Performance Analysis of Solar PV Modules with
Dust Accumulation for Indian Scenario
Komal Singh, M. Rizwan
Department of Electrical Engineering
Delhi Technological University Delhi 110042, India
komalsingh2581998@gmail.com, rizwan@dce.ac.in
Abstract— Solar energy has proven to be an assured front
runner among renewable energy sources since it is clean, cost-
effective and environment friendly. The output power and
lifespan of a photovoltaic module are influenced by a variety of
factors such as incident solar radiation intensity, cell
temperature, cloud and other shading effects, dust
accumulation, weather conditions, geographical location,
module orientation, etc. This work examines the impact of dust
accumulation on the performance of the 5 kW photovoltaic
system installed on the rooftop of laboratory at Delhi
Technological University. Based on IEC 61724, performance
analysis of 5 kW photovoltaic system is carried out over 62 days.
Panels were left naturally uncleaned for the first 31 days and
then cleaned on a regular basis for the following 31 days.
Performance parameters such as performance ratio, capacity
factor, system energy yield and reference energy yield are
derived. The performance analysis results of the practical 5 kW
system were later compared with the PVsyst software results.
Keywords— Grid Interactive Photovoltaic System, Dust
Accumulation, Performance Parameters, PVsyst Software
I. INTRODUCTION
Despite the huge disruptions associated with the global
pandemic and the collapse in GDP, wind and solar capacity
increased by a colossal 238 GW in 2020 – almost double its
previous highest annual increase [1]. This growth trend is in
line with the decarbonization goals promoted by Agenda
2030. Soiling occurs due to the deposition of sand, dust
particles, an organic layer, bird droppings, snow, and plant
products which affect the power output of solar panels [2].
The energy production by photovoltaic systems is severely
conditioned by the abnormal operating conditions caused by
dust depositions on the surface of PV panels.
The efficiency of the solar photovoltaic system is greatly
affected by some alterable and unalterable factors; dust is
considered to be a location-based unalterable factor that
reduces the PV module’s efficiency to a hefty extent [3]. The
frequency of PV panel cleaning depends on its site location
as Saharan regions have high potential in the solar energy
sector, but are plagued by climatic obstacles such as high
temperature and sand, wind and dust accumulation on PV
panels [4].
In [5], the impact of dust on the PV Panel was analyzed
for different modular technologies; the effect of dust on
current, voltage and power of the respective modules was
studied and quantitative performance degradation was
observed. Power performance can be significantly reduced up
to 60-70% due to the accumulation of dust on the PV panel
surface [6]. The size and shape of dust particles accumulated
vary with location [7] and hence type of dust soiling can
significantly have a varying effect on PV performance [8].
The deposit of coal dust on PV panels causes a significant
performance drop compared to that caused by fly ash [9],
gypsum, and fertilizer industry dust [6].
IEC-61724-3 outlines guidance on data collection and
evaluation methods for short-term capacity and long-term
system performance, it provides guidelines for evaluation of
performance over the full range of operating conditions [10].
IEC 61724-2 provides the evaluation of power output during
reference conditions (a few relatively sunny days) [11].
Performance ratio (PR) measures the quality of PV system
and hence is also popular as quality factor in the solar energy
sector [10]. Performance analysis can solely be used for
making the right decisions for current and future installations
[12]. In [13] authors calculated the performance ratio of the 6
kW PV system for four months. Performance ratio (PR) is a
globally accepted indicator used by countries like Australia,
the US and European countries to judge the performance of
photovoltaic plants. With the help of such an analysis, these
countries were able to improve the performance of their PV
plants by identifying the deficiency and thus planned for
better investment decisions. Performance Ratio is assumed to
be a better indicator compared to the final yield of the PV
plant because of its ability to consider the actual insolation
better [14]. According to the EU PERFORMANCE project, a
PR of 0.8 and above is an indicator of a good-performing
system [15]. According to SMA, performance ratio shows the
proportion of the energy that is available for export to the grid
after deduction of energy loss (e.g. due to thermal losses and
conduction losses) and energy consumption for operation
[16]. PR of the plant is usually independent of the site location
and system size but it has strong dependence upon weather
variability. [17]-[19] presents the performance ratio overview
for different countries.
Capacity factor (CF) is another indicator that can be used
for judging the performance of grid-connected photovoltaic
systems but since it doesn’t account for the threshold
irradiation needed to generate electrical energy and hence it
is not capable of reflecting the actual performance of the PV
plant. It also does not consider factors such as environmental
effects, availability of the grid, system faults etc and thus
crippling its performance capabilities [14]. Sometimes,
capacity factor is used by investors to estimate the return on
investment of their solar PV systems.
PVsyst is a software package used for the study, sizing
and data analysis of photovoltaic systems. PVsyst features a
database of extensive and diverse meteorological data
sources, as well as solar system component data. [20]-[22]
presents PVsyst simulation of photovoltaic system for
different locales. It is typically used to identify the optimal tilt
angle, azimuth angle, and PV module and inverter for
improving PV plant performance and minimizing losses.
[22].
 This study presents the performance analysis of the 5 kW
photovoltaic system installed on the rooftop of the laboratory
at Delhi Technological University for May and June, 2022.
The panels were left naturally dirty in May whereas regularly
cleaned in June. System energy (kWh), peak power (Wp) and
hours of operation of the 5 kW photovoltaic system were
collected daily from the inverter unit in May and June. A few
days of April and July were also added to May and June data
respectively due to the PV system being inoperable for 5 days
in May. The reference energy yield (YR), system energy yield
(YS), performance ratio (PR), capacity factor (CF) and peak
power (W) are compared for both months. An identical 5 kW
photovoltaic system was also simulated in PVsyst, and the
performance analysis results were compared to the practical
PV system.
Further, this paper consists of different sections; section II
describes the analytical approach used for performance
analysis and PVsyst analysis, ratings of modules and inverters
are defined in section III, followed by performance analysis
results and PVsyst results in section IV, and finally conclusion
is drawn in section V.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Performance Analysis
The performance ratio (PR) is independent of location
and is often described as the quality factor since it efficiently
measures the quality of the PV plant. The performance ratio
(PR) describes the relationship between the ideal and actual
PV system energy outputs. PV plant energy is heavily
dependent on insolation from the sun, and performance ratio
accounts for this global incident irradiation hence it becomes
a powerful performance assessing tool.
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊ℎ/𝑚2
YR = (1)
𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊/𝑚2
𝐴𝐶 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊ℎ
YS = (2)
𝑁𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊
𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐹𝐼𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑌𝑆 )
PR = (3)
𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 (𝑌𝑅 )
Capacity factor (CF) for the photovoltaic system is defined
as the ratio of energy produced (kWhAC) from the PV plant
divided by the theoretical peak energy production of the PV
plant throughout a specific period. But this factor does not
serve as an ideal performance judging factor since it does not
include the insolation from the sun.
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊ℎ
CF = (4)
24 ∗ 𝑁𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑊
such as system, orientation, and detailed losses, as well as
optional parameters such as near shading and economic
evaluation. The system provides users with the ability to
configure PV system power and choose appropriate PV
modules, inverters, and batteries.
The simulation is performed over a full year in hourly
steps and produces a comprehensive report that includes
graphs, tables and diagrams.
Utilities include databases and tools. Databases consist of
monthly and hourly climatic data. Climate data that is
compatible with PVsyst can also be imported from external
sites. Datasheets of unlisted PV modules, inverters and
batteries can also be added. With the help of tools͟, the
behaviour of a PV installation can be quickly estimated and
visualized and it also provides access to compare PV
installations and simulation by importing measured data of
existing PV installations.
Solar radiation data can be imported into PVsyst, or there
is built-in Meteonorm, NASA, Solcast, and NREL data. A
library of PV modules, inverters, batteries, pumps, and
generators from various manufacturers is built in. If unlisted,
there is a provision to import or edit the existing datasheet of
PV modules, inverters etc.
III. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The MPPT-based inverter can provide us with the daily
system energy (kWh), daily peak power (W) and daily hours
of operation of the 5 kW photovoltaic system.
The 5 kW photovoltaic system consists of 20 modules,
each with a rated output of 250 Wp connected in two parallel
strings, with 10 modules in each string. Table I below show
the ratings of the 250 Wp module at STC.
TABLE I. 250 Wp MODULE RATINGS AT STC
Technology Polycrystalline
Rated output (Pmpp) 250 Wp
Rated voltage (Vmpp) 30.48 V
Rated current (Impp) 8.21 A
Open Circuit Voltage (Voc) 37.47 V
Short circuit current (Isc) 8.81 A
Module Efficiency 15.4%

The performance ratio and capacity factor can also be

expressed as percentages. For solar PV systems, PR values TABLE II. 5.5 KWAC INVERTER RATINGS
typically range from 60-90% and capacity factor values
Max. AC output active power 5.5 kW
between 10-25%.
B. PVsyst Analysis MPP Voltage Range 200-900 V

PVsyst software is a comprehensive solar design tool used Maximum Input Voltage 1000 V
by thousands of researchers and engineers across the globe.
PVsyst is becoming the standard for large as well as utility- Maximum Input Current 2*11 A
scale photovoltaic installations. It is sometimes also used to ISC PV (absolute maximum) 2*16.5A
assess the performance degradation of the already installed PV
systems. The main components of the software are project Maximum Continuous Output
3*8.5A
design, simulation and utilities. Current
͞Project design comprises of grid-connected, standalone Rated Grid Voltage 380/400 V
and pumping system. The software includes main parameters
Table II defines the ratings of the 5.5 kWp inverter. Table I
and Table II along with tilt angle and azimuth angle as shown
below in Fig. 1 were imported into the PVsyst for simulation.
Delhi Technological University is located at 28.74950 N and
77.11840 E. The latest NASA daily global irradiation data of
the above location is used for performance ratio (PR)
calculation.

ne y ield
efe ence ne y ield
ystem ne y ield

ay

Fig. 3. Comparison of Reference Energy Yield (YR) and System Energy

Yield (Ys) in May 2022

Fig. 1. Tilt angle and Azimuth angle in PVsyst efe ence ne y ield
ystem ne y ield

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data is gathered from the inverter unit over 62 days
and the 5 kW PV system is working daily for 10-14 hours. The
ne y ield

panels were left naturally dirty in May, whereas the panels

were regularly cleaned in June and since the PV system was
inoperable for 5 days in May, hence the data includes some
dates from April and July. The below Figs. 2-7 depicts the
comparison of reference energy yield (YR), system energy
yield (YS), performance ratio (PR), capacity factor (CF) and
peak power (W).

ay

Fig. 4. Comparison of Reference Energy Yield (YR) and System Energy

Yield (Ys) in June 2022
ield

Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 present the comparison of reference

Energy yield (YR) and system energy yield (YS) in May and
ne y

June respectively and it is evident that in June, the system

energy yield approaches the reference energy yield more than
in May, implying that more power is extracted from the PV
efe ence

ay system.
une

ay
a acity acto

Fig. 2. Comparison of Reference Energy Yield of both months

Fig. 2 above illustrates the comparison of the reference

energy yield of both months and it can be observed that due to ay
frequent rainfall, there was a sudden decrement in reference une

energy yield for a few days in June and consequently panels

were naturally getting cleaned and their temperature also
dropped down. It can also be observed that May month has a
higher potential for solar energy as compared to June.
ay
Fig. 5. Comparison of Capacity Factor per Day of both months
 TABLE III. COMPARISON OF MONTHLY AVERAGE VALUES OF
BOTH MONTHS

Month May 2022 June 2022

atio P

Average

Reference Energy Yield 6.57 5.839

Pe fo mance

System Energy Yield 3.741 3.886

ay
une Capacity Factor 0.156 0.162
Panel anually leaned
Panel cleaned due to ain
Performance Ratio 0.568 0.667

Peak Power 2864.80 W 3203.484 W

ay

Fig. 6. Comparison of Performance Ratio per Day of both months
Fig. 5 compares the daily capacity factor of both months,
but since the capacity factor does not account for
environmental factors such as irradiance hence it fails to
provide any conclusion whereas Fig. 6 depicts the
performance ratio comparison of both months and it can be
observed that except for 5 days, the PR of June is exceeding
the PR of May on all other days. Due to regular cleaning of
panels, maximum PR of 0.925 has been observed in June and
due to frequent cloudy days, minimum PR of 0.42 also
occurred in the same month. The marked points indicate the
days on which the panels were either manually cleaned or
were naturally washed due to rain. Fig. 6 also depicts that the
5-kW photovoltaic system performs better in June than in
May.
Above Table III shows the monthly average values of
various quantities for both months and it can be observed that
the monthly reference energy yield of June is lesser than that
of May whereas system energy yield, capacity factor,
performance ratio and peak power of June exceed the
corresponding May values. May has a higher potential for
solar energy but June has better performance results. In June,
there has been a remarkable 10% improvement in the
performance ratio as compared to May. In June, the peak
power also significantly improved as can be seen in Fig. 7.
TABLE IV. TOTAL SYSTEM ENERGY COMPARISON OF BOTH
MONTHS
Month May 2022 June 2022
Energy

ay Total Practical System

Energy (kWh) 579.8 602.4
une

PVsyst Total System 797.762 715.608

Energy (kWh)
Pea Po e

After simulating the 5 kW photovoltaic system in PVsyst,

ay
Fig. 7. Comparison of Peak Power (W) per day of both months
It can be perceived from Fig. 7 that on most days, the
daily peak power of June is exceeding that of May as a
consequence of regular cleaning of panels. In June, highest
peak power of 4490 W was recorded and due to frequent
cloudy days lowest peak power of 452 W was also observed.
the daily system energy of the practical PV system and
simulation is compared and plotted in Fig. 8 for 62 days. June's
practical system energy was higher than May's, relative to
PVsyst energy and on one significant day, the practical system
energy exceeds the PVsyst energy. The above Table IV shows
that regular cleaning of the panel considerably improves the
monthly total system energy. The higher practical system
energy for June is primarily attributable to the regular cleaning
of panels, despite the higher PVsyst daily system energy for
May. In contrast to the overall PVsyst system energy of
1513.37 kWh, the total practical system energy for the 62 days
is 1182.2 kWh. Total system losses for 62 days relative to
PVsyst energy are 331.7 kWh, with 217.96 kWh occurring in
May and 113.21 kWh occurring in June. Due to regular PV
panel cleaning, energy losses were reduced by 104.75 kWh in
June.
 h
aily ystem ene y
aily P actical ystem ne y
aily PVsyst ystem ne y
Panel anually leaned
Panel leaned due to ain
Fig. 8. Daily system energy comparison of Practical 5-kW PV system and PVsyst 5 kW PV system over 62 days
TABLE V. COMPARISON OF PR FOR PRACTICAL SYSTEM AND
PVSYST SYSTEM FOR BOTH MONTHS
Performance Practical 5 kW PVsyst 5 kW
Ratio PV System PV System
Month
May 2022 0.568 0.784
June 2022 0.667 0.778
Table V shows the performance ratio comparison of
simulation and practical system for both months. Performance
ratio is a globally acceptable indicator for judging the
efficiency of the PV system and it can be observed that there
has been a significant 10% improvement in performance ratio
in June.
V. CONCLUSION
A 62-day performance analysis of the 5 kW photovoltaic
system is conducted. For the former 31 days, the panels were
left naturally dirty whereas regularly cleaned for the
remaining 31 days. May has a higher potential for solar
energy but the performance ratio is high for June as a result
of regular cleaning of panels. PV panels perceive rainfall as a
significant factor while analysing performance; although
cloudy days block the sun's insolation, rainfall cleans the
panels and reduces their temperature, leading to better output
on sunny days after rainfall. As a result of routinely cleaning
the panels, there was a considerable 10% improvement in
performance ratio in June. According to PVsyst analysis,
June's practical system energy was higher than May's, relative
to PVsyst energy and on one significant day, practical system
energy outperforms the PVsyst output. PVsyst software has
great potential in analysing PV systems and should be
explored further. The frequency of the PV panels cleaning is
also another important aspect for performance improvement
and thus can be included in future research.
h
h
ay
REFERENCES
[1] BP, “ tatistical evie of o ld ne y ,” London, UK,
[2] P. G. Kale, K. K. Singh and C. Seth, "Modeling Effect of Dust Particles
on Performance Parameters of the Solar PV Module," 2019 Fifth
International Conference on Electrical Energy Systems (ICEES), 2019,
pp. 1-5.
[3] N Alnase et al , “ om a ison bet een e fo mance of man-made
and natu ally cleaned PV anels in a middle of a dese t,” ene
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82, pp. 1048–1055, 2018.
[4] Z. Abderrezzaq, M. Mohammed, N. Ammar, S. Nordine, D. Rachid
and B. Ahmed, "Impact of dust accumulation on PV panel performance
in the Saharan region," 2017 18th International Conference on Sciences
and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering
(STA), 2017, pp. 471-475
[5] E. M. Gnedi and I. M. Saleh, "Evaluating the Performance of Different
PV Modules Technology Due to Dust Accumulation in Tripoli
Region," 2021 IEEE 1st International Maghreb Meeting of the
Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and
Computer Engineering MI-STA, 2021, pp. 559-564.
[6] A lias, esali, N uda, and B amli, “ ffects of
coal and fly ash dust deposition of photovoltaic panel performance: A
photovoltaic system at coal-fi ed o e lant case study,” Phys
Conf. Ser., vol. 1358, no. 1, pp. 012038, 2019.
[7] N. Sakarapunthip, D. Chenvidhya, S. Chuangchote and T. Chenvidhya,
"Dust Accumulation and Its Effect on PV Performance in Tropical
Climate and Rice Farm Environment," 2021 IEEE 48th Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2021, pp. 1848-1854
[8] A Hussain, A Bat a, and Pachau i, “An ex e imental study on
effect of dust on o e loss in sola hotovoltaic module,”
Renewables, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2017.
[9] And ea, T Po ebnaya, and B Kichon e, “ ffect of indust ial dust
deposition on photovoltaic module performance: Experimental
measu ements in the t o ical e ion,” Int j hotoene y, vol ,
1–10, 2019
[10] IEC TS 61724-3, "Photovoltaic system performance – Part 3: Energy
evaluation method," Edition 1.0, 2016-07
[11] IEC TS 61724-2, "Photovoltaic system performance – Part 2: Capacity
evaluation method," Edition 1.0, 2016-07
[12] K. P. Satsangi, G. S. Sailesh Babu, D. B. Das and A. K. Saxena,
"Performance Evaluation of Grid Interactive Photovoltaic System,"
2018 International Conference on Computing, Power and
Communication Technologies (GUCON), 2018, pp. 691-695
[13] M. Adar, Z. Khaouch, M. Mabrouki, A. Benouna and A. Chebak,
"Performance Analysis of PV Grid-Connected in Fours Special Months
of the Year," 2017 International Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Conference (IRSEC), 2017, pp. 1-5.
[14] A Khalid, I it a, a muth, ad V chacht, “Pe fo mance atio
– ucial a amete fo id connected PV lants,” ene ustain
Energy Rev., vol. 65, pp. 1139–1158, 2016.
[15] Performance Monitoring Guidelines for Photovoltaic Systems.
PERFORMANCE project funded by the European Commission 6th
Framework Programme, Contract no: SES-019718.
[16] Performance Ratio-Quality Factor for the PV plants-SMA, Web. 22 Jan
2015
[17] H. S. Huang, J. C. Jao, K. L. Yen and C. T. Tsai, "Performance and
Availability Analyses of PV Generation Systems in Taiwan,"
Interantional Journal of Electrical, Computer, Energetic, Electronic and
Communication Engineering, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 731-735, 2011.
[18] J Leloux, L Na va te, and T ebosc, “ eview of the performance
of esidential PV systems in Bel ium,” ene ustain ne y ev ,
vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 178–184, 2012.
[19] ilosavljević, T Pavlović, and Pi šl, “Pe fo mance
analysis of A grid-connected sola PV lant in Niš, e ublic of e bia,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 44, pp. 423–435, 2015.
[20] P. Yadav, N. Kumar and S. S. Chandel, "Simulation and performance
analysis of a 1kWp photovoltaic system using PVsyst," 2015
International Conference on Computation of Power, Energy,
Information and Communication (ICCPEIC), 2015, pp. 0358-0363.
[21] A. Soualmia and R. Chenni, "Modeling and simulation of 15MW grid-
connected photovoltaic system using PVsyst software," 2016
International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC),
2016, pp. 702-705.
[22] M. Satish, S. Santhosh and A. Yadav, "Simulation of a Dubai based
200 KW power plant using PVsyst Software," 2020 7th International
Conference on Signal Processing and Integrated Networks (SPIN),
2020, pp. 824-827.