Energy 263 (2023) 125850

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Research and numerical analysis on performance optimization of

photovoltaic-thermoelectric system incorporated with phase
change materials
Song Lv a, b, c, *, Jiahao Yang a, b, Juwen Ren a, b, Bolong Zhang a, b, Yin Lai a, b, Zhihao Chang a, b
a
Key Laboratory of High Performance Ship Technology (Wuhan University of Technology), Ministry of Education, Wuhan, 430063, China
b
School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Energy Power Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, 430063, China
c
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China, 430063

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

Keywords: In recent years, photovoltaic (PV) cells have been widely used to cope with the problem of global energy
Photovoltaic cells shortage. In the current researches, the PV-TEG-PCM (photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator-phase change
Phase change material (PCM) material) system can improve the utilization of solar energy and the hybrid system shows better performance.
Thermoelectric generator (TEG)
Most of the previous studies were two-dimensional models or steady-state models, which could not accurately
PV-TEG-PCM hybrid System
evaluate the system performance under fluctuating solar irradiation. This research constructs a three-
dimensional thermal simulation transient model of the PV-TEG-PCM system. The model is simulated under
fluctuating solar irradiation, model validity has been verified. This research completes and optimizes the theo­
retical researches of PV-TEG-PCM systems. This research will play a guiding role in the subsequent practical
experiments and applications. The effects of PCM melting temperature, thickness and thermal conductivity are
studied. The results show that the performance of PV-TEG-PCM system is better than that of PV-TEG or sole PV
systems. At the peak sun-hour, the PV temperature was reduced for three types of PV-TEG-PCM systems
compared to PV-TEG systems. Through simulation, the PCM layer with 30 mm thickness and melting temper­
ature of 42 ◦ C, can make the PV-TEG-PCM system established this time achieve the best thermal performance.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the problem of energy shortage has become
increasingly serious. Human beings urgently need to find and use
renewable energy to meet their own development needs and reduce the
use of traditional fossil fuels. In the current common renewable energy,
solar energy has the advantages of wide distribution, safety and stabil­
ity, huge energy and so on. It is considered to be the main force of
renewable energy. As an efficient and clean energy, it is vigorously
promoted all over the world. Photovoltaic cells can directly convert
solar energy into electric energy for the use of electrical equipment. At
the same time, photovoltaic cells have many advantages, such as no
pollution, no restriction of resource distribution region, high energy
quality, short time to obtain energy and so on. These advantages also
make it more and more widely used. However, when photovoltaic (PV)
cells absorb solar energy, they can only convert limited solar energy into
electric energy, and the solar energy that cannot be converted will
become heat, which is not only a waste of energy, but also this part of
heat energy will increase the temperature of photovoltaic cells and
reduce their efficiency [1–3]. Therefore, in order to improve the utili­
zation efficiency of solar energy and the stability of photovoltaic cells,
using this part of waste heat and reduce the temperature of photovoltaic
cells at the same time are urgent problems to be solved.
Recently, it has been found that thermoelectric generators (TEG) can
make use of the waste heat generated by photovoltaic cells to a certain
extent. Thermoelectric generators do not require the band of solar en­
ergy when in use. The power generation principle of TEG is based on
Seebeck effect, which converts heat energy into electric energy by
building a temperature difference between the hot side and the cold side
[4]. The combination of PV cells and TEG can realize the all-optical
spectrum utilization of solar energy. TEG’s power generation effi­
ciency is not high, but it can improve the overall efficiency of solar
energy utilization. Motiei et al. [5] developed an unsteady

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory of High Performance Ship Technology, Ministry of Education, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Wuhan University
of Technology, Wuhan, 430063, China. .
E-mail addresses: lvsong@whut.edu.cn (S. Lv), yjhperry@whut.edu.cn (J. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125850
Received 7 March 2022; Received in revised form 20 October 2022; Accepted 21 October 2022
Available online 26 October 2022
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

Nomenclature Ts solidification temperature of PCM, ◦ C

Tl melting temperature of PCM, ◦ C
a surface area of the system, m2 Tg surface temperature of glass, ◦ C
Cp heat capacity of the PCM, J/kg⋅K Tair ambient temperature, ◦ C
F irradiation view factors TAl back temperature of aluminum sheet, ◦ C
H total internal energy, J Tsky sky temperature, ◦ C
Hs sensible heat, J Tground ground temperature, ◦ C
Hl latent heat, J V wind speed, m/s
Δh change in latent heat enthalpy, J/kg Y full latent heat of a complete phase change, J
h1 the convective heat transfer coefficients of the glass, W/m2 Z figure of merit of TEG, K− 1
K
h2 the convective heat transfer coefficients for the aluminum Greek symbols
sheet, W/m2 K ηpv PV conversion efficiency
ΔL Thickness of PCM, m ηr reference efficiency of the PV at reference temperature of
Pgen electrical output power of PV, W/m2 25 ◦ C
Pteg electrical output power of TEG, W/m2 ηteg conversion efficiency of TEG
Qsol total incoming solar irradiation flux on system, W/m2 τg glass transmissivity
Qrad irradiation heat transfer, W/m2 αcell cell absorptivity
Qconv convective heat transfer, W/m2 σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Qconv,f convective heat transfer at the surface of the glass, W/m2 εglass emissivity coefficient of glass
Qconv,b convective heat transfer at the back surface of the system, εsky emissivity coefficient of sky
W/m2 εAl emissivity coefficient of aluminum
Qrad,f irradiation heat transfer between the system and the sky, εground emissivity coefficient of ground
W/m2 ρ density of PCM, kg/m3
Qrad,b irradiation heat transfer between the system and the ν liquid fraction of PCM
ground, W/m2 Acronyms
ΔT temperature increase, ◦ C EVA ethylene vinyl acetate
Tpv PV back surface temperature, ◦ C PCM Phase change material
Tr reference temperature of PV, ◦ C PV photovoltaic
Tcold temperatures at the cold side of TEG, ◦ C TEG thermoelectric generator
Thot temperatures at hot side of TEG, ◦ C
Tteg average temperature of TEG, K

two-dimensional numerical model of a hybrid solar power generation
system (STEG) that integrates photovoltaic and thermoelectric gener­
ator technologies, the thermal and electrical performances of PV and
STEG systems are investigated by solving equations through simulation.
The results show that adding thermoelectric module at the back of
photovoltaic, the photovoltaic temperature decreases by about 8.49 ◦ C
and the photovoltaic efficiency increases by 0.59%, and its electric
output power increases by 5.06% during peak hours. Sark et al. [6]
connected the thermoelectric converters to the back of the PV modules,
to form a PV- TEG hybrid module. Through simulation calculation, the
efficiency of the hybrid module can be improved by 8–23%. Dallan et al.
[7] placed the photovoltaic module and thermoelectric module in series.
Through experiments, the performance of individual PV module and PV-
TEG hybrid system was compared. The results show that under the
condition of fixed thermal input, compared with the power output
without thermoelectric module, the power output of PV module in­
creases by 39% when operating with thermoelectric module. Kohan
et al. [8] developed a three-dimensional numerical model of PV- TEG
hybrid system, they calculated the temperature distribution of the sys­
tem, studied the impact of the number of TEG on the system perfor­
mance, and compared the performance changes of the system under
different convection coefficient. The results show that increasing the
number of TEG can increase the power generation of the system. In
addition, the hybrid system can produce more power than a single PV
cell, however, the amount of increase is not high, and this increase de­
creases with the increase of convection coefficient. Mahmoudinezhad
et al. [9] established a hybrid system model composed of concentrating
photovoltaic (CPV) cell and TEG, and studied the dynamic response of
the system to the change of solar irradiation. The results show that the
temperature of components in the system is directly affected by the
violent fluctuation of solar irradiation. When the weather changes, the
efficiency of TEG is inversely proportional to that of CPV cell. The
application of TEG helps to compensate a small part of CPV power
generation loss, At the same time, the overall power generation of the
hybrid module is more stable. Soltani et al. [10] used nanofluid to cool
PV- TEG system, and compared it with traditional cooling methods. The
results show that using nanofluid cooling can improve the total power
generation of the system, and a better cooling method can provide better
performance for the system. Both PV cells and TEG have suitable
working temperatures. When the temperature deviates from the work­
ing temperature, their efficiency will be greatly affected. In actual use,
the solar irradiation and ambient temperature will fluctuate, which will
lead to the unstable temperature of PV cells and TEG and they cannot
work at the appropriate temperature. Therefore, taking corresponding
measures to adjust the temperature of the hybrid system and suppress
the system temperature fluctuation caused by solar irradiation fluctua­
tion is of great help to improve the performance of the coupling system.
Phase change materials (PCM) can absorb a lot of energy as latent
heat through the phase change process and keep the temperature con­
stant. Therefore, they are widely used in passive heat storage and tem­
perature control systems. In recent years, more and more researches
have combined PCM with PV cell or PV-TEG system to improve the
performance of the whole system. Smith et al. [11] proved by simulation
that the PV-PCM systems can curb the rapid rise in PV cell temperatures
during the daytime, and keep PV cell temperatures lower during the
peak solar hours of the day. Ma et al. [12] developed an improved
thermal resistance model for the PV/PCM system, and simulate each
case, the results show that the PV/PCM system has great potential for
implementation in high solar irradiation areas, and the phase change
temperature of the PCM selected in the system is recommended to be

2
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

around 5 ◦ C higher than the ambient temperature. Stropnik and Stritih 2. Theoretical model
[13] have studied through experiments and simulations how to increase
the electrical efficiency of conventional PV panel and maintain lower 2.1. Physical model of PV-teg-pcm
temperature during the day with the use of PCM. The results show that,
compared with the conventional PV panel, the PV cell temperature of The physical model of the PV-TEG-PCM system is shown in Fig. 1. It
the PV-PCM panel is reduced by up to 35.6 ◦ C, and the annual increase consists of PV module, TEG module and PCM module. A mono-crystal
for production of electric energy is 7.3%. Duan et al. [14] studied a novel silicon PV panel measuring 100 mm × 100 mm × 4.5 mm thick was
heat sink consisted of phase change material (PCM) and metal foam to chosen for this study.
cool the concentrator photovoltaic, the cooling effect is obvious. The PV module consists of two parts: a 3 mm glass layer and a 1.5
Reducing the porosity of PCM and enlarging the height of PCM could mm PV layer. The PV layer consists of 0.5 mm ethylene vinyl acetate
improve the electric efficiency of the solar cell. (EVA) layer, 0.2 mm silicon layer, 0.5 mm EVA layer and 0.3 mm Tedlar
Recently, studies have found that introducing PCM into the PV-TEG back sheet. In order to enhance the stability of numerical calculation,
system can well adjust the working temperature of the PV/TEG system, considering that each part of the PV layer is very thin, the PV layer was
and improve the performance of the hybrid system. Cui et al. [15] integrated into a single homogeneous substance [4].
constructed a novel PV-PCM-TE hybrid system, presented a theoretical The TEG module is attached at the bottom of the PV module. In order
model of evaluating the efficiency of the concentrated PV-PCM- TEG to input more heat generated by PV module to the hot side of TEG
hybrid system. The feasibility of the PV-PCM- TEG system with four module, graphene with high thermal conductivity is used to connect the
types of PV cells, c-Si, CIGS, single-junction GaAs, and GaIn­ two modules. The TEG module is mainly composed of many P-type and
P/InGaAs/Ge (III–V), are investigated. The results show that the per­ N-type semiconductor couples (PN couples) electrically, these semi­
formance of the PV-PCM- TEG system is superior to single PV cells conductor pairs are thermally connected in series and parallel. The two
and/or PV–TEG systems. Later, Cui et al. [16] constructed an experi­ ends are supported by ceramic layers. When there is a temperature
mental PV-PCM-TEG hybrid setup to analyze its performance. They difference between the two ends of the TEG, an electric current will be
found that the hybrid system can maintain the working temperature of generated. In this simulation, TEG is assumed to be a single homoge­
the system at a desired level during a day. Compared to the pure PV neous substance with average thermophysical properties for the con­
system, the present hybrid system has higher energy conversion effi­ venience of calculation. TEG’s inner structural complexities are ignored.
ciencies. Motiei et al. [17] introduced PCM as a heat sink attached to a The overall thickness of TEG is 3 mm.
PV-TEG to build a PV-TEG-PCM hybrid system. For analysis, they con­ The PCM module is connected to the cold end of the TEG module. In
ducted a transient, two-dimensional modeling. In the numerical simu­ this simulation, the phase change material is paraffin wax. The paraffin
lation, the ambient air temperature changes within 24 h. The results wax is encapsulated in an aluminum container, the wall thickness of the
indicated that electrical performance of a PV-TEG-PCM is better than aluminum container is 1 mm. Because the wall thickness of the container
that of a PV-TEG and a sole PV system. Also, the effect of the PCM is extremely small compared to the size of PCM, the aluminum container
thickness and melting point temperature was studied to find the opti­ next to the side surface of the PCM was ignored when building the
mum material and thickness, which depend on environmental condi­ model. Only the influences of the top and bottom of the container are
tions. Darkwa et al. [18] developed a numerical model for thermal considered. The thickness of the PCM layer is variable but a 20 mm
simulation of the integrated system based on the PV-TEG-PCM system, thickness was utilized for the simulation.
which has been validated by experimental results. The performance of The specific parameters of each material are shown in Table 1.
the PV-TEG-PCM system is studied theoretically and experimentally, the
results shows that despite the insulation effect of the PCM layer, the
2.2. Energy modeling of PV/TEG/PCM system
integrated PV/TEG/PCM system was able to achieve about 9.5% power
output more than the PV-TEG system and the PV system during the
Fig. 2 shows the energy model of the system. In the actual operation
initial 1.5 h period. Finally, they found the best thermal performance for
process of the system, there are many complex influencing factors, and
the PV/TEG/PCM system was achieved with a 50 mm thick PCM layer
some simplifications and assumptions need to be made when estab­
with thermal conductivity of 5 W/m K and a phase change temperature
lishing the model, as follows:
of 40–45 ◦ C.
In the current researches, the PV-TEG-PCM system shows good per­
(1) The initial temperature of the PCM is equal to the ambient
formance. The use of PCM makes the temperature change of the system
temperature;
gentler, thereby improving the efficiency. Some related simulations
(2) Liquid and solid phases of the PCM are considered as isotropic
were done to study the performance of the hybrid system. However, in
and homogeneous;
some simulations, the conditions considered were not perfect. In some
studies, the effect of fluctuating solar irradiation on the system was not
considered. In some simulations that have been done, the model was a
two-dimensional model. Compared with the three-dimensional model,
some factors cannot be considered, such as the energy transfer from the
three-dimensional direction or the boundary conditions around the
model. Therefore, considering these shortcomings, such as not building
a three-dimensional model or not considering the impact of fluctuating
solar illuminance, etc. This paper constructs a three-dimensional ther­
mal simulation model of the PV-TEG-PCM system. The model is simu­
lated under fluctuating solar irradiation to evaluate the performance of
the system, and the effective effect of PCM on the hybrid system is
studied more comprehensively. At the same time, the melting temper­
ature, thickness, and thermal conductivity of PCM were changed to
study the influence of different parameters of PCM on system perfor­
mance. According to the simulation results, the optimal parameters of
the PCM under the corresponding system are obtained, which can pro­
vide guidance for the subsequent practical experiments. Fig. 1. Physical model of the PV-TEG-PCM system.

3
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

Table 1
Material properties of the PV-TEG-PCM module [18–21].
Material Density (kg/m3) Thermal conductivity (W/m⋅K) Heat capacity (J/kg⋅K) Latent heat (J/kg) Phase change temperature (◦ C)

PV 1190.667 0.2894 1552.006 – –

Glass 3000 0.98 500 – –
EVA 960 0.23 2090 – –
Si 2330 148 677 – –
Tedlar 1200 0.36 1250 – –
graphene 2100 1273.8 760 – –
TEG 92.74 0.92 708.4 – –
Paraffin wax (RT35) 800 0.2 2000 240,000 35
Paraffin wax (RT42) 880 0.21 3220 220,000 42
N_Tetracosane 900 0.21 2000 255,000 51

( ( ))
ηpv = ηr 1 − 0.0045 Tpv − Tr (3)

where ηr is the reference efficiency of the PV at reference temperature of

25 ◦ C and is taken to be 16%, Tpv is the PV back surface temperature.
Pteg is the electrical output power from TEG and may also be
expressed as a function of ηpv as [24]:
( )
Pteg = τg ⋅ αcell ⋅ Qsol ⋅ 1 − ηpv ⋅ηteg (4)

ηteg is the conversion efficiency of TEG cell, is given as [22]:

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1 + ZTteg − 1
ηteg = (1 − Tcold / Thot ) × √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ / (5)
1 + ZTteg + Tcold Thot

Tcold and Thot are the temperatures at the cold and hot side of the TEG
respectively. Tteg is the average temperature of the TEG and Z is taken as
a common value achieved by the commercial TEG products, Z = 0.004 K-
1
[6].
The total internal energy (H) of PCM consist of the sensible (Hs ) and
latent heat (Hl ) storage components:

Fig. 2. Energy model in the PV/TEG/PCM system. H = Hs + Hl (6)

Hs and Hl can be expressed as:

(3) Thermo-physical properties were assumed to be constants in each
phase, including thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, Hs = ρ × ΔL × Cp × ΔT (7)
viscosity, etc.;
(4) Liquid PCM is regarded as a Newtonian incompressible fluid and Hl = ρ × ΔL × Δh (8)
flows as laminar flow;
(5) Contact resistance between layers is neglected; where ΔT is the temperature increase, ρ, ΔL, Cp are the density, thick­
(6) The size of each module in the length and width directions is ness and heat capacity of the PCM layer.
much larger than the size in the thickness direction, so the heat Δh is a function of liquid fraction ν , it is obtained by the following
exchange on the side surfaces of all module are ignored and relation:
assumed perfectly thermally insulated; Δh = ν⋅Y (9)
(7) The solar irradiation received by the glass is uniform, and the
surface of the glass is free of dust or other particles; ⎧
⎪ 0, T < Ts
⎪
(8) p-n units and the ceramic insulations in TEG are considered as a ⎪
⎨T− Ts
single homogenous substance with average thermophysical ν= , Ts < T < Tl (10)
⎪
⎪ Tl − Ts
properties. ⎪
⎩
1, T > Tl
The energy balance equation of the system is presented as:
where Y is the full latent heat of a complete phase change, Ts is the
Qsol = Pgen + Pteg + Qrad + Qconv + H (1) solidification temperature, Tl is the melting temperature of a PCM [25].
Qconv is the convective heat transfer between the system and envi­
Pgen is the electrical output power generated by PV is calculated from the ronment, it is given as:
following relation [22]:
Qconv = Qconv,f + Qconv,b (11)
Pgen = τg ⋅αcell ⋅Qsol ⋅ηpv (2)
Qconv,f is the convective heat transfer at the surface of the glass and
where Qsol is the total incoming solar irradiation flux on system, τg is the Qconv,b is the convective heat transfer at the back surface of the system,
glass transmissivity, and αcell is the cell absorptivity. can be expressed as:
ηpv is the PV conversion efficiency, it is obtained by the following ( )
Qconv,f = h1 ⋅ Tg − Tair (12)
relation [23]:

4
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

Qconv,b = h2 ⋅(TAl − Tair ) (13)

where Tg , Tair , TAl , h1 and h2 are surface temperature of glass, ambient

temperature, back temperature of aluminum sheet, the s respectively,
the convective heat transfer coefficients for the exposed surface of the
glass and the back surface of aluminum sheet respectively.
Qrad is the irradiation heat transfer between the system and envi­
ronment, it is given as:
Qrad = Qrad,f + Qrad,b (14)

Qrad,f is the irradiation heat transfer between the system and the sky,
Qrad,b is the irradiation heat transfer between the system and the ground,
can be expressed as:
( )
Qrad,f = F σ εglass Tg4 − εsky Tsky
4
(15)

( )
Qrad,b = F σ εAl TAl4 − εground Tground
4
(16)

where σ, εglass , εsky , εAl , εground , Tsky and Tground are Stefan-Boltzmann
constant, emissivity coefficient of glass, emissivity coefficient of sky,
emissivity coefficient of aluminum, emissivity coefficient of ground, sky
temperature and ground temperature. Relevant parameters are shown in
Table 2. Also F denotes irradiation view factors, take 1 here [26].
The average convection heat transfer coefficient as a function of
wind speed V (m/s) at the front and back sides of the system are pre­
sented below. Its value for the front side is twice as large as that of the
back side, since the back side is not well cooled in comparison with the
front side [27]:
( / ) temperature, the sky temperature is calculated by formula (19). The
h1 = 5 + 3.8V, W m2 K (17)
h2 = 0.5h1 (18)
Tground is considered equal to Tair . The sky temperature (Tsky ) is obtained
by the following relation [28]:
1.5
Tsky = 0.052Tair (19)
2.3. Numerical scheme
In this study, software ANSYS FLUENT was used to develop a three-
dimensional model and simulate the temperature for system under
fluctuating solar irradiation conditions. For the benefit of comparison,
the three-dimensional models of the PV-TEG-PCM system, the PV system
and the PV-TEG system are developed by software, and the temperature
curves of the three systems are simulated.
Modeling and meshing are carried out on front Processor of the
FLUENT software. In order to prove the grid independence of the model,
three grids (grid numbers are 43,218, 94,269, 175,273) with different
grid resolutions were used to simulate under the same conditions. The
PV back temperature of different grids were compared. The results are
shown in Fig. 3. The results showed that the temperature variations
between the three mesh sizes were insignificant, so it can be considered
that the model has a great grid independence. The size (grid numbers are
Fig. 3. The results of grid independence.
175273) was deemed satisfactory for subsequent simulations. The model
and mesh for the system are shown in Fig. 4.
The ambient temperature and solar irradiation in the simulation
select the daytime temperature and corresponding solar irradiation of a
summer solstice. Temperature and solar irradiation are shown in Fig. 5.
It is assumed that the environment is windless, V = 0 m/s. From this
glass and PV generate heat by receiving solar irradiation, setting them as
internal heat sources. The change of temperature within a day is realized
by a user-defined function. The materials of each module of the system
are set according to Table 1. The convection terms are discretized by the
second-order upwind method. For the solidification/melting model of
the PCM, and enthalpy-porosity technique is used in FLUENT. In the
simulation, the convergence criterion of the energy equation was 10− 6.
The total simulation time is 13 h.
Based on the temperature of the PV back surface and the solar irra­
diation level, the PV efficiency and power output can be projected.
Considering the temperature on both TEG hot and cold ends as well as
the heat flux through TEG hot end, the TEG efficiency and power output
can also be projected.
2.4. Model validation
In order to validate the model, the results of the model are compared
with the results obtained by Darkwa et al. [18]. The model in this paper
is simulated using the relevant conditions, and the PV temperature re­
sults are compared. The comparison results are shown in Fig. 6.
It can be seen from the figure that the simulation results of the model
in this paper have similar temperature distribution curves with the

Table 2
Optical properties of the PV-TEG-PCM module
[4].
τg 0.95

αcell 0.9
8
σ 5.67 × 10−
εglass 0.95
εsky 0.95
εAl 0.02
εground 0.95
Fig. 4. Mesh for the PV/TEG/PCM system.

5
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

Fig. 5. The average solar irradiation and ambient temperature.

Fig. 7. PV temperature for various systems.

seen from the figure that the PV temperature of the PV-TEG-PCM system
is lower than that of the PV system and the PV-TEG system from the
beginning of the simulation to around 15 h. The decrease in temperature
is more obvious during peak sun-hour. At the peak sun-hour, the PV.
Temperature of PV-TEG system reached the maximum temperature
is 77.56 ◦ C. Also, at the same time period, addition of different PCMs
with different melting temperatures of 35 ◦ C, 42 ◦ C and 51 ◦ C as a heat
sink in the PV-TEG-PCM system decreased the PV temperature by
14.33 ◦ C, 14.28 ◦ C and 12.04 ◦ C compared with the PV-TEG system,
respectively. When the subsequent ambient temperature decreases, the
PV temperature of the PV-TEG-PCM system is higher than the PV-TEG
system. This is due to the complete melting of PCM into liquid, it had
low thermal conductivity and played a role of heat insulation. As a
result, the PV temperature of the system did not drop rapidly, but
slightly higher than that of PV-TEG system. The overall results show that
using PCM to control the temperature of the system is effective. The PV
temperature is effectively reduced during most of the time and peak sun-
hour. The temperature jump of the PV-TEG-PCM system in the figure is
caused by the phase change of the PCM, the two obvious temperature
changes are that the PCM starts to melt and the PCM completely melts.
Fig. 6. The comparison results with reference.
The appropriate PCM melting temperature can better control the overall
temperature. Although the temperature of the three PV-TEG-PCM sys­
results of the literature. The change trends of the two curves are also
tems with different melting temperatures in the figure has decreased, the
consistent. Although the results are not exactly the same, the differences
temperature change curves are not exactly the same. There are also
are within an acceptable range. Therefore, it is considered that the
differences in PV peak temperature for different hybrid systems. At a
model has a sufficiently high accuracy for subsequent research.
melting temperature of 35 ◦ C, the peak PV temperature of the system is
72.36 ◦ C, it is the highest. The temperature started to be higher than the
3. Results and discussion
PV-TEG system at an earlier time. But it can be kept at lower tempera­
ture levels for the first period of time. At a melting temperature of 51 ◦ C,
3.1. temperature in the hybrid systems
although the system has the lowest peak temperature 66.7 ◦ C, it started
melting later. At the peak sun-hour, it has slightly less temperature drop.
The melting temperature of PCM has a great influence on the
In contrast, the melting temperature of 42 ◦ C should be optimal. The
working temperature of the system. Proper melting temperature can
system has a suitable peak PV temperature, a suitable melting start time,
make PCM play the most effective role in the system. The optimal
and an optimal overall temperature reduction level.
melting temperature depends on the local climate. Therefore, it is
necessary to select a PCM with an optimal melting temperature. The
simulation was carried out for the PCM with 20 mm thickness. The
3.2. efficiencies and TEG efficiencies in the hybrid systems
melting temperatures of PCM are 35 ◦ C, 42 ◦ C and 51 ◦ C respectively.
Fig. 7 displays the average temperature of photovoltaic cells for the
Fig. 8 displays the PV efficiency in three systems during a day, they
sole PV, PV-TEG and PV-TEG-PCM systems.
were obtained based on data from the temperature profiles in Fig. 7 and
The results show that the sole PV and PV-TEG systems displayed
Eq. (3). Obviously, the PV efficiency of the system is inversely propor­
similar PV temperature profiling. Adding PCM to PV-TEG system can
tional to the PV temperature. From the beginning of simulation to 15 h,
reduce PV temperature compared with the other two systems. It can be
the PV efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system is higher than that of the PV

6
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

The peak TEG efficiency of the PV-TEG system is 0.169%. By adding

PCM layers, the maximum values of TEG efficiency in the PV-TEG-PCM
system at the peak sun-hour with melting temperatures of 35 ◦ C, 42 ◦ C
and 51 ◦ C are 0.444%, 0.431% and 0.387%, respectively. These are
relatively quite small as compared with the PV efficiency at normal
operating condition, thus the output power of TEG in the whole system is
very small. After the ambient temperature began to drop for a period of
time, the TEG efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system gradually began to
drop to a level lower than that of the PV-TEG system, and even negative
efficiency appeared. This is due to the influence of PCM’s thermal
storage capacity on the cold end of TEG. After the PCM is completely
melted, the temperature of the hot end of the TEG decreases as the
ambient temperature decreases. The cold end of TEG is connected to
PCM. The thermal storage capacity of PCM makes the temperature of the
cold end decrease slowly, and the overall temperature drop is less than
that of the hot end. The temperature of the hot end of TEG will be higher
than that of the cold end. As a result, the temperature difference between
the two ends of the TEG was lower than zero, and the TEG efficiency was
lower than
Zero, too. On the whole, the addition of PCM improves the PV effi­
ciency and TEG efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system. It can be
Fig. 8. Comparison of the PV efficiency for various systems.
considered that PV-TEG-PCM system has better performance than the
sole PV or PV-TEG systems.
system and the PV-TEG system. In the subsequent time, the PV efficiency
is slightly lower than that of the PV system and PV-TEG system. At the
3.3. Effect of variations of PCMs thickness
peak sun-hour, the PV efficiency of the PV-TEG system is 12.21%.
Addition of different PCMs with different melting temperatures of 35 ◦ C,
Based on the PV-TEG-PCM system with the PCM melting tempera­
42 ◦ C and 51 ◦ C as a heat sink in the PV-TEG-PCM system led to
ture of 42 ◦ C, the impact of the different thicknesses of PCM layer
1.03%,1.04% and 0.87% improvements in the PV efficiency in com­
(ranging from 10 mm to 40 mm) on the performance of the PV-TEG-PCM
parison to the PV-TEG system, respectively. For most of the simulation
system was also analyzed. PV temperature is shown in Fig. 10. For the
time, the PV efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system is improved
specific type of PCM, increasing the thickness causes elevated heat ca­
compared
pacity and sensible thermal storage, the time to adjust the temperature
With the sole PV or PV-TEG systems. Likewise, the PV efficiency of
will also be extended. It can be seen from the figure that the larger the
the hybrid system varies differently for PCMs with different melting
PCM thickness, the lower the overall PV temperature, the time at which
temperatures. Similar to PV temperature, when the PCM melting tem­
the PV peak temperature occurs also moves backward. When the PCM
perature is 42 ◦ C, the overall PV efficiency is also relatively good.
thickness is 10 mm, the peak temperature appears at 13 h. When the
Fig. 9 displays the TEG efficiency in the PV-TEG-PCM system and the
PCM thickness is 20 mm, the peak temperature appears at 15 h. The
PV-TEG system during a day. The figure shows that the TEG efficiency of
reason why the PV temperature of the PV-TEG-PCM system is higher
the PV-TEG-PCM system is higher than that of the PV-TEG system in
than that of the PV system and the PV-TEG system in the subsequent
most time periods. The TEG efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system first
time is the same as that mentioned above, which is the reason for the
increased and then decreased, and the highest efficiency appeared near
complete melting of the PCM. When the PCM thickness is 40 mm, the PV
the peak sunshine time. The peak efficiency of the hybrid system of
peak temperature of the system is 63.79 ◦ C. However, the effects of the
different PCMs is also different, but the peak efficiency of 42 ◦ C, 51 ◦ C is
thickness on the PV temperature gradually weakened when the PCM
close. Choosing a melting temperature of 42 ◦ C is still the best choice.

Fig. 9. Variations of the TEG efficiency for various systems. Fig. 10. PV temperature for various thickness of PCM layer.

7
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

thickness reaches a particular value. The PV temperature profiles of the

two systems with the PCM thickness of 30 mm and 40 mm respectively
differs little with each other.
PV efficiency and TEG efficiency are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The
PV efficiency is inversely proportional to the PV temperature, when the
thickness increases, the overall efficiency becomes higher, but again, at
30 mm and 40 mm thickness, the PV efficiency profiles of the two sys­
tems are very close. The TEG efficiency first increased and then
decreased. With increasing thickness, the TEG efficiency remained at a
higher level for a longer period of time. The subsequent negative effi­
ciency is also due to the insulating effect of the PCM. In general, the
overall efficiency of the PV-TEG-PCM system is higher than that of the
PV-TEG system most of the time. The analysis results can be obtained
that increasing the thickness of PCM can indeed improve the perfor­
mance of the PV-TEG-PCM system, and for different climates, an optimal
thickness of PCM can be introduced. In this simulation, the optimal
value is 30 mm, correspondingly, the PV temperature decreased by
14.91 ◦ C, and the PV efficiency and TEG efficiency increased by 1.08%
and 0.283%.

Fig. 12. TEG efficiency for various thickness of PCM layer.

3.4. Effect of variations of PCMs thermal conductivity

In order to further study the influence of relevant parameters on the

performance of the PV-TEG-PCM system, the thermal conductivity of
PCM (ranging from 0.215 W/(m⋅K) to 2 W/(m⋅K)) was changed to study
the influence of PCM thermal conductivity on the overall performance of
the system. Here, PCM melting temperature of 42 ◦ C and PCM thickness
of 20 mm were selected. PV temperature and PV efficiency are shown in
Fig. 13 and Fig. 14. The thermal conductivity of PCM increased, the heat
transfer performance of PCM also increased, that made PCM more
effective for system temperature control. The increase of PCM thermal
conductivity makes the complete melting time earlier, but the reduction
of PV temperature is more obvious during the phase change process. At
the peak sun-hour, the PV temperature of a system with a PCM thermal
conductivity of 2 W/(m⋅K) is only 59.33 ◦ C. At the same time, compared
to other systems, it can keep the PV temperature at a lower level
throughout the melting process, however, due to the rapid melting, the
subsequent PV temperature is higher than that of other systems. For the
system with a PCM thermal conductivity of 0.215 W/(m⋅K), although
the PV temperature is higher than other PV-TEG-PCM systems during
the phase process, its PV temperature changes more gently and does not
fluctuate violently. For PV efficiency, there is a similar reverse distri­
bution. In the first half of the time, the greater the thermal conductivity,
Fig. 13. PV temperature for various thermal conductivity of PCM layer.

the higher the photovoltaic efficiency, in the latter half of the time, with
the increase of thermal conductivity, the PV efficiency decreases
slightly. The results show that the increase of thermal conductivity of
PCM is beneficial to the improvement of system performance, but it
should be determined according to the specific situation. There may be
negative effects of increasing thermal conductivity all the time. There
are still some problems in the discussion of PCM thermal conductivity in
this simulation, but to a certain extent, the relevant trends can be
observed.

4. Conclusion

This study was conducted to assess the feasibility and utilization

potential of an PV/TEG/PCM system. The study developed a three-
dimensional, transient numerical model for thermal simulations of the
PV-TEG-PCM system, and studied the performance of the system. The
main results are as follows:

(1) Using PCM to regulate the temperature of the PV-TEG system is

effective, and the PV-TEG-PCM system has better performance
Fig. 11. PV efficiency for various thickness of PCM layer.

8
S. Lv et al.
Fig. 14. PV efficiency for various thermal conductivity of PCM layer.
under fluctuating solar irradiation. The PV temperature in the PV-
TEG-PCM system is lower than that of the PV system and the PV-
TEG system, and the overall efficiency is also improved.
(2) Appropriate PCM melting temperature can better improve the
performance of PV-TEG-PCM system. In the model established
this time, the optimal PCM melting temperature is 42 ◦ C. At this
melting temperature, the thermal and electrical performance of
PV-TEG-PCM system are better.
(3) The thickness of the PCM also affects the performance of the PV-
TEG-PCM system, the increase of PCM thickness makes the per­
formance of the system better. However, if the thickness is too
thick, the performance improvement will no longer be obvious.
Under the given climatic conditions, the optimum PCM thickness
of the model established this time is 30 mm.
(4) Thermal conductivity of PCM has influence on the performance
of PV-TEG-PCM system. Higher PCM thermal conductivity makes
the system perform better, keep the temperature of the system at
a lower level during PCM phase transition.
In this study, a three-dimensional thermal simulation model of the
PV-TEG-PCM system is constructed. The model is simulated under
fluctuating solar irradiation. This study completes the theoretical study
of the PV-TEG-PCM system and further explores the performance of the
hybrid system under actual weather conditions. Practical experiments
can be better guided through this study to design PV-TEG-PCM systems
that can operate in the real situations in the near future.
Credit author statement
Lv Song: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and
Editing, Supervision. Jiahao Yang: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Software, Writing-original draft, Writing-Review & Editing, Visualiza­
tion. Juwen Ren: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Inves­
tigation. Bolong Zhang: Investigation, Data curation. Yin Lai:
Investigation, Data curation. Zhihao Chang: Investigation, Data
curation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper
9
Energy 263 (2023) 125850
Data availability
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has
been used.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China(NSFC 52106268).
References
[1] Kraemer D, McEnaney K, Chiesa M, Chen G. Modeling and optimization of solar
thermoelectric generators for terrestrial applications. Sol Energy 2012;86(5):
1338–50.
[2] Hachem F, Abdulhay B, Ramadan M, El Hage H, El Rab MG, Khaled M. Improving
the performance of photovoltaic cells using pure and combined phase change
materials - experiments and transient energy balance. Renew Energy 2017;107:
567–75.
[3] Chow TT. A review on photovoltaic/thermal hybrid solar technology. Appl Energy
2010;87(2):365–79.
[4] Rodrigo PM, Valera A, Fernandez EF, Almonacid FM. Performance and economic
limits of passively cooled hybrid thermoelectric generator-concentrator
photovoltaic modules. Appl Energy 2019;238:1150–62.
[5] Motiei P, Yaghoubi M, GoshtashbiRad E, Vadiee A. Two-dimensional unsteady
state performance analysis of a hybrid photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator.
Renew Energy 2018;119:551–65.
[6] van Sark W. Feasibility of photovoltaic - thermoelectric hybrid modules. Appl
Energy 2011;88(8):2785–90.
[7] Dallan BS, Schumann J, Lesage FJ. Performance evaluation of a photoelectric-
thermoelectric cogeneration hybrid system. Sol Energy 2015;118:276–85.
[8] Kohan HRF, Lotfipour F, Eslami M. Numerical simulation of a photovoltaic
thermoelectric hybrid power generation system. Sol Energy 2018;174:537–48.
[9] Mahmoudinezhad S, Rezania A, Rosendahl LA. Behavior of hybrid concentrated
photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator under variable solar radiation. Energy
Convers Manag 2018;164:443–52.
[10] Soltani S, Kasaeian A, Sarrafha H, Wen DS. An experimental investigation of a
hybrid photovoltaic/thermoelectric system with nanofluid application. Sol Energy
2017;155:1033–43.
[11] Smith CJ, Forster PM, Crook R. Global analysis of photovoltaic energy output
enhanced by phase change material cooling. Appl Energy 2014;126:21–8.
[12] Ma T, Zhao JX, Li ZP. Mathematical modelling and sensitivity analysis of solar
photovoltaic panel integrated with phase change material. Appl Energy 2018;228:
1147–58.
[13] Stropnik R, Stritih U. Increasing the efficiency of PV panel with the use of PCM.
Renew Energy 2016;97:671–9.
[14] Duan J. A novel heat sink for cooling concentrator photovoltaic system using PCM-
porous system. Appl Therm Eng 2021:186.
[15] Cui TF, Xuan YM, Li Q. Design of a novel concentrating photovoltaic-
thermoelectric system incorporated with phase change materials. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;112:49–60.
[16] Cui TF, Xuan YM, Yin ES, Li Q, Li DH. Experimental investigation on potential of a
concentrated photovoltaic-thermoelectric system with phase change materials.
Energy 2017;122:94–102.
[17] Motiei P, Yaghoubi M, GoshtasbiRad E. Transient simulation of a hybrid
photovoltaic-thermoelectric system using a phase change material. Sustain Energy
Technol Assessments 2019;34:200–13.
[18] Darkwa J, Calautit J, Du D, Kokogianakis G. A numerical and experimental analysis
of an integrated TEG-PCM power enhancement system for photovoltaic cells. Appl
Energy 2019;248:688–701.
[19] Darkwa J, Su O, Zhou T. Development of non-deform micro-encapsulated phase
change energy storage tablets. Appl Energy 2012;98:441–7.
[20] Baranowski LL, Snyder GJ, Toberer ES. Effective thermal conductivity in
thermoelectric materials. J Appl Phys 2013;113(20).
[21] Lobera DT, Valkealahti S. Dynamic thermal model of solar PV systems under
varying climatic conditions. Sol Energy 2013;93:183–94.
[22] Li GQ, Shittu S, Diallo TMO, Yu M, Zhao XD, Ji J. A review of solar photovoltaic-
thermoelectric hybrid system for electricity generation. Energy 2018;158:41–58.
[23] Huang BJ, Lin TH, Hung WC, Sun FS. Performance evaluation of solar
photovoltaic/thermal systems. Sol Energy 2001;70(5):443–8.
[24] Rowe Michael DJCHoT. CRC handbook of thermoelectrics. In: Rowe DM, editor.
Introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.
[25] Darkwa J, Su O. Thermal simulation of composite high conductivity laminated
microencapsulated phase change material (MEPCM) board. Appl Energy 2012;95:
246–52.
S. Lv et al. Energy 263 (2023) 125850

[26] Motiei P, Yaghoubi M, GoshtashbiRad E, Vadiee A. Two-dimensional unsteady
state performance analysis of a hybrid photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator.
Renew Energy 2018;119:551–65.
[27] Aelenei L, Pereira R, Ieee. In: Innovative solutions for net zero-energy building:
BIPV-PCM system - modeling, design and thermal performance. 4th international
youth conference on energy (IYCE). HUNGARY2013: Siofok; 2013. Jun 06-08.
[28] Swinbank WCJQJotRMS. Long-wave radiation from clear skies, vol. 89; 2010.
p. 339–48. 381.

10