statistically significant. In the table of variance analysis
(Table 6), the p-values for the Ql, t, and G are significant.
The optimization plot chart is used to determine the optimal
settings for the predictors given the parameters that we previously
specified. For the efficiency data, the composite desirability is
0.9746. The objective was to maximize efficiency. Its predicted
value is 14.7716, and its individual desirability is 0.97462. We
decide to set the focal points at the values shown in the graph. In
light of this information optimum levels set t at 49.8990, Ql at
0.018, Qa at 2.0, H at 50, and G at 700 (See Fig. 9 and Table 7).
The D value given in Fig. 9 stands for maximum objective func-
tion value; it represents the ratio of the optimum value of the
objective function to the maximum value that can be obtained
from the model. In addition, Table 7 shows the intersection of
the geometric parameters and the optimally calculated values.
As can be seen in Table 8, the input variable settings are associ-
ated with the following prediction intervals and predicted means:
The mean efficiency is 14.772 and the range of probable values
for a single value is 12.762 to 16.781. As a result, it is seen from this

Fig. 9. Optimization plot chart.

Fig. 8. Effects Pareto for Efficiency.

Table 6
Analysis of Variance for response variable (ANOVA).

Response Surface Regression: Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Model 12 189,557 15,796 30,28 0,000
Linear 5 182,333 36,467 69,90 0,000
t 1 4,500 4,500 8,63 0,008
Ql 1 174,222 174,222 333,95 0,000
Qa 1 0,056 0,056 0,11 0,748
H 1 0,000 0,000 0,00 1,000
G 1 3,556 3,556 6,82 0,017
Square 5 5,598 1,120 2,15 0,104
t*t 1 0,777 0,777 1,49 0,237
Ql*Ql 1 2,166 2,166 4,15 0,056
Qa*Qa 1 0,473 0,473 0,91 0,353
H*H 1 0,009 0,009 0,02 0,895
G*G 1 0,009 0,009 0,02 0,895
2-Way Interaction 2 1,625 0,812 1,56 0,236
t*Ql 1 0,062 0,062 0,12 0,733
Ql*G 1 1,562 1,562 3,00 0,100
Error 19 9,912 0,522
Lack-of-Fit 14 7,079 0,506 0,89 0,606
Pure Error 5 2,833 0,567
Total 31 199,469

6
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983

Table 7 ters on efficiency were obtained as spray flow rate, spraying time
Optimum values. and solar irradiation, respectively.
Multiple Response Prediction In the future, research can be done on photovoltaic cell efficien-
Variable Setting cies using nano and organic materials. In addition, future
t 49.899 s researches should be focused on new generation optimization
Ql 0.018 m3/h algorithms and exergetic, economic and CFD analyses.
Qa 2 m3/h
H 50 cm
G 700 W/m2
Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
Table 8
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Prediction chart.

Response Fit SE Fit 95% CI 95% PI

References
Eff. 14.772 0.633 (13.447; 16.096) (12.762; 16.781)
[1] F. Grubišić-Čabo, S. Nižetić, T. Giuseppe Marco, Photovoltaic panels: A review
of the cooling techniques, Transactions of FAMENA 40 (SI-1) (2016) 63–74.
[2] N. Dimri, A. Tiwari, G.N. Tiwari, Comparative study of photovoltaic thermal
(PVT) integrated thermoelectric cooler (TEC) fluid collectors, Renewable
Table 9 Energy 134 (2019) 343–356.
Measurement uncertainties in the values of variables. [3] Shyam, G.N. Tiwari, I.M. Al-Helal, Analytical expression of temperature
dependent electrical efficiency of N-PVT water collectors connected in series,
Variable Instrument Uncertainty (%) Sol. Energy 114 (2015) 61–76.
[4] S. Nižetić, D. Čoko, A. Yadav, F. Grubišić-Čabo, Water spray cooling technique
Solar irradiance, G Pyranometer ± 1.8
applied on a photovoltaic panel: The performance response, Energy Convers.
Circuit voltage, I Multimeter ±0.1
Manage. 108 (2016) 287–296.
Circuit current, V Multimeter ±0.5 [5] M. Abdolzadeh, M. Ameri, Improving the effectiveness of a photovoltaic water
Temperature, T Thermocuople, K-type ±0.75 pumping system by spraying water over the front of photovoltaic cells,
Renewable Energy 34 (1) (2009) 91–96.
[6] K.A. Moharram, M.S. Abd-Elhady, H.A. Kandil, H. El-Sherif, Enhancing the
performance of photovoltaic panels by water cooling, Ain Shams Eng. J. 4 (4)
table that the estimation ranges are within acceptable limits (2013) 869–877.
(Table 8). [7] F. Schiro, A. Benato, A. Stoppato, N. Destro, Improving photovoltaics efficiency
by water cooling: Modelling and experimental approach, Energy 137 (2017)
798–810.
3.2. Uncertainty analysis [8] J.R. Rybicki, I. Mudawar, Single-phase and two-phase cooling characteristics of
upward-facing and downward-facing sprays, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (1-2)
(2006) 5–16.
The maximum relative uncertainties of the examined parame-
[9] V. Saini, R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, I.M. Al-Helal, Electrical and thermal energy
ters were calculated utilizing the estimation method proposed by assessment of series connected N partially covered photovoltaic thermal
[37]. With reference to the electrical efficiency, analysis was car- (PVT)-compound parabolic concentrator (CPC) collector for different solar cell
ried out. The efficiency was calculated by using Eq. (7). materials, Appl. Therm. Eng. 128 (2018) 1611–1623.
[10] R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, V.K. Dwivedi, Overall energy, exergy and carbon credit
Isc  V oc analysis of N partially covered photovoltaic thermal (PVT) concentrating
g¼ ð7Þ collector connected in series, Sol. Energy 136 (2016) 260–267.
Gs  A [11] R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, I.M. Al-Helal, Thermal modelling of N partially covered
photovoltaic thermal (PVT)–Compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)
Uncertainty analysis results were derived as g, 16.75%. The collectors connected in series, Sol. Energy 123 (2016) 174–184.
uncertainty associated with the result is WR and those associated [12] U. Sajjad et al., Cost effective cooling of photovoltaic modules to improve
with the independent variables are w1, w2, . . ., wn. Area measure- efficiency, Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 14 (2019) 100420.
[13] Y.M. Irwan, W.Z. Leow, M. Irwanto, Fareq.M, A.R. Amelia, N. Gomesh, I.
ment is negligible. If the uncertainties in the independent variables
Safwati, Indoor test performance of pv panel through water cooling method,
are all given with some odds, then the uncertainty in the result Energy Procedia 79 (2015) 604–611.
having these odds was expressed by [37] as: [14] R. Nowzari, Numerical Analysis of a Photovoltaic Module Integrated with
Various Water Cooling Systems, Transactions of FAMENA 43 (2) (2019) 19–30.
" #0:5 [15] Z.A. Haidar, J. Orfi, Z. Kaneesamkandi, Experimental investigation of
2 2 2
@R @R @R
WR ¼ ð W1Þ þ ð W 2Þ þ    þ ð W nÞ ð8Þ evaporative cooling for enhancing photovoltaic panels efficiency, Results
@X 1 @X 2 @X n Phys. 11 (2018) 690–697.
[16] L. Dorobantßu, M.O. Popescu, Increasing the efficiency of photovoltaic panels
The instruments and variables used in corresponding uncertain- through cooling water film, UPB Sci. Bull., Series C 75 (4) (2013).
[17] F. Sarhaddi, S. Farahat, H. Ajam, A. Behzadmehr, Exergy efficiency of a solar
ties are presented in Table 9. photovoltaic array based on exergy destructions, Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 224 (6) (2010)
813–825.
4. Conclusions [18] R.T. Ross, T.-L. Hsiao, Limits on the yield of photochemical solar energy
conversion, J. Appl. Phys. 48 (11) (1977) 4783–4785.
An experimental study was carried out to find the optimum val- [19] T. Markvart, P.T. Landsberg, Thermodynamics and reciprocity of solar energy
conversion, Physica E 14 (1-2) (2002) 71–77.
ues of operational parameters determined to be effective for the [20] P. Würfel, Thermodynamic limitations to solar energy conversion, Physica E 14
increase in efficiency during spray cooling of a PV panel. As a result, (1-2) (2002) 18–26.
optimum values for electrical efficiency were obtained as 49.8990 [21] A.S. Joshi, I. Dincer, B.V. Reddy, Thermodynamic assessment of photovoltaic
systems, Sol. Energy 83 (8) (2009) 1139–1149.
[s] for spraying time, 0.0180 [m3/h] for spray flow rate, 2 [m3/h] for
[22] G.N. Tiwari, M.d. Meraj, M.E. Khan, Exergy analysis of N-photovoltaic thermal-
nozzle air flow rate, 50 [cm] for nozzle to panel distance and 700 compound parabolic concentrator (N-PVT-CPC) collector for constant
[W/m2] for solar irradiance. We found that the optimum results collection temperature for vapor absorption refrigeration (VAR) system, Sol.
had a lower nozzle air flow rate, higher spray flow rate, and mean Energy 173 (2018) 1032–1042.
[23] R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, Energetic and exergetic analysis of N partially covered
spraying time values. In addition, a correlation with the values photovoltaic thermal-compound parabolic concentrator (PVT-CPC) collectors
obtained for efficiency was proposed. The most effective parame- connected in series, Sol. Energy 137 (2016) 441–451.

7
F. Yesildal, Ahmet Numan Ozakin and K. Yakut
[24] R. Tripathi, G.N. Tiwari, Annual performance evaluation (energy and exergy) of
fully covered concentrated photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collector: An
experimental validation, Sol. Energy 146 (2017) 180–190.
[25] G.N. Tiwari, A.K. Mishra, M.d. Meraj, A. Ahmad, M.E. Khan, Effect of shape of
condensing cover on energy and exergy analysis of a PVT-CPC active solar
distillation system, Sol. Energy 205 (2020) 113–125.
[26] Shyam, G.N. Tiwari, O. Fischer, R.K. Mishra, I.M. Al-Helal, Performance
evaluation of N-photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collectors partially covered
by photovoltaic module connected in series: An experimental study, Sol.
Energy 134 (2016) 302–313.
[27] Z. Peng, M.R. Herfatmanesh, Y. Liu, Cooled solar PV panels for output energy
efficiency optimisation, Energy Convers. Manage. 150 (2017) 949–955.
[28] M.U. Siddiqui, O.K. Siddiqui, A. Al-Sarkhi, A.F.M. Arif, S.M. Zubair, A novel heat
exchanger design procedure for photovoltaic panel cooling application: An
analytical and experimental evaluation, Appl. Energy 239 (2019) 41–56.
[29] M. Zamen et al., Optimization methods using artificial intelligence algorithms
to estimate thermal efficiency of PV/T system, Energy Sci. Eng. (2019).
Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 25 (2022) 100983
[30] S. Krauter, Increased electrical yield via water flow over the front of
photovoltaic panels, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 82 (1-2) (2004) 131–137.
[31] Deshmukh, S. and V.V. Kale, A Review on Cooling of Solar Photovoltaic Panels
using Novel Techniques.
[32] Minitab 18 Support, Available from: https://support.minitab.com/en-us/
minitab/18, 2020.
[33] A.H. Lefebvre V.G. McDonell Atomization and Sprays 2 CRC Press Second
edition. | Boca Raton : Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, 2017.
[34] F. Yesildal, K. Yakut, Optimization of the spray cooling parameters for a heat
sink by the Taguchi Method, Atomization Sprays 27 (12) (2017) 1063–1075.
[35] A.N. Sabreena, Y.N. Azma, O. Mohamad, Response Surface Methodology for
Optimisation of Parameters For Extraction of Stevia rebaudiana using Water,
H2O. IIOABJ (2017).
[36] M. Mäkelä, Experimental design and response surface methodology in energy
applications: a tutorial review, Energy Convers. Manage. 151 (2017) 630–640.
[37] S. Kline ‘‘and McClintock, FA Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample
Experiments,‘‘ Mechanical Engineering. 75 1 1953,” 3 8