Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Monitoring of PV systems installed in an extremely hostile climate in

southern Algeria: Performance evaluation extended to degradation
assessment of various PV panel of single-crystalline technologies
Mohammed Yaichi *, Azzedinne Tayebi , Abdelkader Boutadara , Amina Bekraoui ,
Abdelkrim Mammeri
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: Any photovoltaic (PV) system technology must have been experienced for at least a year to provide valuable
PV system information about its seasonal behavior, which requires knowledge of the effects of each component of the PV
Hostile climate installation chain. An experimental bench of different PV pumping systems using different PV panels was tested,
Monitoring data
which these PV systems (PVSs) consist of many brands of single-crystalline silicon (sc-Si) based technologies,
Performance ratio
Losses
including three manufacturers: ET-M53675, Isofotón (I-75 and I-100). This paper used the SV (sophisticated
Degradation and failure verification) method of analyzing and evaluating PVS performances in detail, for which we have developed a
process to achieve good accuracy calculation, intended to estimate their various losses. This method was applied
to the databases collected between 2014 and 2020. The output of real energy relative to its installed energy for
four PVS configurations is between 72.7 % and 93.6 %, and in some cases it goes down to 48.8 %. This
experimental study was extended to assess the degradation rate (DR) of PV panels exposed for long periods in the
Saharan environment. Results show that after 2.5 years of operation for the ET-M53675 panels that are newly
installed keep the same peak power, while PV panels that have been in operation for between 8 and 10 years
have lost between 14.2 % and 19.5 % of their initial power value for Isofotón I-100 and Isofotón I-75 modules,
respectively. The installed power in the Isofotón I-100 modules that have operated for more than 14 years has
degraded by 23.59 %. This study is an effort to check and assess the feasibility of PVSs and the defects in PV
modules found in newer and older installations in a desert environment at real operating conditions to enrich the
databases concerning the DR of the various PV panels in the various environments around the world.

minimum guarantee [4–5]. These circumstances, however, do not

reflect what is encountered in external operations. PVS energy produc­
1. Introduction
tion is primarily depends on the area’s local climate and PV module
technologies, where it is commonly known that the majority of solar
Photovoltaic (PV) is expected to be the energy technology with the
radiation absorbed by a PV panel is not converted into electricity due to
fastest increasing growth globally. Even a higher rate of growth is
increased module temperature and various other factors like the orien­
increasing in PV module production. The Sunbelt region, like Algeria,
tation profile, shading, maximum power point (MPP) mismatch, and
particularly the Saharan medium, can be an excellent location for
losing power in wiring and converters [4,6–13]. As shown in
applying PV system’s (PVSs) due to its arid nature and abundant solar
Ref. [4,14–15], the authors mentioned that soiling in PVS will reduce
irradiance [1].
the PV plant’s performance because of energy losses and panel
PVSs are rated for solar irradiation on manufacturers’ standard data
deterioration.
sheets, which assign its output at standard test conditions (STC) of 1 kW/
The PVSs operation should be accurate enough. The output supply of
m2, AM1.5, and a cell temperature of 25 ◦ C or the equivalent number of
solar energy will change automatically and become insufficient if there
sun-hours in a day (assuming that the sun sends 1 kW/m2 of sunshine
is a problem with the PV modules. It is unsafe to assume that a PVS
during these hours) [2–4]. Makers of PV modules usually issue a 25-year

* Corresponding author. Unité de Recherche en Energies Renouvelables en Milieu Saharien, URERMS, Centre de Développement des Energies Renouvelables,
CDER, 01000, Adrar, Algeria.
E-mail address: yaichi_mohammed@yahoo.fr (M. Yaichi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116777
Received 27 November 2022; Received in revised form 18 January 2023; Accepted 2 February 2023
Available online 10 February 2023
0196-8904/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Yaichi et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
PV Photovoltaic
PVS PV system
GPV PV generator
STC standard test conditions
PR performance ratio
SV sophisticated verification
CON configuration
MPP maximum power point
PI performance index
DR degradation rate
sc-Si single-crystalline silicon
mc-Si poly-crystalline silicon
DT-2P discontinuous East-West two-position tracking system
ESRA European Solar Radiation Atlas’s
URER/MS Unit of Research on Renewable Energy in Medium
Sahara, in Adrar, Algeria
would offer equal performance gain regardless of the location. The PVS
represent a significant monetary investment, so their usability and ef­
ficiency must be examined before purchasing and implementation.
Electricity’s levelized cost (LCOE) depends on PV technology and its
degradation rate (DR) [16]. Much works [3,8,17–19] has been done to
predict the PV generator (GPV) performance when exposed to natural
sunshine, but these models should be empirically validated.
To decrease the DR, and the potential failure localization in a PVS, i.e
improves the performances of these PVSs, necessitates investigating
using outdoor experimental experiments to provide valuable informa­
tion about the behavior over time of any PVS technology, i.e to deter­
mine how much energy is produced, the performance level related to
their production, and the major factors that most affect their quality in
order to obtain more dependable PV technologies for use in the future. In
Saharan regions, in particular, we must pay attention to such additional
factors as the effects of sandstorms and high temperatures on PV per­
formance, where high operating temperatures of 50 ◦ C in shadow will
cause the panel’s degradation due to exposure to sunlight and temper­
ature differences. It is unavoidable that each technology be tested for at
least a year. An evaluation method can be used to predict the PVS
performance.
Generally, both short-term and long-term tests are used to evaluate
the performance of PV modules in the local climate. Short-term tests are
performed to determine the PV module’s efficiency at various solar ra­
diation levels and temperatures, as done in [20]. Long-term perfor­
mance is conducted to determine the DR over a more extended time
compared to initial PV power generation. The parameters to be evalu­
ated are the performance ratio (PR), the yield of the panels, and the
different losses to the PVS. It allows us to compare various types of
installed PVS technology [2,4,9,21–23].
Several publications [9,11,13,21,24–29] have been carried out to
evaluate PVSs without estimating the variables that individually impact
energy production, i.e loss systems. Other works use Fraunhofer ISE PVS
simulation software called “Zenit” to determine system losses [30]. On
the other hand, others research uses the “SolarGis” software [31] or
PVsyst software [23] with practical data irradiation to predict the per­
formance of a proposed PVS (without experimental). In Ref. [32], where
short-term monitoring of PV devices was done, the two-diode PV module
model was created to evaluate PVS arrays under shading conditions to
represent I-V curves in complex shading. The authors use a methodology
to identify the shaded and unshaded areas of a shadow PVS array based
on solar cell short-circuit to determine the various irradiance levels.
However, the complexity of knowledge of the electrical parameters of
2
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
Physical quantities
β tilt angle, ◦
γ panel azimuth, ◦
PSTC total array capacity under STC, W
HI total irradiation, kWh/m2
HIrecov total irradiation recovered, kWh/m2
EP generating power, kWh
EPS ideal energy production by GPV, kWh
ENM No mismatch line, kWh
EBP Best performance line, kWh
EPT array output energy converts into cell temperature on STC
(25 ◦ C), kWh
Tc temperature cell, ◦ C
lPT loss due to the temperature dependence, kWh
lPA DC circuit losses, kWh
lSH shading losses, kWh
lPI incident-angle-dependent losses, kWh
lPM load mismatch losses, kWh
lCS threshold losses, kWh
the PV modules that is not easy to determine and using several electric
current sensors of the solar cells is the main drawback of these methods.
Some authors have evaluated array shading using fisheye photograph
[33–34]. Authors in [15,35–39] have predicted the short-term perfor­
mance losses due to dust soiling in a PV plant, shading losses, and
reflection and absorption losses by the materials covering the cells that
depend on the radiance incidence angle, considering several factors
depending on metrological conditions, where it needs several sensors for
measurement. The authors of literature [40] presented an analytical
model to estimate angular losses due to incident radiation angle of
incidence as a function of environmental conditions and dust. The au­
thors of paper [41] created an electronic system that can test MPPT
performance under actual operating conditions while simultaneously
simulating the I-V characteristic curves of PV arrays in real time and
measuring the converter voltage. In comparison, the paper’s authors in
[42] used a PV array simulator to measure MPP-efficiencies in the lab
and used it as a reference, but the use of heavy and expensive equipment
is the main drawback of using these methods.
Regarding the subject of PV panel degradation, the authors in Refs.
[43–51] assessed the PV module’s degradation after operating for a
period using I-V curve tests (the general method to detect the degra­
dation) translated to STC after determining their parameters compared
with the initial parameters of the reference PV module (datasheet in­
formation), but the knowledge of the PV panel parameters has been
quite difficult because it is necessary to have recourse to numerical
methods. Whereas approximately the same procedure was used when
the power degradation was determined based on solar simulator mea­
surements under STC, it required the use of a very heavy device [52].
The author in Ref. [46] uses the translation to STC to estimate the
degradation of PV efficiencies. In Refs. [2,53–56], the system perfor­
mance of several PV technologies is done using the acquisition of the
outdoor I-V measurement during period of exposure, i.e PV modules did
not power a load where the PV modules are under the open circuit
condition between the I-V measurements. In works [6–7,57], a PV
module evaluation procedure was used in conjunction with monitoring,
with a relay switching to separate the PV modules on the PVS compo­
nents at regular intervals. The authors in Ref. [4] have evaluated the
yearly DR of PV modules based on the difference between PR of two
consecutive years. In other research [16,58–59], the DR of PV modules is
obtained via a linear least square fit method of PR to know the trend line
for the power output. Nevertheless, it is difficult to assure the accuracy
of these methods because the PR on which they are based is related to
the PV system and is influenced by various factors. An estimation
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Fig. 1. PV pumping systems and various types of PV panels to study.

3
M. Yaichi et al.
Table 1
List and characteristics description of the installed PV pumping system.
Installed PV Motor-pump type PV pumping system’s
PVS Modules characteristics
type (Old or newly)
CON1 sc-Si Solar Motor-pump Lorentz In May 2014, PVS were
ET- PS150 C-SJ5-8 3 phases newly installed and
M53675 Voltage input 12–24 V. remained in operation until
The PV pumping November 2016, when two
system can be powered new PV modules were
by 12 V or 24 V added.
CON2 sc-Si Solar Motor-pump Lorentz PV panels operated for over
Isofotón I- PS150 C-SJ5-8 3 7 years between 2001 and
100-N/24 phases. 2007, where these PV
Voltage input 12–24 V panels were used in a PV
pumping system at Ksar’s
Baamour and Bouyhia,
located a few kilometers
from Adrar city. The
construction of this PVS
was carried out within the
framework of two
countries’ collaboration,
Algeria and Spain, to feed
farming areas: we refer to it
as Isofotón I-100(1). We do
not have information on
the PV module
performance during the
first operating period.
CON3 sc-Si Solar Motor-pump PV modules were put into
Isofotón I- Lorentz PS1800-SJ8-7. work for more than 10
75 Input voltage 72–96 DC years between 2010 and
6 to 8 standard 12 V 2019 were used in a PV
modules (or 3 to 4 pumping system at URER/
standard 24 V standard MS. Among them, some are
modules) can be operated during these 10
connected in series, i.e. years, and others are
voltage 72 to 96 V, but exposed to the sun without
for an installed power exploitation, i.e with the
over 1200Wp, 7 or 8 open circuit condition.
standard 12 V panels Since 2012, the motor-
(or 4 standard 24 V pump has been in
modules) must be operation. PVS has
connected in series operated for more than 10
years between 2012 and
2019. Although, the visual
aspect indicates that this
system and subsequently
the inverter works very
well and no faults were
detected. We lack
experimental data to
diagnose and evaluate its
performance. We do not
have information on the PV
module performance
during the first operating
period.
CON4 sc-Si Solar Motor-pump PV modules have operated
Isofotón I- Lorentz PS1800-SJ8-7. for more than 14 years.
100-N/24 Input voltage 72–96 DC Between 2001 and 2007,
these PV panels were used
in a PV pumping system at
Ksar’s Baamour and
Bouyhia, located a few
kilometers from Adrar city.
After that, they were used
to supply a pumping system
at the URER/MS between
2013 and 2019: we refer to
them as Isofotón I-100(2).
We do not have
information on the PV
module performance
during the first operating
period.
4
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
method for of the PV modules DR in a limited time (about 3–4 months),
called accelerated tests carried out in environmental chambers [60]
followed by a numerical model [5].
This performance evaluation of a PVS will be used for output power
forecasting or an estimate of lifetime energy output from PVS in the
future, as it has been done in [13,61].
Accordingly, an experimental bench and a measurement campaign
on various PV pumping systems installed in Adrar city in the south of
Algeria provided this study’s experimental data. The test campaign
began in May 2014 until February 2020. A sophisticated verification
method known as the SV method showed in [34,53,62–65], straight­
forward and accurate evaluation method, was used (although very old)
to evaluate the long-term energy performance of these PVS over a 46-
month, from the examination of the simple operational data of the
PVS. Consequently, the estimation of the various losses of the system
and the diagnosis of the failures of the various elements of the PVS are
thoroughly discussed in this paper.
This work is a continuation of what was done in [10]. The main
objective of this paper is to examine the reliability and efficiency of the
equipment behavior constituting this system over time, i.e assurance of
these PVS quality in Adrar, an extremely hostile climate.
We took advantage of the opportunity to use the experimental bench
to assess the DR of PV arrays (not individual PV modules) with different
PV panel types installed in the Saharan environment after a period of
operation, including that which ran for more than 14 years without any
maintenance or special treatment are also discussed and analyzed by
estimating various losses PVS.
These findings can be used to assess the suitability of PVSs in desert
environments to determine whether PV electricity generation systems
are viable economic investment. A comparison is made between our
PVSs and the measured effectiveness of PVSs installed in other regions.
2. Study location
The PV water pumping systems are installed in the Unit of Research
on Renewable Energy in Medium Sahara (URER/MS) located in Adrar at
the south of Algeria (Latitude 27.88◦ , Longitude − 0.28◦ and altitude:
269 m above sea level) [66–67]. This platform has a significant solar
potential with an annual average of the total daily irradiation measured
on an inclined plane exceeding 7 kWh/m2. The peak ambient temper­
ature is above 54 ◦ C during the summer months, with a daily average of
more than 40 ◦ C [11,13,26]. Sandstorms are frequent and almost blow
during all seasons, which it takes a long time during the day on a few
dust storm days and takes a short time during the day on most dust storm
days, causing sandy accumulations of different shapes. The average
monthly rainfall is approximately 0 mm (less than 7 h per year)
Table 2
Technical characteristics of the experimented PV modules as provided by the
manufacturer.
Module M53675 I-100-N/ I-75/12
24
Manufacturer ET Solar Isofotón Isofotón
Maximum output power Pmax [Wp] 75 (-1 to + 3 100 ± 10 75 ± 10 %
%) %
Optimal output voltage Vopt [V] 17.4 34.8 17.3
Optimal output current Iopt [A] 4.31 2.87 4.34
Open-circuit voltage Voc [V] 21.73 43.2 21.6
Short-circuit current Isc [A] 4.72 3.27 4.67
Approximate effect of temperature on − 0.47 − 0.4 − 0.4
power δ [%/˚C]
Number of cells in series Ns 36 72 36
Area [cm2] 119 × 52.52 128 × 64 119 ×
52.52
Exposure duration (year) 2.5 I-100 (1): 10
8
I-100 (2):
14
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Table 3 Table 4
Measuring devices. The PV pumping systems configuration CON1 description.
Parameters Devices Months Serial £ Array Sandstorm state
parallel nominal PV panel cleaning
Solar radiation kipp zonen CM11 Pyranometer
connection power PSTC
PV voltage LV 25-P Hall effect
[Wp]
PV current LF 306-S/SP10 LEM Hall effect
PV cell temperature Thermocouple type K May 2014 Ns × Np:2 × 1 150 Little sandstorm*, Less
cleaning (2 times)
June 2014 Sandstorm, Lots of cleaning
[observed in this study]. (7 times)
July 2014 Little sandstorm, No cleaning
(0 times)
3. PV water pumping system’s experimental bench setup August No sandstorm, Less cleaning
2014 (4 times)
Since May 2014 and until February 2020, we have installed, September No sandstorm, Only one
experimented with studied the various PV pumping systems’ perfor­ 2014 cleaning in half the month
October Little sandstorm, Only one
mance. A brushless DC motor of Lorentz PS type fed by PV modules of
2014 cleaning in half the month
single-crystalline (sc-Si) technologies type through a converter, different November Little sandstorm, Less
installed powers (PSTC), and different connections (series/parallel) of PV 2014 cleaning (2 times)
fields was used, for different pumping heads (HMT), as shown in the December Ns × Np:1 × 2 150 No sandstorm, Less cleaning
photos of Fig. 1. The monitoring period is long enough to provide 2014 (2 times)
January Sandstorm, No cleaning (0
valuable information related to the seasonal behavior of the PVS under a 2015 times)
severe natural environment. February Sandstorm, Lots of cleaning
We have used four different configurations (CON) of PVSs. Tables 1 2015 (5 to 6 times)
to 7 summarize the manufacturers and the types of installed PV modules, March 2015 Sandstorm, No cleaning (0
times)
the components of PV pumping systems and measurement items, the PV
April 2015 Little sandstorm, Less
pumping system’s characteristics (old or new), the installed power, the cleaning (4 times)
series–parallel connection between the PV panels, the tilt and azimuth May 2015 Little sandstorm, Less
angles of GPV and remarkable observations. The technical characteris­ cleaning (2 times)
tics under STC of PV modules provided by manufacturers and sun June 2015 Little sandstorm, Less
cleaning (2 times)
exposure duration are listed in Table 2. July 2015 Almost no sandstorm, No
We distinguish two periods for CON1. During the period from May cleaning (0 times)
2014 to July 2016, the PV modules are mounted on a mount with a tilt August Sandstorm, Lots of cleaning
angle of β = 34◦ , which is near Adrar latitude (due to an error in 2015 (6 times)
September Sky with fog and sandstorm,
adjusting the β of the panel supports), and allows a rotary movement
2015 Only one cleaning at the
around a vertical axis at a negative azimuth angle γ to the East and a beginning of the month
positive azimuth angle to the West (A discontinuous East-West two- October Sandstorm for one day, Less
position tracking system (DT-2P)). Nevertheless, we do the tracking 2015 cleaning (2 times, at the
orientation a two-positions for 20 days in February 2015 (γopt = 44◦ ) and beginning and at the end of
the month)
in June 2016, which γopt was equal to 90◦ . In other months, the PV November Little sandstorm, Only one
modules are fixed system facing South when the β equals 34◦ . The PV 2015 cleaning at the beginning of
system was installed at a location that appeared to be a sunlit region (an the month
unshaded area). During the period from August 2016 to December 2016, December Ns × Np:2 × 1 150 No sandstorm, Less cleaning
2015 (1 times at the end of the
the PV modules are fixed system facing South when the β equals 28◦ with
month)
an azimuth angle of 22◦ . The PV system was installed in a parking lot January Little sandstorm, Less
where the solar rays received by the PV panels are obstructed by trees 2016 cleaning (1 times)
and the parking lot itself. February Sandstorm, No cleaning (0
For CON2, The PV modules are fixed system facing South when the β 2016 times)
March 2016 Little sandstorm, Less
equals 23◦ with an azimuth angle of 5◦ . The PV system was installed in a cleaning (1 times at the
place where the solar rays received by the PV panels are obstructed by beginning of a day)
trees and the parking lot. April 2016 Little sandstorm, No cleaning
For CON3 and CON4, the orientation of the PV modules is full south (0 times)
May 2016 Little sandstorm, Less
when the β is equal to 23◦ with an azimuth angle of 7◦ . The PV system
cleaning (1 times)
was installed in a place where the received solar rays were obstructed at June 2016 Little sandstorm, Less
the day’s beginning and end by trees and a building in URER/MS. cleaning (1 times at the end
The output current and the voltage are measured each minute. of a day)
Additionally, meteorological data measurements such as irradiance and July 2016 Sandstorm at the end of the
month, No cleaning (0 times)
module temperature were made. Following IEC 61724, all unusual August Ns × Np:2 × 1 150 Little sandstorm, Less
events, such as failures, accidents, part exchanges, and errors, are 2016 cleaning (1 times at the
documented. The entire PV system’s maintenance (such as replacing beginning of a day)
modules, changing the angle of inclination and azimuth of the module September Little sandstorm, No cleaning
2016 (0 times)
array, or cleaning soiled PV array surfaces) is documented. Before any
October Sandstorm, Less cleaning (1
detailed analysis, all recorded data are checked for possible gaps to 2016 times at the end of a day)
identify apparent anomalies, i.e. missing data are compensated based on November Ns × Np:2 × 2 300 Little sandstorm, Less
external meteorological observations. 2016 cleaning (2 times, at the
(continued on next page)

5
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Table 4 (continued ) capacity under STC (kW), HI is the total irradiation (kWh/m2), and EPS
Months Serial £ Array Sandstorm state = PSTC⋅HI is the ideal energy production by GPV (Fig. 2).
parallel nominal PV panel cleaning Generally, the PR is provided monthly or annually. Although the PR
connection power PSTC gives a general understanding of the system behavior, it is challenging to
[Wp] utilize as a tool for identifying components that are not functioning
beginning and at the end of correctly, and significant drops in PR (less than 70 %) signal events that
the month) significantly influence performance, like a failure in the inverter. A
December Ns × Np:1 × 4 300 Little sandstorm, No cleaning
slight drop in PR signals a less serious problem.
2016 (0 times)
*
We’re referring to the little sandstorms that occur almost every day of the 5. PVS energy conversion loss model (SV method)
month for brief periods but cause sand accumulations and soiling on PV
modules.
5.1. Introduction

Table 5
The loss is expressed by the difference between the input Exi and
The PV pumping systems CON2 description. output Exo energies of a waste energy case x,and parameter Kx deter­
mined by the ratio of the two energies (Fig. 3).
July 2017 Ns × Np:1 400 Little sandstorm, No cleaning (0 times)
×4
Therefore:
August 2017 Ns × Np:1 300 Little sandstorm, No cleaning (0 times)
lx = Exi − Exo = Exi (1 − Kx )[kWh] (02)
×3
October 2017 Ns × Np:1 100 Little sandstorm, Less cleaning (1 times, at Positive values of lx indicate losses, whereas negative values indicate
×1 the beginning of the month)
gains, (lx = 0) no losses.
November Ns × Np:1 200 Little sandstorm, Less cleaning (1 times, at ∑
2017 ×2 the beginning of the month) If energy output EP [kWh] of PV panels is defined as EP= (VPV⋅IPV),
EPT is the array output energy converted to cell temperature at 25 ◦ C on
STC.

Table 6 EP EP
EPT = = (03)
The PV pumping systems CON3 description. KPT 1 + δ • (Tc − 25)
April 2019 1st string Ns 525 Little sandstorm, Less cleaning (2 The cell temperature factor KPT (Eq.(04)) is calculated utilizing the
× Np:7 × 1 times, at the beginning of the month) temperature coefficient: δ[%/◦ C] specific to a module that depends on
May 2019 Little sandstorm, No cleaning (0 times)
the solar cell type [10].
June 2019 2nd string 525 Little sandstorm, Less cleaning (2
Ns × Np:7 × times, at the beginning and in half of KPT = 1 + δ • (Tc − 25) (04)
1 the month), it appears despite this
clearly cleaning clearly, dirt on the PV With: Tc is temperature cell and for sc-Si Solar modules: δ = -0.4
panels
%/◦ C.
The two first Ns × Np:7 × 1050 The PV system was only tested for
weeks of 2 three days to determine the The loss resulting from the temperature dependence will be esti­
August 2019 performance of the motor pump mated using:
The last two Ns × Np:7 × 1575 The PV system was only tested for four
weeks of 3 days to determine the performance of δ • (25 − Tc )
lPT = EPT − EP = EP [kWh] (05)
August 2019 the motor pump 1 + δ • (Tc − 25)
Fig. 4 provides crucial information. The scattered blue dots represent
all hourly energy output data. Green dots strewn represent the hourly
Table 7 data for EPT [which converts to a cell temperature of 25 ◦ C under STC].
The PV pumping systems configuration CON4 description. Solar irradiation, PV array output power, and PV array temperature
September Ns × 400 Sandstorm, Less cleaning (2 times, at the are examples of a typical data acquisition system for monitoring a PVS.
2019 Np:4 × 1 beginning and in half of the month) These data can be used to calculate system parameters such as the hourly
October Ns × 800 No sandstorm, Less cleaning (2 times in half in-plane irradiation, the electricity yields Yf, the system PR, and the cell
2019 Np:4 × 2 the month)
November Ns × 600 Little sandstorm, Less cleaning (1 times in half
temperature factor KPT. Identifying the other functional parameters,
2019 Np:3 × 2 the month) such as the shading factor KSH, load mismatching factor KPM, and other
December Ns × 900 No sandstorm, Less cleaning (2 times, at the array factor KPO is difficult. Therefore, we use a monitoring method,
2019 Np:3 × 3 beginning and in half of the month) called Sophisticated Verification (SV) using only this simple data
January Ns × 1200 The PV system was only tested for four days to
acquisition for a PVS. It is demi-heuristic method developed by Japanese
2020 Np:4 × 3 determine the performance of the motor
pump researchers. This method’s history is as follows: K. Kurokawa [62–63]
February Ns × 1200 The PV system was only tested for three days contributed significantly to the creation of the evaluation method OV
2020 Np:3 × 4 to determine the performance of the motor (Ordinary Verification), which was developed afterward by T. Oozeki
pump et al. [34,65]. Unlike the OV procedure, according to the SV procedure,
estimating the different losses separately and quantifying them in detail
4. Performance analysis methodology has become possible. If the shading and energy no mismatch parameters
were accurate, the other factors would also be accurate.
Table 8 shows the mathematical equations and a brief explanation of By using the regression method three times, the upper envelope of
the many variables considered while evaluating performance. scattered points is represented by a straight line in Fig. 4 and Eq. (06).
PVSs can be sized in the future based on PR. Generating power for a The line is referred to as the “No mismatch line” because it stands for the
period of PVS EP is determined by the following equation [63,67]: performance with the highest level of efficiency, i.e no shading, not due
to incident angle dependence, and no MPP mismatch. The difference
EP = PSTC • HI • PR = EPS • PR [kWh] (01) between ENM and EPT corresponding to HI is assumed to include shading
Where EP is the generating power (kWh), PSTC is the total array losses, incident-angle-dependent losses, and load mismatch losses. The

6
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Table 8
Lists of the normalized parameters used to evaluate the PVSs performance.
Parameters, Formulas [Units] Refs. Brief note Variables
Symbol
∑
Reference H Gmes Calculated by dividing the total G = 1 kW/m2
Yr = = [hours] [11,13,16,22–23,25–26,28–29,31,58–59,68–69]
yield, Yr G G irradiation H by the PV reference Gmes is in-plan irradiance
solar radiation G. It is equivalent to during one hour
the number of sun-hours in a day,
assuming that the sun sends 1 kW/m2
of sunshine during these hours. It
depends on the location, the PV
array’s orientation, and the weather’s
month-to-month and year-to-year
variations.
final PVS yield, E Energy output E divided by the PP is the power output from
Yf = = [11,13,16,22–23,25–26,28–29,31,46,58–59,68–69]
Yf ∑
PSTC installed PV array’s power-rating PVS during one hour
PP kWh reference PSTC. The Yf makes it simple
[ or hours ]
PSTC kW to compare the energy produced by
PVSs of different sizes placed at the
same site since it normalizes the
energy produced in proportion to the
system size.
A PVSs Yf The ratio of the real and ideal energy Also is calculated by dividing
PR = = [4,9,11,13,16,21–23,24–26,28–31,58–59,63–64,68–69]
performance Yr outputs. It is largely independent of the measured system
ratio, PR E
[dimensionless] incident solar irradiation, PVS efficiency η and the PV
H • PSTC orientation and PSTC. The PR can module’s nominal efficiency
therefore be utilized to compare PVS ηn.
in various locations around the world E A•G η
PR = • =
and makes it possible to consider the H • A PSTC ηn
quality of the PV installation
operation. It is an effective approach
to measure the overall impact of
losses caused by PV module
temperature, shading, power point
tracking (MPP) mismatch, optical
reflection, soiling, the inverter,
wiring, and downtime faults or
imperfections regarding the PV array
nominal power.

Fig. 2. Determination of the ideal energy output, generated energy and losses.

principal shading and incident-angle-dependent losses are calculated on

a monthly basis, followed by the extraction of hourly losses.
ENM = mNM • PSTC • HI [kWh] (06)
With the same procedure, a lower curve of ENM is drawn (Fig. 4).
Fig. 3. General definition of system parameters.
“Best performance line” is the name of the curve represented by Eq. (07):

EBP = mBP • PSTC • H2I [kWh] (07)

Fig. 5 depicts the relationship between the various losses and the

7
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Fig. 4. No mismatch line and the various losses.

Fig. 5. PV energy conversion and loss model of PVS.

linear factors Kx. The complicated and non-linear operations of PVS will
become simple, and the losses are easily calculated from those factors.
5.2. Month’s shading rate theory
As shown in Fig. 6, there are three types of shadows. One is “partial
shading” which denotes a shadow covering a portion of the PV array’s
surface, not the pyranometer. The second is called “full shading”,
meaning that the shadow covers both the PV array surface and the
pyranometer. The third is called “faked shading”, which denotes a
shadow covering only the pyranometer.
The SV method considers that the shading is supposed to occur every
day roughly the same way throughout the month, i.e for a month and an
hour, we need at least one irradiation with good weather to apply the
shading rate principle. So, this method proposes extracting the
maximum data to detect the shading effect. For example, Fig. 7 illus­
trates all the hourly irradiation data for October 2016 and the maximum
point HImax obtained from each hourly period.
The procedures for detecting the shading effect of a PVS are divided
into two phases, as follows: In the first phase, we present EPT data for all

8
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Fig. 6. Shading types.

Fig. 7. The extracting of maximum data of irradiation, Approximation of the theoretical irradiation and the pyranometer’s shadow detection (October 2016).

Fig. 8. A typical illustration of how to recognize the shading effect and its rate.

hours (Fig. 8). The output energy EPM on a clear period (corresponding a clear sky. Moreover, because of the full shading, the level of theoretical
to HImax as shown in Fig. 7) was obtained in the second phase by using data for a clear period for a given hour is unreachable by the maximum
the extracted maximum irradiation data (HImax) that denotes profiles of irradiation values. As a result, the extracted data is used to approximate

9
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Fig. 9. Monthly incident-angle-dependent rate.

the pattern of theoretical irradiation on a clear day (HIth) to remove the
full shading effect.
Some theoretical models of global irradiation exist. We will use a
clear sky model, which has recently been accomplished as part of the
European Solar Radiation Atlas’s new digital version (ESRA) [70–72].
The Atlas covers a vast territory encompassing Continental Europe,
North Africa, and western Asia [71]. The solar radiation components on
an inclined surface (beam Eic, diffuse Dic, and reflected Albedoi) are
computed. The total amount of radiation reaching an inclined PV panel
surface Gi can be calculated.
Gi = Eic + Dic + Albedoi (08)
where Eic, Dic and Albedoi are all detailed in [70–73].
The array output may also be influenced by the mismatch and tem­
perature effects. EPM is replaced by the EPT to correct the temperature
effect. Because the mismatch is rare on a clear day, it is excluded
naturally by extracting hourly maximum values. To fit the maximum
values of EPT for each hour, the curve EPSmax = PSTC⋅HIth is then adjusted.
Eq. (09) can be used to define the theoretical array output (EPth) when
estimated by changing the value of KX to cover the EPM, as shown in
Fig. 8. It is described how to use an iterative algorithm to estimate the
value KX and determine its maximum value so that any extracted
maximum values, EPM, never exceed an estimated curve EPth at any
point. So in this method, it is simple to identify the shading effect as the
level of deviation from the EPth.
EPth = KX • PSTC • HIth = KX • EPSmax [kWh] (09)
use the measured irradiation H that may not be exact due to shading (For
full or faked shadings). Before the evaluation, the effect of those cases
should be compensated for using a specific method. The authors in
Ref. [74] propose a method for irradiance estimation for a partially
shaded PVS, but this requires knowledge of the GPV dimensions ac­
cording to theodolite readings (topographic coordinates), where before
that, a survey of the surroundings should be conducted by using a
camera to perform a photographic sweep from East to West to determine
the shadow caused by nearby objects.
In this paper, we took advantage of the use of the SV method to
recover the hourly irradiation in the case of shading on the pyranometer
by an obstacle. The recovered irradiation represents the irradiation
falling on the PV panels, i.e we consider that there is no shading on the
pyranometer. According to Fig. 7, we draw an envelope of correspond­
ing hours and days where the hourly irradiation is at its maximum, HIth,
to adapt the irradiation maximum values for each hour (HImax), so that
no value of the maximum energy HImax exceeds the expected curve HIth.
The difference between the HImax and HIth points results from the
shading effect. The shading factor KSHI can be calculated using equation
(11).
⎧
⎨ HImax − 0.2HIth if HImax ≥ 0.2HIth
⎪
KSHI = 0.8HIth (11)
⎪
⎩1
if HImax < 0.2HIth
The irradiation recovered HIrecov in the event of shading is evaluated
using KSHI and Kd for each hour.

Fig. 8 depicts a typical illustration of the shading effect seen on a PVS HIrecov =
HI
(12)
in October 2016. The influence of shading is responsible for the differ­ Kd + KSHI − (Kd • KSHI )
ence in the points EPM and EPth. Here, the effect of shading can be seen where HI is the hourly irradiation calculated from the measured
from 8H to 9H and 13H to 17H. irradiance.
The shading effect significantly influences direct irradiation, where it Kd is the illuminance diffusion coefficient. The correlation clearness
is regarded as no shading occurs for the diffused component. The index-based models estimate it by Eq (13) because it considers that
shading ratio KSH is calculated each hour using equation (10) with the among the models, there was satisfaction for them to be applied to any
following assumptions: on a clear-day, the diffused component is Algerian Saharan site to reconstitute the monthly average per day of
assumed to be 20 % of the total irradiation (Kd = 0.2). KSH = 1 corre­ diffuse irradiation [75]:
sponds to no shading. If the field surface is not illuminated, KSH = 0. ⎧
⎧ ⎪
⎨ Kd = 0.2
⎪ if Kt ≥ 0.8
⎨ EPM − Kd EPth if EPM ≥ 0.2EPth
⎪
Kd = − 4.101 + 13.282Kt − 10.892K 2t + 1.007K 3t if 0.3 < Kt < 0.8
KSH = (1 − Kd )EPth (10) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎩ Kd = 0.99 if Kt ≤ 0.3
1 if EPM < 0.2EPth
(13)
5.3. Recovery of hourly irradiation measured by a pyranometer due to HI
full or faked shading With Kt = (14)
H0

To get a better estimate of PR defined in Table 8, which the equations Kt: Clarity index.

10
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

( )
− mPI
exp
(16)
cos(θ)
KPI =
exp( − mPI )

5.5. Losses estimation

The mathematical equations and a brief explanation of how to

calculate the different losses are shown in Table 9.
The loss ratio λx is calculated by dividing the rate ratio of each loss by
the input to the PVS. Following is the relationship between lx and λx:
lx
λx = (17)
PSTC • HIrecov

Fig. 10. The incident angle effect is negligible due to the shading effects. 6. Results and discussions

H0 being the hourly irradiation placed above the atmosphere, it is
evaluated at the level of the upper atmosphere according to the solar
altitude HS and corresponds to the following relationship:
i∑
at 59
H0 = G0 sin(HSi )
i at the minute 0
Where G0 is the extraterrestrial irradiation.
5.4. Month’s incident-angle-dependent rate principle
For each incident angle, the maximum ratio of EPT and ENM is
calculated. Changing mPI in Eq. (16) adjusts the curve to fit scattered
points, and the envelope displays the rate of incident-angle-dependent
loss: KPI (Fig. 9).
6.1. Solar radiation and final PV system yield
Daily irradiation varied from 1.2 to 8.88 kWh/m2 for fixed systems
and exceeded 11.2 kWh/m2 for systems using a DT-2P sun tracking
(15) system. More than 41.5 % of the days, irradiation varied between 7 and
7.99 kWh/m2 and more than 28 % of the days, irradiation varied be­
tween 6 and 7 kWh/m2 (Fig. 11(a)). For cell temperature, about 25 % of
the days, cell temperature varied between 40 and 50 ◦ C and more than
20 % of the days, cell temperature varied between 50 and 60 ◦ C (Fig. 11
(b)). In Fig. 12, the daily average solar irradiation per month over 46
months varies between 5.7 and 7.9 kWh/m2, except in June 2016, the
irradiation reached 10 kWh/m2 where the PVS was equipped with a DT-
2P sun tracking system. A comparison between energy received by the
tracking system DT-2P and the fixed system is discussed in detail in [76].
In November 2017, the irradiation was less than 5 kWh/m2 because
this month is characterized by overcast and sunny days with a significant
diffuse irradiance component. For November and December 2016, the

Table 9
Lists of the various losses and how they are calculated.
Losses Brief note Formulas

Shade losses Calculated based on the notion that KSH for each hour uses just direct irradiation (HD): HD=(1-kd)⋅ lSH = (1 − kd )HIrecov • PSTC • (1 − KSH )
HIrecov.
Incident-angle- Because incident-angle-dependent losses are only a part of HD, taking into consideration the shading lPI = ((1 − kd )HIrecov • PSTC − lSH ) • (1 − KPI )
dependent losses effect (Fig. 10).
Load mismatch losses The corresponding equation is used to identify losses caused by load mismatch. lPM = ENM − (EPT − lSH − lPI )
DC circuit losses DC circuit losses is calculated as: lPA = ENM − EBP
Other losses Other losses include undissociated factors such as soiling on the module surface due to Sandstorm and lPO = EPS − ENM
optical degradation (dirt on the PV surface). The following are the differences between EPS and ENM as
they are in relation to HI.
Threshold losses The threshold losses which represent the shutdown rate of the PVS in the presence of the illumination lCS =
{
(unavailable), i.e times when the irradiation is insufficient for PVS operation. Generally, the critical EPS − lSH − lPI − lPO if (HIrecov > 0 & EP = 0)
threshold for starting a pump is 200 W/m2 for a certain head. 0 if (HIrecov > 0 & EP > 0)
Unknown factor Unknown factor lUNK includes losses which designates the error rate when calculating losses. /

Fig. 11. The rate of distribution of daily irradiation and hourly average temperature of PV cells over a period of 46 months.

11
M. Yaichi et al.
Fig. 12. The total solar radiation and the final PVS yield.
low values of solar irradiation were caused by shading on the pyran­
ometer because there were PV panels of other PVS mounted in front of
the PV panel of the PVS due to the Sun’s lower elevation in these
months, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The average value of solar radiation was
6.5 kWh/m2. Because the PV field was installed on a fixed tilt with β =
23◦ , which is close to the monthly optimum tilt angle for Adrar, which is
less than 12◦ , the months of April to June 2019 and July to August 2017
had higher irradiations compared to the period 2014–2016 for the same
months. Since the PV field in 2014–2016 was installed on a fixed tilt
with β = 34◦ , which is close to the monthly optimum tilt angle for Adrar,
which is greater than 35◦ , the irradiations from September to December
2019 are lower than those from 2014 to 2016 for the same months.
The average energy per day of GPV output in relation to the installed
peak power varies from 2.1 to 8.2 h, depending on the PV module type
used. The GPV output energy strongly depends on the installed peak
power and the irradiation received by the GPV. In the first observation,
and for the same size of PV modules, the GPV output energies for the ET-
M53675 type modules are higher than those for the GPV modules of the
Isofotón (I-75 and I-100) types, and some parameters can influence the
output energy.
6.2. Ratio performance and losses analysis
Fig. 13(a) summarizes monthly performance ratios (PR). A compar­
ison of the PV system’s PR during its operation, using the sc-Si Solar ET-
M53675 type PV panels powering the PS150 C-SJ5-8 type pump (CON1),
demonstrates that the PR is within the range of 72 % to 93.5 %, except in
December 2016, the PR went down to a value of less than 55.4 %, caused
by the fluctuations produced by the inverter control. The PR is within
the range of 48.8–55.1 % for CON2, and between 63.8 and 70.3 % for the
PVS using Isofotón I-75 type panels and the Lorentz PS1800-SJ8-7 pump
(CON3) and within the range of 56.3–62.58 % for CON4. The total
average value of PR was 61 %.
It is evident that the PVSs that offered the largest energy yield also
had the greatest PR values. Note that the PR does not directly correlate
with the quantity of energy produced because a PVS with a low PR in an
abundant solar resource region could produce more energy than a PVS
with a high PR in a poor solar resource region. From a particular com­
parison and from Figs. 12 and 13(a), when we compare the months of
February 2015 and 2016, the PR of February 2016 is higher than the PR
of February 2015, but the energy supplied by the GPV in February 2015
12
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
was higher than that of February 2016.
A histogram of different losses calculated for each month on a PVS is
shown in Fig. 13(b) to explain the variation of the PR much more
thoroughly.
The loss caused by temperature was nearly the same on all days of
the same season. The PR was lower on hot days (summer) and higher on
cold days (winter). It was mainly due to the temperature change in the
PV cell. It shows that the lower temperature caused less loss or even gain
in the winter, and the higher temperature resulted in a greater loss in the
summer. In 07/2014, 08/2014, 09/2014, 06/2016, 07/2016, and 08/
2016, the daily rate of module heating loss factors was relatively large; it
tended to be 10.1 %. The average temperature effect loss on PV modules
was 6 %, which is very reasonable in our region.
The value of shading losses in these PVSs was around 5 % from 2014
to 2016, which is excellent. Moreover, it was more than 10.59 % in
2017, because according to the sun’s trajectory, PV panels mounted in
front of parking lots and trees create shading in months at the sun’s
lower elevation, as seen in Fig. 1(b). These losses will be around 3 % for
2019. As an illustration, these PVSs shading losses were worth 2.45 % in
04/2019 and 10/2019. The maximum value was roughly 4.2 %. For
CON1, the principle of shading cannot be applied because MPPT does
not work well at high irradiation (Fig. 14). Because the shading effect is
related to the sun position, the shaded area is the same and remains
constant at the same time of month, the KSH shading coefficients for
connections Ns × Np:2 × 1 are like those for connections Ns × Np:1 × 2
for the same month. The average of these losses was 6.22 %.
The load mismatch losses (Mismatch with the optimum power point
lPM) that mean the MPPT does not work well are around 3.5 % for CON1
where the motor pump was powered by 24 V Voltage. These losses
exceed 8 % for connections Ns × Np:1 × 2, where a voltage of 12 V
powers the motor pump, and are larger for Ns × Np:1 × 4, where the
mismatch loss rate with the optimum power point exceeded 25 %.
Therefore, these losses are small for connections with two panels in
series where the motor pump was powered by a voltage of 24 V (Ns ×
Np:2 × 1), and they are greater for the connections Ns × Np:1 × 2 and Ns
× Np:1 × 4, exceeding more time the rate of losses by temperature.
Fig. 14 shows this effect by comparing the months of March 2015 and
March 2016, wherein the branch Ns × Np:1 × 2, the output energy of
GPV is frequently saturated from hourly irradiation of 0.9 kWh/m2.
From the measured data, we see that at high levels of illumination, the
MPPT does not work well in the connection Ns × Np:1 × 2, where the
M. Yaichi et al.
Fig. 13. Monthly performance ratios and an evaluation result by the SV method.
current rarely exceeds 8 A (Fig. 15), while the current reaches the
optimal current of a panel at 5.3 A. Although the months of 03/2015 and
03/2016 have the same incident daily irradiation on the plane, which is
7.74 kWh/m2 (Fig. 12) and the temperature effect losses were higher in
03/2016 than in 03/2015 (Fig. 13(b)), the PVS produced an average PV
energy per day compared to the installed peak power (6.83 h) in 03/
2016, which is higher than that in month 03/2015 (6.52 h). It means
that the PR for March 2016 was higher than the PR for March 2015, thus,
the gain from choosing the branch Ns × Np:2 × 1 was approximately
4.75 %. The same is valid for connections Ns × Np:2 × 2 and Ns × Np:1 ×
4 for November and December 2016, respectively. The result shows that
the change in the connection of the PV panels while keeping the same
power induces a degradation of the energy characteristic of the PVS.
This result is clearly shown in Fig. 13(a). It shows that the monthly PR
13
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
for the 12 months from December 2014 to November 2015 were lower
than the monthly performance ratios for the 12 months from December
2015 to November 2016. Except for October and November 2016, the
PR was lower due to the strong partial shading created by the other PV
panels placed in front of our PV panels. So, it is necessary to supply the
Lorentz PS150 C-SJ5-8 type pump with a voltage of 24 V.
In 2017, despite a voltage of 24 V powered the motor pump; these
losses were within the margin of 6.75 % for CON3 caused by the effect of
shading on the MPPT performance. The inverter played a significant role
in this trouble. These losses (lPM) are around 1.88 % and 3.12 % for
CON3 and CON4, respectively.
This observation confirms that an evaluation study is necessary to
determine the best PV array configuration for achieving the ideal flow
rate with maximum efficiency.
M. Yaichi et al.
Fig. 14. Identification of the ideal and actual energy production.
Fig. 15. Output current of GPV.
The incident-angle-dependent losses (ray reflection loss due to inci­
dence effects), when the ray is not perpendicular to the PV capture, are
small for March and April because the optimal tilt angle of these months
is close to the inclination angle at latitude. It is insignificant in the
months 02/2015 and 06/2016 because the panels were installed on a
sun tracking system, and therefore the reflection of the rays was less.
These losses were relatively large (reaching 4.8 %) for the month of 05/
2016 due to soiling or caused by the dust produced by the wind sand.
The DC circuit losses (wiring losses) were smaller than those
mentioned above losses, which were around 0.59 %.
Regarding the threshold losses lCS (or shutdown of the PVS), these
losses were too small, except in the month of 09/2019, these losses
reached 1 % because the PV power was insufficient for the pump to be
able to pump back the water at the beginning (early morning) and end of
the day. We note that PVSs connected to electrical networks are more
susceptible to this kind of loss (clipping or curtailment of the inverter).
In general, the other losses lPO were relatively high because of the
dust produced by the sand wind. For the PVS that used sc-Si Solar ET-
M53675 PV panels (Newly panels since May 2014) to feed the Lorentz
PS150 C-SJ5-8 pump, the results in Fig. 13(b) show that the PV panels
cleaning reduce waste while not cleaning them resulted in more waste,
as in 06/2014, 07/2014, 06/2015, 07/2015, 09/2015, 07/2016, 09/
2016, 10/2016, and 12/2016. The daily factor rate of this loss was
around 5 %. So, the cleaning of the panels is very essential to their
performance. However, the other losses are relatively more significant
for the other PV panels types. It is around 22.89 % for PV module type
Isofotón I-100(1), 16.53 % for Isofotón I-75 and 26.01 % for Isofotón I-
100(2). So, we can conclude that these PV panels are degraded. It is clear
that the other losses, which include the output power degradation of the
PV panels and the optical degradation induced by the dirt on the PV
module surface, such as the dust due to wind sand, vary according to the
type of PV panel. It is an opportunity to assess the DR of PV panels
installed in the Saharan environment. It will be explained in detail in the
14
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
sub-section below.
6.3. Estimation of PV panels DR and comparison with the performance of
PVSs installed in other countries
Traditional PR does not describe the PV module’s performance
qualities as individual components but is intended primarily to assess
the performance of a PV array’s operation as part of a PVS. It is calcu­
lated based on the system name-plate rating. The difference between
100 % and the PR includes all the abovementioned energy losses.
Because losses by heat are site-dependent (they are climate-dependent)
and it is a natural occurrence that cannot be avoided, the PR of a PVS
fluctuates from location to location and over a year [4,9]. It is an obvious
disadvantage to precisely qualifying its technical quality. Typically,
these result in seasonal variation, therefore it is necessary to compensate
for it by conversion into a cell temperature of 25 ◦ C. Also, the shading
losses depend on the obstacles’ locations on the site where the PV field is
installed. Mismatch losses of the MPPT depend on the inverter’s per­
formance. For the purposes of performance guarantees, we consider
reporting performance metrics based on the energy output, i.e the pe­
riods when the PVS is not operating are excluded. DC circuit losses
depend on the area of the wired. We propose introducing a new
parameter (Corrected PR) called the performance index (PI) to be
evaluated. It considers the output power degradation of the PV panels,
used to count the real output power PV modules, the mismatch of the
different modules connected in series and in parallel, degradation
induced by dirt on the PV module surface such as dust, and losses due to
the reflection of solar rays (i.e. the losses that are only related to solar
panels). By using the PI (Eq. (18)), the seasonal variation in the tradi­
tional PR is eliminated, as shown in Fig. 13(a).
EPT + lSH + lPM + lPA + lCS
PI = [dimensionless] (18)
PSTC • Hrecov
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Fig. 16. Detailed analysis of the results.

According to Fig. 13(b), the other losses lPO are around 26.56 % in
the month 07/2017, 25.32 % in 08/2017, 20.58 % in 10/2011 and
19.12 % in 11/2017 for Isofotón I-100(1) type PV modules installed in
the period 2017. Because the PV panels are not newly installed and we
do not have information on the PV module’s performance during the
first operating period, there may be losses due to the dispersion of the
characteristics of the PV panels. We note that the PV panels were not
cleaned on 07/2017 and 08/2017. The PV panels were cleaned on 10/
2017 and 11/2017, where the cleaning of the PV module showed an
apparent decrease in lPO; from 25 % to 20 %. The other losses with clean
PV arrays are a simple approach to compare the performance of the
degraded PV modules relative to the non-degraded PV modules. In the
months of 10/2017 and 11/2017, the monthly PI value considering only
the PV modules degradation was within the range of 79 %. To estimate
the real PV module’s power, the losses due to dust and ray reflection are
generally supposed to account for 1.5 % (Fig. 16). As the average value
of PI is 79.53 %, there remains 19.5 %, probably due to a power supply
fault in the PV modules. So, on average, the installed power has lost
(degraded) 19.5 % of its initial value (i.e 2.44 %/year).
The PI’s results analysis revealed that, on average and after a few

Fig. 17. A photo of two faces of the inverter solar.

15
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Table 10
Previous PVSs evaluation.
Refs./ PV module use in a PVS or Performance evaluation/ Generally results Checked of PV
Countries where PVS only with outdoor I-V Modules PV degradation/ modules that had
installed tracer instrument Losses system evaluation serious failures

[2] Outdoor I-V tracer Checked Maximum power DRs of about 3.5 %, and an annual No
Perth, Temperate instrument Checked average PR of 88 % for sc-Si after 19 operating months,
climate, Australia No respectively.
[4] PV system Checked/ The average value of PI is 75 %. There is a PR No
Santiago, Chil Checked/ degradation after over than two years of exposure of
Checked, only for temperature and 2.77 % for the thin film array and of 1.5 % for the sc-Si
soiling losses and mc-Si array.
[6–7] PV system with I-V curve Not mentioned because it evaluates Module’s potential power degradation from 14 % to 18 Checked
South Africa measurements separated in power and energy output/ % of four silicon types that were monitored for 15
time Checked/ months.
No
[9] 993 installation of PV Checked/ Annual PR of around 78 % were indicated for PVSs. As No
Belgium system Checked/ the average value of PI is 85 %, the PV modules
Checked, but it were instead degradation is about 5 % after three years of exposure.
estimated to 10 % on average
[13] PV system Checked PR is from 62 % to 65 % in summer and from 78 % to No
Adrar, Algerian No 84 % in winter.
Sahara No
[16] PV system Checked/ After 4 years of operation for four different PV module No
at Thailand Science Checked/ technologies: multi c-Si, hetero-junction Si, CIGS and
Park Compensation by temperature losses micromorph, it was found that some micromorph
modules seriously degraded (6.1 %/year). Other
technologies were found to have an average DR varying
between 0.3 and 1.9 % per year.
[21] PV system Checked/ Annual PR of around 71 %. No
Korea No/
Checked but not mentioned in detail
[22] PV system Checked/ The PR values were 86 %, and 78 % for mc-Si and sc-Si, No
Manizales-Colombia No/ respectively. The values of temperature losses were
Only temperature losses under 3 %.
[23] Proposed Grid-Connected Checked using simulation /The DR is The DR is assumed to be 2.5 % in 1st year and 0.7 /
Bikaner, Rajasthan, Solar PV assumed/ %/year in the other years. It had established a PR of
India Determined by PVsyst software 77.69 %.
[24] PV system Checked The PR of 13 PVSs of different technologies at both No
Germany and Cyprus No locations is 80 %.
No
[25] PV system microgrid Checked Average PR is 73.45 % for a year. No
Thailand No
No
[26] PV system Checked/ Annual PR of around 74 %. No
Algeria, city of Adrar No/
Checked but not mentioned in detail
[27] PV system Checked The PR of 4 PVSs of different technologies ranged from No
Ghardaia, Algeria No 72 to 90 %.
Sahara No
[28] PV system Checked/ The thin film technology (PR = 77.5 %) performed No
Ghana No/ better compared to sc-Si and mc-Si technologies (PR =
Checked but not mentioned in detail 75.7 %).
[29] PV system Checked Annual PR is found as 75.84 % over a 3-years between No
Uganda No 01/2017 and 12/2019.
No
[30] PV system Checked/ A median PR of 84 % was determined for the 100 PVSs No
Germany No/ for the year 2010, which ranges from 70 to 90 %. These
Checked in detail using the PVS PVSs displayed a PR of as low as 75 %, mostly due to
simulation software “Zenit” row shading and subpar inverter performance. 50 % of
PVSs had a PR greater than 83 %, whereas just a third of
systems showed a PR 80 %. Even one-third displays PR
> 85 %.
[31] PV system Checked/ For DR, it is assumed that the PV module declines to 91 No
Malaysian airport Mentioned but its values are % of its initial power in the first year, 90 % until 10
assumed/ years, and 80 % until 20 years. The monthly average
Checked in detail using the PVS value of PR is 76.88 %. The PVS performs sufficiently
simulation “SolarGi” software, but well.
the value of the losses in % was
assumed
[43] PV system No 25 % to 30 % degradation of sc-Si UDTS-50 that were No
Saharan region of Checked monitored for 10 years.
Algeria No
[44] PV system No 11 % deterioration of BP c-Si PV modules just over 20 Checked
Greece, under mild Checked years with no typical or systematic maintenance.
weather conditions No
(continued on next page)

16
M. Yaichi et al. Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777

Table 10 (continued )
Refs./ PV module use in a PVS or Performance evaluation/ Generally results Checked of PV
Countries where PVS only with outdoor I-V Modules PV degradation/ modules that had
installed tracer instrument Losses system evaluation serious failures

[45] PV system No The sc-Si PV module types show a DR of 18.3 % and Checked
Not mentioned but Checked 23.6 % after 18 years of operation.
may be in Greece No
[46] PV system The final PV system yield only/ The PV modules based on sc-Si, mc-Si and string-ribbon No
Piemonte, Italy Checked/ Si technologies display a lower degradation of their PV
No efficiencies after 3 years of operation, which is 0.2
%/year, 0.08 %/year and 0.5 %/year, respectively.
[47] PV system No Maximum power DRs of near 18.1 % for sc-Si Isofotón- Checked
Biskra, North of the Checked 75 and 17.41 % for sc-Si Suntech-175 after 5 and 10
Algerian Sahara No operating years, respectively.
[48] PV system No The yearly average decrease in output power of 3 sc-Si Checked
Adrar City in Algeria’s Checked UDTS-50 modules after more than 12 years old of
Sahara No operation is 5.69 %.
[49] PV system No The sc-Si STP080S PV module degraded by 12.95 % Checked
Constantine, Checked after more than 8 years of exposure.
Mediterranean No
climate, Algeria
[50] PV system No The DRs for PV modules based on sc-Si and mc-Si Checked
Ghana Checked ranged from 0.8 % to 7 %/year for region Humid, about
No 1–2.4 %/year for region Sub-Humid.
[51] PV system No Over a ten-year period, it was discovered that the Checked
East-central India Checked power DR of the mc-Si modules varied between 0.16
No %/year and 1.72 %/year.
[52] PV system No An annual power loss of roughly 0.6 % on average for Checked
Varennes, Quebec Checked the modules’ sc-Si operating over 23 years.
No
[53] Outdoor I-V tracer Checked After 10 months of exposure, the PR of 7 various PV No
Hokuto city, Japan instrument Checked modules technologies varied from 97 % to 82 %,
Checked whereas the degradation is less than 1.5 %.
[54] Outdoor I-V tracer Checked PR for mc-Si and sc-Si PV modules was 85 % and 80 %, No
Gobi, Cold-dry instrument Checked while the DRs were 1.28 % and 0.86 %/year from 2002
climate, Desert of No to 2012, respectively.
Mongolia
[55] Outdoor I-V tracer Checked The HIT and the a.si/µ.si performed better compared to No
Saida, Algeria Sahara instrument No mc-Si technologies.
No
[56] I-V measurement was No Over 12 years of operation, the rate of electrical decline Checked
India translated to STC using I-V Checked is 29.08 % in a-si modules, 0.48 % for HIT modules, and
curves No 1.44 % for the mc-Si PV modules.
[57] PV system with I-V curve Checked/ Over 10 years, the degradation of s-Si is 2.7 % (0.27 % No
Spain and Portugal measurements separated in Checked/ per year).
time Checked but not mentioned in detail
[58] PV system Checked/ For CdS/CdTe and sc-Si PVSs, the DR is about 1.3 % No
Located throughout Checked/ after 12 years of operation. After several months, The
the United States Checked but not mentioned in detail PVS using the a-Si/a-Si/a-Si:Ge PV modules, there was
a drop in performance.
[59] PV system Checked/ After 2.5 years of operation of two different PV No
Central Anatolia Checked/ technologies; mc-Si and heterojunction with intrinsic
region, Turkey Checked/ thin layer (HiT), it was found that the HiT offers lower
Only temperature losses DR with nearly 0.1 % compared to mc-Si by 0.67 % to
0.83 %.
[34,62–65] PV system Checked The PR for the PVSs installed was relatively lower. No
Japan No Annual PR of around 67 % [34], 75 % [62], 84 % [64]
Checked or 72 % [63,65]. The annual average temperature loss
is between 2 % and 4 %. The maximum value of
shading losses reached 13.1 % [65] because in Japan,
the residential towers are a feature of the urban
edifices). Mean shading losses was estimated to be 4.7
% [34,62,65]. Poor inverter performance (frequent
inverter suspension) [63]. The annual average inverter
losses was great than 5 % [34,62–63,65].
[68] PV system Checked/No/ Annual PR of around 71.9 % for PVS using sc-Si No
Adrar, Algeria Sahara Checked but not mentioned in detail technology. PVS disconnection losses range from 5 to
with estimate the energy that are lost 10 % depending on the season.
due to the PVS disconnection
[69] PV system Checked/ Annual PR of around 71 % for PVS using mc-Si No
India No/Checked but not mentioned in technology.
detail
[Our study] PV system Checked It is detailed in the body of this study. A simple visual
Adrar, Algeria Sahara Checked inspection
Checked

17
M. Yaichi et al.
years of operation, the installed power for the Isofotón I-75 type PV
panels lost 14.2 % (1.42 %/year) of its initial value and that for the
Isofotón I-100(2) type PV panels lost 23.59 % (1.68 %/year). For ET-
M53675 PV panels type (newly panels), after 2 years and three
months of operation, these panels keep the same peak power; almost 1.5
% is caused by the panel’s non-cleaning and the losses due to the of the
sun rays’ reflection. These PV panels are degraded by 1.1 % (about 0.88
%/year).
The results showed that ET-M53675 and Isofotón I-75 modules have
the lowest DR. The highest DR was reached with Isofotón I-100 modules.
However, this DR is greater than that of the same type of PV module
installed in Europe [57], which was 2.7 % (0.27 % per year) over ten
years.
Therefore, the degradation is reasonable considering the period of
operation. As is known, solar panels lose 30 % of the installed power
after 30 years of operation because a DR of 15 % after 10 years of
operation is acceptable in the Saharan environment. So, it can be
concluded that ET-M53675 and Isofotón I-75 PV modules have better
rigidity.
This finding will help determine the PV modules’ energy output
under actual operating conditions, encourage the production of PV
modules with higher reliability levels and indicate that PV module
failure may result from unstable cell behavior, manufacturing flaws or
high temperature.
A simple visual inspection during the operational period can reveal
that the PVS worked very well, and no faults were detected. We didn’t
notice any cell damage, cracking, or breaking of the glass covering,
except: 1- For CON1, a 12 V voltage powered the motor pump, the GPV
output energy was saturated by an hourly irradiation of 0.9 kWh/m2; 2-
For CON4 and in March 2019, the inverter broke down. After a check, it
was found that a driver of the RF230 type switch had failed, caused by a
short circuit at the level of the switch (Fig. 17). PV modules with serious
failures (dead section, hot bypass diode, hot spot caused by soldering
degradation, not uniform hot spot cell, color change, burned backsheet
is de-laminated, broken cover glass,..) should undergo a thorough
inspection.
To get a general understanding of the PV power performance in other
countries, we compared our findings with those reported in the litera­
ture. Table 10 summarizes the results of the PVS performance assess­
ment. The results show that the PVS performance differs from one site to
another.
7. Conclusion
This work included the experimental monitoring of numerous PVSs
as well as a study of PV module degradation functioning in the Saharan
region. PVS data collected between 2014 and 2020 in a test field with
four different configurations were used to perform the assessment. The
determination of the value of PR provides us with a general idea of PVSs
losses. The Sophisticated Verification method, so-called SV method, for
separating and quantifying various losses has been used to evaluate a
PVSs performance over 46 months. The SV method is straightforward
and accurate evaluation method that uses only three data. PVS problems
and failures can be diagnosed by collecting and analyzing long-term
monitoring data. We have developed a process to achieve good accu­
racy calculation of losses and performance ratios by the recovery of
hourly irradiation measured by a pyranometer due to full shading.
Differences between installed and real energies of up to 18 %, 48 %,
34 % and 39 % for CON1, CON2, CON3 and CON4, respectively, have
been detected. Monitoring information can provide feedback on tech­
nical data such as power losses caused by temperature dependence, by
shading on the PV array, or dust covering the PV array, etc. One of the
primary causes of low output gain is the operating condition of a high
module temperature. This indicates that the beneficial effect of
increased solar irradiation in our region incident on PV modules is lost to
the negative effect of increased module surface temperature. This
18
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
study’s findings also demonstrate the critical importance of PV modules
cleaning for proper operation.
We took advantage of using the outdoor exposure test results to
clarify the PV module’s degradation mode. For PV panels of the ET-
M53675 type (new panels), after 2 years and three months of opera­
tion, these panels keep the same peak power (0.88 %/year). The Isofotón
I-75 and Isofotón I-100(1) PV panels have been in operation for more
than 10 and 8 years, respectively, and have lost 1.42 %/year and 2.44
%/year of their initial value. The installed power degraded by 1.68
%/year in Isofotón I-100(2) type PV panels that have been operating for
over 14 years. Therefore, the degradation is reasonable in relation to the
period of operation because a DR of 1.5 %/year after certain years of
operation in the Saharan environment can be quite acceptable, espe­
cially in extremely hostile climate. So, it can be concluded that PV
modules of type ET-M53675 and Isofotón I-75 have better rigidity than
the other PV panels.
These monitoring results are used to compare the performance of
PVS installations worldwide. PVS evaluation is thus crucial for
comparing of PVSs of various configurations and at different regions and
determining practical design expectations and guarantees.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mohammed Yaichi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Azzedinne Tayebi: Software, Data curation. Abdelkader Boutadara:
Data curation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Amina Bek­
raoui: Data curation, Writing - review & editing.
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like acknowledge the financial support of Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for their training in National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) one of
the largest public research organizations in Japan.
References
[1] Tayebi A, Brahami M, Yaichi M, Boutadara A. Low complexity SVM technique of
control implementation by microcontroller for three phase solar inverter. Environ
Prog Sustain Energy (Sustain Energy) 2019;38(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/
ep.13271.
[2] Carr AJ, Pryor TL. A comparison of the performance of different PV module types
in temperate climates. Sol Energy 2004;76:285–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2003.07.026.
[3] Fuentes M, Nofuentes G, Aguilera J, Talavera DL, Castro M. Application and
validation of algebraic methods to predict the behaviour of crystalline silicon PV
modules in Mediterranean climates. Sol Energy 2007;81:1396–408. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.12.008.
[4] Urrejola E, Antonanzas J, Ayala P, Salgado M, Ramírez-Sagner G, Cortés C, et al.
Effect of soiling and sunlight exposure on the performance ratio of photovoltaic
technologies in Santiago. Chile Energy Convers Manage 2016;114:338–47. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.016.
[5] Dia F, Mbengue N, Sarr ON, Diagne M, Niasse OA, Dieye A, et al. Model Associated
with the Study of the Degradation Based on the Accelerated Test: A Literature
Review. Open J Appl Sci 2016;6:49–63. https://doi.org/10.4236/
ojapps.2016.61006.
[6] van Dyk EE, Meyer EL, Vorster FJ, Leitch AWR. Long-term monitoring of
photovoltaic devices. Renew Energy 2002;25:183–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0960-1481(01)00064-7.
M. Yaichi et al.
[7] Gxasheka AR, van Dyk EE, Meyer EL. Evaluation of performance parameters of PV
modules deployed outdoors. Renew Energy 2005;30:611–20. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2004.06.005.
[8] 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.
[9] Leloux J, Narvarte L, Trebosc D. Review of the performance of residential PV
systems in Belgium. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:178–84. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.145.
[10] Yaichi M, Mammeri A, Fellah M-K. Monitoring and Evaluation of PV Pumping
System Performance Installed in the Algeria’s Sahara City of Adrar. Int J Elect Eng
Inform 2016;8(2):253–67. https://doi.org/10.15676/ijeei.2016.8.2.2.
[11] Dabou R, Bouchafaa F, Hadj Arab A, Bouraiou A, Draou MD, Neçaibia A, et al.
Monitoring and performance analysis of grid connected photovoltaic under
different climatic conditions in south Algeria. Energ Conver Manage 2016;130:
200–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.10.058.
[12] Klugmann-Radziemska E, Shading. Dusting and Incorrect Positioning of
Photovoltaic Modules as Important Factors in Performance Reduction. Energies
2020;13(8):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13081992.
[13] Ziane A, Neçaibia A, Sahouane N, Dabou R, Mostefaoui M, Bouraiou A, et al.
Photovoltaic output power performance assessment and forecasting: Impact of
meteorological variables. Sol Energy 2021;220:745–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2021.04.004.
[14] Ramli MAM, Prasetyono E, Wicaksana RW, Windarko NA, Sedraoui K, Al-Turki YA.
On the investigation of photovoltaic output power reduction due to dust
accumulation and weather conditions. Renew Energy 2016;99:836–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.07.063.
[15] Simal Pérez N, Alonso-Montesinos J, Javier Batlles F. Estimation of Soiling Losses
from an Experimental Photovoltaic Plant Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques.
Appl Sci 2021;11(4):1516. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041516.
[16] Limmanee A, Songtrai S, Udomdachanut N, Kaewniyompanit S, Sato Y,
Nakaishi M, et al. Degradation analysis of photovoltaic modules under tropical
climatic conditions and its impacts on LCOE. Renew Energy 2017;102:199–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.052.
[17] Ahmad GE, Hussein HMS, El-Ghetany HH. Theoretical analysis and experimental
verification of PV modules. Renew Energy 2003;28:1159–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0960-1481(02)00228-8.
[18] Blal M, Khelifi SA, Dabou R, Sahouane N, Slimani A, Rouabhia A, et al. A prediction
models for estimating global solar radiation and evaluation meteorological effect
on solar radiation potential under several weather conditions at the surface of
Adrar environment. Measurement 2020;152:107348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2019.107348.
[19] Ziane A, Dabou R, Necaibia A, Sahouane N, Mostefaoui M, Bouraiou A, et al. Tree-
based ensemble methods for predicting the module temperature of a grid-tied
photovoltaic system in the desert. Int J Green Energy 2021;18(13):1430–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.1904945.
[20] Boukenoui R, Bouhedir R, Mellit A, Saglam S. Experimental assessment of Poly C-
Si, CIGS and CdTe Photovoltaic technologies under real working conditions.
Published in: 2019 International Conference on Wireless Technologies, Embedded
and Intelligent Systems (WITS), IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/WITS.2019.8723805.
[21] So JH, Jung YS, Yu GJ, Choi JY, Choi JH. Performance results and analysis of 3 kW
grid-connected PV systems. Renew Energy 2007;32:1858–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2006.10.003.
[22] Mulcué-Nieto LF, Echeverry-Cardona LF, Restrepo-Franco AM, García-
Gutiérrez GA, Jiménez-García FN, Mora-López L. Energy performance assessment
of monocrystalline and polycrystalline photovoltaic modules in the tropical
mountain climate: The case for Manizales-Colombia. Energy Rep 2020;6:2828–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.09.036.
[23] Sharma GS, Mahela OP, Hussien MG, Khan B, Padmanaban S, Shafik MB, et al.
Performance Evaluation of a MW-Size Grid-Connected Solar Photovoltaic Plant
Considering the Impact of Tilt Angle. Sustainability 2022;14:1444. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su14031444.
[24] Zinßer B, Makrides G, Schmitt W, Georghiou GE, Werner JH. Annual energy yield
of 13 photovoltaic technologies in Germany and in Cyprus. 2007. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/237733831.
[25] Chimtavee A, Ketjoy N. PV Generator Performance Evaluation and Load Analysis of
the PV Microgrid System in Thailand. Procedia Eng 2012;32:384–91. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1283.
[26] Necaibia A, Bouraiou A, Ziane A, Sahouane N, Hassani S, Mostefaoui M, et al.
Analytical assessment of the outdoor performance and efficiency of grid-tied
photovoltaic system under hot dry climate in the south of Algeria. Energ Conver
Manage 2018;171:778–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.020.
[27] Deriche MA, Hafaifa A, Tahri A, Mohammedi K, Tahri F. Energy and environmental
performance analysis of grid-connected photovoltaic systems under similar
outdoor conditions in the Saharan environment. Diagnostyka 2020;21(2):13–23.
https://doi.org/10.29354/diag/122035.
[28] Obeng M, Gyamfi S, Derkyi NS, Kabo-bah AT, Peprah F. Technical and economic
feasibility of a 50 MW grid-connected solar PV at UENR Nsoatre Campus. J Clean
Prod 2020;247:119159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119159.
[29] Oloya IT, Gutu TJL, Adaramola MS. Techno-economic assessment of 10 MW
centralised grid-tied solar photovoltaic system in Uganda. Case Studies. Therm Eng
2021;25:100928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100928.
[30] Reich NH, Mueller B, Armbruster A, van Sark WGJHM, Kiefer K, Reise C.
Performance ratio revisited: is PR>90% realistic? Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2020;
12:717–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.1219.
19
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
[31] Sreenath S, Sudhakar K, Yusop AF, Solomin E, Kirpichnikova IM. Solar PV energy
system in Malaysian airport: Glare analysis, general design and performance
assessment. Energy Rep 2020;6:698–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2020.03.015.
[32] Rodrigues M, Torres P, Galhardo MAB, Chase O, Amorim A, Leão W, et al.
Theoretical-experimental evaluation of partially shaded solar photovoltaic arrays
through methodological framework: a case study involving two identical 1.5 kWp
PV generators. J Sol Energy Eng 2023;145(1):011010. https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4054922.
[33] Pimentel PS, Matsukawa H, Oozeki T, Tomori T, Kurokawa K. PV System
Integrated Evaluation Software. Published in: Conference Record of the Twenty-
Ninth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2002. IEEE Xplore: 22 April 2003.
DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2002.1190930.
[34] Oozeki T, Izawa T, Otani K, Kurokawa K. An evaluation method of PV systems. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2003;75:687–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(02)
00143-5.
[35] Brett Knisely, Suryanarayana Vasantha Janakeeraman, Joseph Kuitche,
Govindasamy Tamizh Mani. Validation of IEC 61853-2 standard (Draft): Angle of
incidence effect on photovoltaic modules. Published in: 2013 IEEE 39th
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) 2014;675-680. DOI: 10.1109/
PVSC.2013.6744239.
[36] Sánchez CR, Reinoso DH, Milone RH, Buitrago. Simulation of photovoltaic centrals
with dynamic shading. Appl Energy 2013;103:278–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.09.040.
[37] Benghanem M, Almohammedi A, Taukeer Khan M, Al-Mashraqi AA. Effect of Dust
Accumulation on the Performance of Photovoltaic Panels in Desert Countries: A
Case Study for Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Int J Power Electron Drive Syst (IJPEDS)
2018;9(3):1356–66. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijpeds.v9n3.pp1356-1366.
[38] Piliougine M, Spagnuolo G. Mismatching and partial shading identification in
photovoltaic arrays by an artificial neural network ensemble. Sol Energy 2022;236:
712–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.03.026.
[39] Li C, Yongheng Yang Fu, Fan LX, Peng P, Wang Y, Zhang K, et al. A Novel
Methodology for Partial Shading Diagnosis Using the Electrical Parameters of
Photovoltaic Strings. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2022;12(4):1027–35. https://doi.org/
10.1109/JPHOTOV.2022.3173723.
[40] Martin N, Ruiz JM. Calculation of the PV modules angular losses under field
conditions by means of an analytical model. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2001;70:
25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(00)00408-6.
[41] Sanchis P, López J, Ursúa A, Gubía E, Marroyo L. On the Testing, Characterization,
and Evaluation of PV Inverters and Dynamic MPPT Performance Under Real
Varying Operating Conditions. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 2007;15(6):541–56.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.763.
[42] Baltus CWA, Eikelboom JA, van Zolingen RJC. Analytical monitoring of losses in
PV systems. In: The 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference
Barcelona, 30 June - 4 July 1997.
[43] Sadok M, Mehdaoui A. Outdoor testing of photovoltaic arrays in the Saharan
region. Renew Energy 2008;33:2516–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2008.02.016.
[44] Kaplanis S, Kaplani E. Energy performance and degradation over 20 years
performance of BP c-Si PV modules. Simul Model Pract Theory 2011;19(4):
1201–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2010.07.009.
[45] Kaplani E. Degradation Effects in sc-Si PV Modules Subjected to Natural and
Induced Ageing after Several Years of Field Operation. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 2012;
5(4):18–23. Special Issue on Renewable Energy Systems.
[46] Carullo A, Ferraris F, Vallan A, Spertino F, Attivissimo F. Uncertainty analysis of
degradation parameters estimated in long-term monitoring of photovoltaic plants.
Measurement 2014;55:641–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2014.06.003.
[47] Charrouf O, Betka A, hadef H, Djebabra M, Tiar M. Degradation evaluation of PV
modules operating under Northern Saharan environment in Algeria. In: Citation:
AIP Conference Proceedings 2017, 1. Published by the American Institute of
Physics; 1814. p. 020030. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4976249.
[48] Bouraiou A, Hamouda M, Chaker A, Lachtar S, Neçaibia A, Boutasseta N, et al.
Experimental evaluation of the performance and degradation of single crystalline
silicon photovoltaic modules in the Saharan environment. Energy 2017;132:22–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.056.
[49] Arar H, Haouam A, Chenni R, Nouar A. Simplified methods for evaluating the
degradation of photovoltaic module and modeling considering partial shading.
Measurement 2019;138:217–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2019.01.098.
[50] Quansah DA, Adaramola MS, Takyi G. Degradation and longevity of solar
photovoltaic modules-An analysis of recent field studies in Ghana. Energy Sci Eng
2020;8(6):2116–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.651.
[51] Singh SK, Chander N. Mid-life degradation evaluation of polycrystalline Si solar
photovoltaic modules in a 100 kWp grid-tied system in east-central India. Renew
Energy 2022;199:351–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.09.013.
[52] Baldus-Jeursen Ch, Côté A, Deer T, Poissant Y. Analysis of photovoltaic module
performance and life cycle degradation for a 23 year-old array in Quebec. Canada
Renewable Energy 2021;174:547–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.04.013.
[53] Tsuno Y, Ueda Y, Hishikawa Y, Kudou M, Konishi H, Kurokawa K. Evaluation of
Different PV Modules in HOKUTO Mega-Solar Project. 25th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition/5th World Conference on Photovoltaic
Energy Conversion 6-10 September 2010: 3785-3789, Valencia, Spain. ISBN: 3-
936338-26-4, doi 10.4229/25thEUPVSEC2010-4BO.10.5.
M. Yaichi et al.
[54] Bayandelger B-E, Ueda Y, Batbayar B, Adiyabat A, Enebish N, Otani Ki. Long-term
performance and degradation rate analyses of photovoltaic modules exposed in the
Gobi Desert, Mongolia. Jpn J Appl Phys 2018;57:08RG07. https://doi.org/
10.7567/JJAP.57.08RG07.
[55] Balaska A, Tahri A, Boudghen Stambouli A. Monitoring of Different Technologies
of Photovoltaic Module at STC Conditions in Algeria’s Sahara. Sustainable Energy-
Water-Environment Nexus in Deserts. Cham: Advances in Science, Technology &
Innovation. Springer; 2022. p. 419–22.
[56] Singh R, Sharma Ma, Yadav K. Degradation and reliability analysis of photovoltaic
modules after operating for 12 years: A case study with comparisons. Renew
Energy 2022;196:1170–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.048.
[57] Pascual J, Martinez-Moreno F, García M, Marcos J, Marroyo L, Lorenzo E. Long-
term degradation rate of crystalline silicon PV modules at commercial PV plants:
An 82-MWp assessment over 10 years. Progress in Photovoltaic 2021:1–9. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pip.3456.
[58] Marion B, Adelstein J, Boyle K, Hayden H, Hammond B, Fletcher T, et al.
Performance Parameters for Grid-Connected PV Systems. 31st IEEE Photovoltaics
Specialists Conference and Exhibition, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, February 2005.
[59] Dag HI, Buker MS. Performance evaluation and degradation assessment of
crystalline silicon based photovoltaic rooftop technologies under outdoor
conditions. Renew Energy 2020;156:1292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.11.141.
[60] Carullo A, Castellana A, Vallan A, Ciocia A, Spertino F. Uncertainty issues in the
experimental assessment of degradation rate of power ratings in photovoltaic
modules. Measurement 2017;111:432–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2017.04.038.
[61] Nordin AHM. Shahril Irwan Sulaiman, Sulaiman Shaari. Life cycle impact of
photovoltaic module degradation on energy and environmental metrics. Energy
Rep 2022;8:923–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.05.257.
[62] Kurokawa K, Sugiyama H, Uchida D, Sakamoto K, Ohshiro T, Otani K, et al.
Sophisticated Verification of simple monitored data for Japanese field test
program. 2nd World Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conversion, Vienna, Austria, 6-10 July 1998:1941-1946.
[63] Sugiura T, Yamada T, Nakamura H, Umeya M, Sakuta K, Kurokawa K.
Measurements, analyses and evaluation of residential PV systems by Japanese
monitoring program. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2003;75:767–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0927-0248(02)00132-0.
[64] Ueda Y, Tsuno Y, Kuda M, Konishi H, Kurokawa K. Comparison between the I-V
measurement and the system performance in various kinds of PV technologies. 5th
WCPEC/25th EUPVSEC, Valencia, Sep 2010:6-10.
[65] Uchida D, Otani K, Kurokawa K. Evaluation of effective shading factor by fitting a
clear-day pattern obtained from hourly maximum irradiance data. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 2011;67:519–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(00)00321-
4.
20
Energy Conversion and Management 279 (2023) 116777
[66] Bailek N, Bouchouicha K, Aoun N, EL-Shimy M, Jamil Basharat, Mostafaeipour Ali.
Optimized fixed tilt for incident solar energy maximization on flat surfaces located
in the Algerian Big South. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2018;29:96–102. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.002.
[67] Yaichi M, Fellah M-K, Tayebi A, Boutadara A. A fast and simplified method using
non-linear translation of operating points for PV modules energy output and daily
pumped water to predict the performance of a stand-alone photovoltaic pumping
system at different heads. Renew Energy 2019;133:248–60. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.004.
[68] Sahouane N, Dabou R, Ziane A, Neçaibia A, Bouraiou A, Rouabhia A, et al. Energy
and economic efficiency performance assessment of a 28 kWp photovoltaic grid-
connected system under desertic weather conditions in Algerian Sahara. Renew
Energy 2019;143:1318–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.086.
[69] Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, Satish Kumar Yadav, Shauhrat S. Chopra, Usha Bajpai,
Ramjee Prasad Gupta, Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban, Frede Blaabjerg. Operational
performance of on-grid solar photovoltaic system integrated into pre-fabricated
portable cabin buildings in warm and temperate climates. Energy for Sustainable
Development 2020;57:109-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2020.05.008.
[70] Rigollier C, Bauer O, Wald L. On the clear sky model of the ESRA-European Solar
Radiation Atlas-with respect to the heliosat method. Sol Energy 1999;68(1):
203–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00055-9.
[71] Scharmer K, Greif J. The European solar radiation atlas Vol. 1: fundamentals and
maps. Les Presses de l’école des Mines, Paris; 2000. ISBN: 2-911762-21-5.
[72] Hofierka J, Suri M. The solar radiation model for Open source GIS: implementation
and applications. In: Proceedings of the Open source GIS - GRASS Users Conference
2002 - Trento, Italy, 11-13 September 2002: 19 p. https://www.scirp.org/%28S%
28351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje%29%29/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?
ReferenceID=1413518.
[73] Marif Y, Chiba Y, Belhadj MM, Zerrouki M, Benhammou M. A clear sky irradiation
assessment using a modified Algerian solar atlas model in Adrar city. Energy Rep
2018;4:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2017.09.002.
[74] Drif M, Pérez PJ, Aguilera J, Aguilar JD. A new estimation method of irradiance on
a partially shaded PV generator in grid-connected photovoltaic systems. Renew
Energy 2008;33:2048–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.12.010.
[75] Bailek N, Bouchouicha K, Al-Mostafa Z, El-Shimy M, Aoun N, Slimani A, et al.
A new empirical model for forecasting the diffuse solar radiation over Sahara in the
Algerian Big South. Renew Energy 2018;117:530–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2017.10.081.
[76] Yaichi M, Tayebi A, Mammeri A, Boutadara A. Performance of a PV field’s
discontinuous two-position sun tracker systems supplying a water pumping system:
Concept, theoretical and experimental studies-A case study of the Adrar area in
Algeria’s Sahara. Renew Energy 2022;201:548–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2022.10.095.