Clean Energy, 2022, 6, 165–177

https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkac001
Advance access publication 19 February 2022
Research article

Research Article
Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline
silicon solar photovoltaic modules under tropical wet and
dry climatic conditions in east-central India
Niranjan Singh Baghel1, and Nikhil Chander1,*

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Indian Institute of Technology Bhilai, GEC Campus, Sejbahar, Raipur-492015, Chhattisgarh, India
1

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
This work focuses on the performance comparison of monocrystalline and polycrystalline Si solar photovoltaic (SPV) modules under
tropical wet and dry climatic conditions in east-central India (21.16° N 81.65° E, Raipur, Chhattisgarh). This study would help to select
the SPV module for system installation in the east-central part of the country. For comparative analysis, we used performance ratio
(PR) and efficiency as figures of merit. The plane-of-array (POA) irradiance was used to determine the efficiency of the modules. The
decomposition and transposition models calculated the POA values from the measured global horizontal irradiance. The data were
analysed systematically for 6 months in the non-rainy season, from October 2020 to March 2021. Special attention was given to solar
irradiance, ambient temperature and module temperature—the parameters that affect the performance of PV modules. The month
of October showed the highest variation in irradiance and temperature. The highest average module temperatures (51–52°C) were ob-
served in October–November, while the lowest average module temperatures (34°C for mono-Si and 36°C for poly-Si) were observed
in December. The highest value of average monthly POA irradiance (568 W/m2) was observed in February and the lowest (483 W/m2)
in December. The results showed that the monocrystalline SPV module performed better than the polycrystalline module under all
weather conditions. The maximum observed values of mono-Si and poly-Si panel PRs were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively, in December.
Thermal losses were higher with higher module temperatures in October and November, and lower in December due to lower tem-
peratures. The energy yield was calculated from the measured data and compared with PVSyst simulations.

Graphical Abstract

Performance comparison of mono and poly-crystalline silicon solar photovoltaic

modules under tropical wet and dry climatic conditions in East-Central India

SPV Technologies Parameters that affect Energy generation

the performance
Wide range of SPV Which technology is more
technologies are available Solar irradiance efficient and feasible
in the market. under various weather
Ambient temperature
Study is required about conditions.
Module temperature
their performance. Location wise study is
Rain and wind speed
Their behaviour varies required to understand
Soiling and shading the behaviour of SPV
according to outdoor
conditions. systems.

Keywords: solar photovoltaic performance; climatic conditions; global horizontal irradiance; plane-of-array

Received: 25 September 2021. Accepted: 5 January 2022

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For
commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]
166 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

Introduction and environmental conditions also affect the performance of

the SPV system. We can achieve a net-zero energy balance for
Today, electricity is the main form of energy used to run human
a household by using SPV energy integration and reducing CO2
life as well as to drive almost all business sectors. Due to rapid
emissions [14–16]. The present work discusses the performance
industrialization and urbanization, the demand for electricity
of monocrystalline and polycrystalline Si solar PV modules in
is increasing continuously, which leads to overuse of conven-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, which is located in the east-central part of
tional energy sources. Overuse of conventional energy sources
India. There is no study related to the SPV field in these areas and
is starting to pose issues like global warming. So, we need other
location-specific research is required to get a realistic assessment
energy sources that are free from global warming [1]. Limited
of the energy-producing potential of any SPV installation. So, the
availability of conventional energy sources, like petroleum, in
study aims to analyse the behaviour of commercially available Si
fast-growing economies such as India is another factor that is
SPV modules under the weather conditions of Raipur.
shifting the focus from conventional energy sources to renewable
energy sources [2]. India is blessed with various types of renew-
able energy sources. One of the primary considerations to go with 1 Materials and methods
renewable energy sources is climatic change [3]. Solar energy is
The experimental set-up is located in the campus of IIT Bhilai,
a major renewable energy source that reduces the use of con-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

which is presently functioning from the premises of GEC
ventional energy sources and its potential is the highest in India.
Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Raipur (21.25° N, 81.63° E) is the capital
The growth of the solar photovoltaic (SPV) industry is very fast
of Chhattisgarh, with a population of >1 million. It is located
in India and a growing number of SPV technologies hold a large
near the centre of a large plain and experiences a tropical wet
market share. But each technology has its drawbacks, which be-
and dry climate. The modules are located on the rooftop of an
come evident when tested under different climatic conditions.
academic building ~15 metres above the ground. Two different
There are many factors that affect the performance of SPV panels
SPV modules, made of monocrystalline silicon and polycrys-
and systems. These are solar radiation, weather conditions, ambi-
talline silicon, have been installed at a fixed-tilt angle of 21°
ent temperature, cell temperature, wind speed, humidity, orienta-
(approximately the same as the latitude angle) facing south in
tion and tilt angle. They either directly or indirectly affect the SPV
direction. The characteristics of the SPV modules under stand-
panel performance [4, 5]. Here, solar radiation is the parameter
ard testing conditions (STC), corresponding to a 25°C module
most directly correlated with the output power of SPV modules
temperature at 1000 W/m2 irradiance, are specified in Table
or systems. Some other factors like shading, soiling, reflection
1. A PV current–voltage (I–V) curve tracer (MECO-9009) with
and spectral losses also affect the SPV performance. Due to shad-
an I–V tracer channel selector (2 IN–1 OUT) is connected to
ing and soiling, some other effects come into the picture, such
modules to measure the I–V curves every 12 minutes (0.2 h).
as hotspot formation and cell/module mismatch [6–8]. They all
A pyranometer (EKO MS-40) is used to measure the global hori-
affect the output and efficiency of PV modules and systems.
zontal irradiance (GHI). We have installed sensors to meas-
Incident irradiation on SPV panels generated electricity as well as
ure the ambient temperature (DHT22 sensor installed in data
heat. Temperature is one of the main parameters that affect the
logger) and the back-side temperature of the modules (LM-35
performance of SPV panels. The module temperature is normally
sensor) as shown in Fig. 1.
20–30°C higher than the ambient temperature because there is
The pyranometer used in the present work was received in
no heat dissipation from encapsulated cells [9, 10].
early 2020 with a calibration certificate. The manufacturer has
A wide range of geographical features are seen in India and cli-
certified that recalibration is not needed before 2 years of oper-
matic conditions also vary significantly in different regions. Most
ation. The I–V tracer also has a calibration certificate. The instru-
regions of India experience hot and dry, warm and humid, and
ments need to be in proper working condition to minimize errors
composite types of climates. Different SPV technologies behave
in the measurements. The instruments and sensors used in the
differently under these climates and influence the performance
present work were taken from fresh stock, as they were to be used
of modules and systems performance. Previous research has in-
for long-term studies.
dicated that different SPV technologies have unlike patterns of
For performance analysis, the following parameters are required:
behaviour for specific climatic conditions. Aoun et al. (2019) ana-
lysed the performance of a monocrystalline SPV panel in a harsh
(i) daily solar irradiance (GHI and POA irradiance);
environment. They showed that the average monthly generation
(ii) I–V and P–V curves of modules;
during the cold months was greater than during the hot months
(iii) temperature of PV modules and ambient temperature.
[11]. Tihane et al. (2020) showed that the polycrystalline technol-
ogy performed better than monocrystalline under Agadir climatic
conditions in Morocco. They also showed that the performance
ratios (PRs) for monocrystalline and polycrystalline PV mod-
Table 1: Specifications of the modules under STC used in the
ules were 0.71 and 0.75, respectively [12]. Elibol et al. (2017) in- present work
vestigated PRs and module efficiency in Duzce Province (Turkey).
Specification Mono-Si Poly-Si
The experimental results show that the PRs were 73%, 81% and
91% for amorphous silicon, polycrystalline and monocrystalline Efficiency 19.33% 17.27%
panels, respectively [13]. In view of these studies, it becomes ap- Power output 375 W 330 W
parent that a given PV technology needs to be tested under actual VOC 48.7 V 46.3 V
working conditions. The all-India survey conducted in 2018 did
ISC 9.94 A 9.24 A
not study PV installations in the east-central part of the coun-
Vm 40.1 V 38.0 V
try [4]. SPV efficiency declines for higher operating temperat-
Im 9.36 A 8.70 A
ures, especially under hot-climatic conditions. We can enhance
Temperature coefficient of power –0.39%/°C –0.38%/°C
energy generation by SPV modules with lower cell temperatures,
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 167

Pyranometer

Poly-Si
PV panel Mono-Si
PV panel

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

Back-side of PV panel with
temperature sensor I-V Tracer

Ambient temperature (°C)

Global irradiance (W/m2)

Panel temperature cable

LCD Monitor
Poly-Si Mono-Si Data
PV panel PV panel logger
Server
Channel PC
I-V
selector
Tracer

Power cable

Fig. 1: Overview of the photovoltaic module test set-up.

Solar radiation received at a location on the surface of Earth is This instrument gives us VOC, Vmax, ISC, Imax, I–V and P–V curves. By
categorized as global, diffuse and beam irradiation. But here we using these data, we analyse the behaviour of SPV modules under
have measured only the global irradiance, which is also known various climatic conditions.
as GHI. The pyranometer is used to measure the GHI on a daily The temperatures of the modules are measured by using
basis and which is installed on a horizontal surface. For calcu- LM35 sensors. Sensors are attached to the back side of modules,
lating the plane-of-array (POA) irradiance received on the sur- as shown in Fig. 1. Ambient temperature is measured by using
face of tilted modules, we have used a transposition model. GHI a DHT22 sensor, which is attached to the data logger, as shown
is the sum of the diffuse and beam (direct) irradiance. Here, GHI in Fig. 1. These data are taken every 20 seconds on a daily basis.
is recorded every 20 seconds daily. GHI values are saved in an A custom-made data logger saves daily values in an Excel spread-
Excel spreadsheet. Then the daily average and monthly average sheet. Then the daily average and monthly average values of vari-
GHI values are calculated. The POA can be measured directly by ous parameters such as GHI and temperature can be calculated
using a pyranometer that is mounted in the same orientation as and plotted.
the modules. But in this article, we have estimated the POA ir- The energy generated by an SPV module is an important
radiance from measured GHI, as only one pyranometer was avail- benchmark of its productivity. The energy yield of an SPV mod-
able. Once the GHI data have been collected, the next step is to ule has been calculated based on the outdoor measurements
calculate the POA irradiance. This estimation involves two steps: performed under various climatic conditions during the period
(i) decomposition of the GHI into direct and diffuse horizontal of October 2020 to March 2021. The energy generation of the SPV
components; and (ii) transposition of direct and diffuse horizon- module is the integrated sum of the maximum power (Pmax) val-
tal irradiance to POA irradiance. The POA was estimated by using ues of the SPV module, which are recorded in time steps τ (taken
the Maxwell Direct Insolation Simulation Code Model (DISC) and as 12 minutes).
Sandia Model (PV Performance Modeling Collaborative-PVPMC of The energy of an SPV module can also be calculated based on
Sandia National Laboratories) [17–19]. the Equivalent Hours of Full Sunlight (EHFS), which is also known
I–V and P–V curves have been recorded by using an I–V curve as the peak Sun hours. It is defined as the number of equivalent
tracer (MECO-9009), which is also known as a PV analyser. It is hours receiving 1000 W/m2 of irradiance, which can be described
used to vary the load and then measure the current and voltage. for a particular day. For the EHFS calculation (by using the GHI),
168 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

we define the per-day average GHI value, then multiply it by the where xi is the considered parameter (temperature, irradiance,
day length and divide by 1000 W/m2. The same thing is done for power, energy, efficiency, PR) and n is the number of data items
a month and the average value is taken. In this way, we can esti- considered. We have also used the median in some plots. Suppose
mate the monthly average values for any month of the year. Now, the n observations are arranged in ascending order. In that case,
the output energy of the SPV module is the module-rated power the median is the middle item if the number of observations is
(Wp) multiplied by the EHFS (Wp × EHFS). GHI, POA irradiance, odd and is the mean of two middle items if the number of obser-
module and ambient temperatures have been measured or esti- vations is even.
mated from morning (7 AM) to evening (5 PM). The energy yield,
efficiency and PR are calculated from morning (8 AM) to evening
(4 PM). This is done because the I–V/P–V data of the modules were 2 Result and discussion
recorded only between 8 AM and 4 PM due to the limited memory 2.1 Solar Irradiance
of the I–V tracer. Modules were cleaned on alternate days. Fig. 2 shows the comparison between the daily average measured
For comparative analysis, we also calculated the energy using GHI and the daily average estimated POA values. As seen from
PVSyst software (version: 7.2). This software is mainly used by the figure, the POA irradiance values are consistently higher than
architects, engineers and researchers to study and simulate SPV the measured GHI values during the experimental duration from
systems. For our study, we selected the location, set proper orien-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

October 2020 to March 2021. From 21 September to 21 March, the
tation according to our site and selected SPV modules with similar Sun is in the southern hemisphere as observed from Earth. So,
specifications as used for outdoor experiments from its database the module orientation (21° with respect to horizontal and facing
and simulated them. The simulation results give the total en- south) ensures that the in-plane radiation is more than that re-
ergy production, which is compared with outdoor experimental ceived on a horizontal surface. The difference in the POA and GHI
analysis [20]. values are insignificant when the irradiance values are low. Also,
under cloudy conditions, the beam radiation is low and conse-
1.1 Statistical evaluation quently the difference in the GHI and POA values becomes neg-
The collected data are summarized by using statistical analysis. ligible. The maximum difference between the values is obtained
During analysis, we have calculated the mean (average), standard on sunny days. When the sky is clear, the beam radiation on a
deviation and standard error of the mean (SEM) [21]. These are tilted surface is higher compared to on a horizontal surface. That
used in all types of statistical studies, as shown in the following: is why the sunny days show the maximum difference between
 the GHI and POA irradiance values.
xi
(1) Mean (x̄) = In general, the peaks observed in the figure correspond to sunny
n
days with relatively high irradiance and the valleys correspond to
n 2 cloudy or rainy days with relatively low irradiance. The months
(2) i=1 (xi − x̄)
SD = of October and March show relatively lower variations in meas-
n−1
ured GHI and estimated POA values compared to other months.
SD As mentioned above, the difference in beam radiation received
(3)
SEM = √
n on a horizontal surface and a tilted surface is higher on sunny

700 GHI
POA

600
Solar irradiance (W/m2)

500

400

300

200

OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21

Month

Fig. 2: Comparison between POA irradiance estimated using the transposition model and GHI recorded using the pyranometer.
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 169

days. And this difference is even more discernible on sunny days fact that the winter solstice occurs in December and the eleva-
in winter months of December, January and February because the tion of the Sun in the sky is not as high as in other months of the
maximum solar elevation angle is relatively low in these months. year. For our location, the lowest value of solar elevation angle
For the location in IIT Bhilai at which the panels are installed, the is 45.4°, which occurs on 22 December. October 2020 showed the
height of the Sun at 12 noon was 59.8° on 15 October 2020, 45.6° maximum variation in GHI values. It showed a highest GHI value
on 15 December 2020, 48° on 15 January 2021 and 67.1° on 15 of 1100 W/m2, but the average value was lower than the values
March 2021. These data were obtained from PVSyst and show that obtained in November 2020, February 2021 and March 2021. This
due to the lower solar elevation angle in the winter months, the happened because the month of October 2020 had several cloudy
difference in measured GHI and estimated POA values is higher days in addition to several sunny days. So, a significant difference
compared to that in October and March, which have a higher ele- in the maximum and minimum values was obtained. A simi-
vation angle. lar observation can be made for the month of November 2020.
Fig. 3 shows the daily maximum and minimum values of The highest monthly average POA was observed in the month of
the GHI and the POA irradiance values. The monthly peak GHI February, closely followed by March, as shown in Fig. 5. Unlike
solar irradiance ranges from 847 to 1100 W/m² and the monthly the GHI graph, the POA graph shows that the month of February
peak POA solar irradiance ranges from 1007 to 1204 W/m². The has a slightly higher average value of POA irradiance than March.
monthly minimum GHI solar radiation ranges from ~15 to 31 W/ Due to the south-facing PV module placed at an angle of 21° with

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

m² and the monthly minimum POA solar irradiance ranges from respect to ground, the tilted surface gets higher beam irradiance
15 to 36 W/m². These values were taken from morning (7 AM) to and hence the overall POA irradiance increases.
evening (5 PM), but for PV applications generally, irradiance val-
ues of <100 W/m2 are not considered. As discussed above, for low 2.2 Ambient temperature and module
values and for cloudy days, the GHI and POA irradiance values do temperature
not show significant differences. The ambient temperature is an important factor for analysing the
Figs 4 and 5 show the monthly average GHI and POA irradi- performance of SPV modules. Fig. 6 shows the monthly profile of
ance, respectively (white triangles). The monthly average GHI val- ambient temperature at the location of IIT Bhilai. Fig. 6 shows
ues range from ~425 to 531 W/m² and the monthly average POA that high ambient temperatures are observed in the month of
irradiance ranges from 472 to 568 W/m². In the box and whisker March 2021. The average monthly ambient temperature ranges
plot shown below, the upper line shows the maximum value and from ~26°C to 33°C (white triangles). The maximum tempera-
the lower line shows the minimum value of our data set. The mid- ture recorded in a single day was 40°C, which was recorded in
dle line (red colour) shows the median of our data set and the the month of March. As can be seen, the minimum ambient tem-
white triangle shows the average value of our data set. perature was 19°C recorded in February 2021. The measurements
It can be clearly observed from the graph that out of the of temperature were performed between 7 AM and 5 PM daily.
6 months studied in the present work, March is the month with February shows the highest variation in maximum and minimum
the highest amount of received GHI. The average and median temperatures.
values for March are higher than the corresponding values for The module temperature depends on the ambient tempera-
other months. On average, December and January receive lower ture and the solar irradiance. STC, corresponding to a 25°C mod-
radiation compared to the other four months. It is because of the ule temperature at 1000 W/m2 of irradiance, are not observed in

1200 Min GHI

Min POA
Max GHI
Max POA
1000
Solar irradiance (W/m2)

800

600

400

200

0
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 3: Graph showing maximum and minimum values of POA estimated using the transposition model and GHI recorded using the pyranometer.
170 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

1000

Solar irradiance (W/m 2)

800

600

400

200

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

0
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 4: Monthly global horizontal irradiance (GHI) profile. In the box and whisker plot, the upper line shows the maximum value and the lower line
shows the minimum value of the data set. The middle line (red colour) shows the median of the data set and the white triangle shows the average
value of the data set.

1200

1000
Solar irradiance (W/m2)

800

600

400

200

0
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 5: Monthly plane-of-array (POA) irradiance profile.

the outdoor experiment. The average monthly module tempera- temperature is higher than the ambient temperature. The mod-
ture ranges from 34°C to 52°C (white triangles) and the max- ule temperature also depends on the operating point, optical
imum module temperature recorded was 81°C for the mono-Si PV properties, packing density of the cells and shading effects. In the
module in October 2020. For the poly-Si PV module, the average winter season (December, January and February), the tempera-
monthly module temperature ranges from 37°C to 52°C (white ture of the panel was lower than the ambient temperature in the
triangles) and the maximum module temperature recorded was morning time. With increased solar radiation, the temperature of
79°C in October 2020. SPV module temperatures can be lower or the panel increased and went higher than the ambient tempera-
higher than the ambient temperature, which is dependent on the ture. We have observed that the monthly average temperature of
climate condition and irradiance, and can be observed by analys- the panel increases gradually with the monthly solar irradiance.
ing Figs 5–8. The effect of temperature on SPV panel behaviour can be
As we know, incident radiation on the panel surface generates understood by the temperature coefficient of power of the
electricity as well as heat. Normally, commercial panels can con- panels. A large temperature coefficient decreases the perform-
vert 15–20% of the incoming irradiation into electricity and the ance of the SPV panel. Here, thermal losses have been evaluated
remaining part simply causes lattice vibration in the material (Si) by multiplication of the temperature coefficient by the tempera-
and generates heat. The generated heat does not dissipate prop- ture difference between the panel temperature and the panel
erly from encapsulated solar cells. Therefore, the module or cell tested temperature (25°C) [22]. The temperature coefficient
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 171

45

40

Ambient temperature (°C)

35

30

25

20

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 6: Ambient temperature variation from October 2020 to March 2021.

80

70
Mono-Si PV panel temperature (°C)

60

50

40

30

20

10
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 7: Mono-Si PV panel temperature variation from October 2020 to March 2021.

is –0.39% per degree Celsius for the mono-Si PV panel and PV modules, we see from Figs 9, 13, 14 and 15 and Table 2
–0.38% per degree Celsius for the poly-Si PV panel given by the that the PR and energy generation were lower in October and
manufacturer, as shown in Table 1. The average monthly ther- November 2020 compared to other months. It shows that
mal losses of different PV panels are shown in Fig. 9. The figure higher module temperatures increase the thermal losses and
shows that lower thermal losses were observed in December decrease the performance of modules.
and significantly higher losses were seen during October and
November. 2.3 Performance analysis
When we compare Figs 7, 8 and 9, then we can clearly Power output, efficiency, energy generation and PR are the main
say that thermal losses are higher with higher module tem- parameters to analyse the performance of modules, systems and
peratures in October and November and lower in December. plants. The solar irradiance is the main environmental factor that
Thermal losses increase gradually from December 2020 affects the performance of the SPV modules. For comparing the
to March 2021 according to the increase in the tempera- performance of the modules, we have used the output power under
ture of the modules. We also observed that the tempera- different irradiance and temperature conditions. Fig. 10 and 11
ture rise of the poly-Si PV panel is higher compared to that show the output of SPV modules with respect to incident irradi-
of the mono-Si PV panel. Hence, thermal loss is higher for ance. We can clearly observe that the output power of each module
the poly-Si panel. When we compare the performance of the (mono- and poly-Si) increases with increasing the solar irradiance.
172 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

80

70

Poly-Si PV panel temperature (°C)

60

50

40

30

20

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

10
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21 MAR 21
Month

Fig. 8: Poly-Si PV panel temperature variation from October 2020 to March 2021.

–2

–4
Thermal losses (%)

–6

–8

–10

–12
mono-Si Pv panel
Poly-Si PV panel
–14
OCT-20 NOV-20 DEC-20 JAN-21 FEB-21 MAR-21
Month

Fig. 9: Thermal losses as a percentage for monthly power production of PV panels. Error bar shows the SEM value.

Table 2: Monthly per-day average energy output of PV modules during the studied period (October 2020 to February 2021)

Month EHFS Mono-Si (kWh) Poly-Si (kWh)

(hour) Simulated energy (PVSyst) EHFS energy Measured energy Simulated energy(PVSyst) EHFS energy Measured energy

Oct. 2020 4.34 1.64 1.63 1.19 1.43 1.43 1.03

Nov. 2020 4.62 1.70 1.73 1.34 1.48 1.52 1.15
Dec. 2020 4.17 1.70 1.56 1.38 1.47 1.38 1.18
Jan. 2021 4.46 1.68 1.67 1.46 1.46 1.47 1.24
Feb. 2021 5.36 1.69 2.01 1.65 1.64 1.77 1.42

As expected, the power output of both the modules in low irradi- Fig. 12 shows the variation in module efficiency as a function
ance is not significant but under high irradiance, modules deliver of irradiance. It is the most important parameter that shows
higher power. energy-conversion efficiency. As an energy-conversion system,
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 173

1.0
Mono-Si PV panel

0.8

0.6
Pmax /PSTC

0.4

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Solar irradiance (W/m2)
P 
Fig. 10: Normalized output power max
PSTC versus irradiance (W/m²) for mono-Si PV panel.

1.0
Poly-Si PV panel

0.8

0.6
Pmax /PSTC

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Solar irradiance (W/m2)
P 
Fig. 11: Normalized output power max
PSTC versus irradiance (W/m²) for poly-Si PV panel.

the efficiency of a module is denoted as the ratio of the power than the STC value. Under low irradiance, the module efficiencies
output to the power input [11, 23, 24]: are low, but for high irradiance values, the module efficiencies are
higher. The mono-Si PV module is more efficient than the poly-Si
Pm
(4)
η= module under all irradiance conditions (Fig. 12), although the dif-
POA∗A
ference is not significant for low-irradiance conditions.
We can observe that the efficiencies are much lower than the STC PR is the most important and commonly used parameter for
values even when the irradiance value is close to 1000 W/m2. It hap- analysing the performance of different SPV technologies. It is the
pens because the ambient and cell temperatures are much higher ratio of the actual and theoretical energy output values of a PV
174 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

30
Mono-Si PV panel
poly-Si PV panel
25

20
Efficiency (η%)

15

10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000

Irradiance (W/m2)

Fig. 12: Efficiency versus irradiance curves for mono- and poly-Si modules.

1.2
Mono-Si PV panel
Poly-Si PV panel
1.1

1.0

0.9
PR

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
OCT 20 NOV 20 DEC 20 JAN 21 FEB 21
Month

Fig. 13: Performance ratio as a function of time for SPV modules installed at Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.

module or system. It describes the performance of a SPV module/ Figs 13 and 14 show the daily average PRs and monthly aver-
system during a particular time period. It is expressed by the fol- age PRs of mono-Si and poly-Si PV panels from October 2020 to
lowing equation according to the IEC 61724 standard [11, 25, 26]: February 2021. From the figures, it can be inferred that the win-
ter month of December showed the highest PR values for both
E × GSTC
PR = dc ´ tn
(5) types of modules. The overall PR was 0.89 and 0.86 for mono-Si
PSTC to G dt
and poly-Si modules, respectively. In general, the winter period,
where Edc is the energy produced by the SPV module, GSTC is the extending from late November to mid-February, had many days
solar irradiance under STC, PSTC is the nominal power under STC on which the PR values were >0.9. Throughout the studied time
and G is the time-varying incident solar irradiance during time period, there are some days on which there is no significant vari-
period to to tn. ation between the PR of the mono-Si PV panel and the poly-Si
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 175

1.0
mono-Si PV panel
poly-Si PV panel

0.8

Performance ratio (PR) 0.6

0.4

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

0.2

0.0
OCT-20 NOV-20 DEC-20 JAN-21 FEB-21
Month

Fig. 14: Monthly average performance ratios of mono-Si and poly-Si PV modules.

Simulated energy (mono)

2.5 EHFS energy (mono)
Measured energy (mono)
Monthly per day average energy generation in kWh

Simulated energy (poly)

EHFS energy (poly)
2.0 Measured energy (poly)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
OCT-20 NOV-20 DEC-20 JAN-21 FEB-21
Month

Fig. 15: Monthly per-day average energy generation (in kWh) of mono- and poly-Si PV modules.

PV panel because these days were cloudy and we know that in experimental duration (October 2020 to February 2021) to evalu-
low irradiance, the difference in efficiency of the modules is not ate their energy yield. The energy generated by the SPV module
significant. Based on the PR results, we can say that the mono- is the time-integrated sum of the maximum power (Pmax) values
crystalline Si PV module is more efficient than the polycrystalline of the SPV module, which are recorded in time steps τ (taken as
Si PV module under different weather conditions in the studied 12 minutes). The energy of the SPV module is calculated by the
location in east-central India. following equation [25, 27]:

2.4 Specific yield (6) Edc = τ Pmax
τ
The output energy of the PV modules is another important in-
EHFS has been used to calculate the energy of the SPV module by
dicator of the performance of the modules. It is the most useful
the following equation [28].
and informative parameter from a user’s viewpoint. We have re-
corded the I–V/P–V curves of the modules regularly over the long (7)
Edc = Wp × EHFS
176 | Clean Energy, 2022, Vol. 6, No. 1

Specific yield (Y, in kWh/kWp) is also commonly used for com- However, for a user to make a more informed decision, the cost
parison purposes of the SPV system. It is defined as the total of PV modules should be taken into account. This cost analysis
produced direct-current (DC) energy Edc (kWh) over the rated in- is not the main objective of the present work, but some observa-
stalled capacity Po (kWp) [29]: tions can be made. The cost of the mono-Si module was ~1500
Rupees (USD 20) higher than that of the poly-Si module. So, a resi-
E
Y = dc
(8) dential or low-power user, say of ≤5 kW, can pay the extra amount
Po
and install mono-Si modules, and get his investment back within
Table 2 shows the monthly per-day average and monthly energy
a shorter time. For such small systems, the higher cost of mono-Si
generation of the mono-Si and poly-Si panels, which has been
modules may be justified. On the other hand, large-scale system
calculated by using different methods and also using PVSyst soft-
operators that utilize tens of thousands of modules may still pre-
ware for comparative analysis.
fer to go with poly-Si modules to lower the initial amount of re-
Fig. 15 shows the monthly per-day average energy generation of
quired capital.
the mono-Si and poly-Si PV panels from October 2020 to February
2021. We can observe that the measured energy generated by the
modules shows an increase as we go from October to February.
3 Conclusion
February shows the highest energy generation in the studied time

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

period. The energy-yield trend observed in Fig.15 is different from The performance comparison of poly-Si and mono-Si SPV mod-
the PR graphs shown earlier. A combination of irradiance and ules under the tropical wet and dry climatic conditions at Raipur
temperature conditions is responsible for this behaviour. As seen (IIT Bhilai) has been carried out. The purpose was to determine
from Figs 4 and 5, and Figs 7 and 8, the month of February 2021 which SPV module provided more efficiency and energy under
had a high value of average POA irradiance and relatively low various weather conditions. In the market, a wide range of SPV
average module temperature values. This favourable condition technologies are available and it is important to have information
led to a higher overall energy generation in February compared to about their performance under different climatic conditions. This
the other 4 months. The November average irradiance was more study will help to select the SPV module for system installation in
than the December average irradiance, but the energy generation the east-central part of the country.
was higher in December because of the lower ambient and mod- For calculating the efficiency of the modules, we first calcu-
ule temperature than in November (Table 2). lated the POA irradiance by using measured values of GHI. This
Table 2 and Fig. 15 clearly show that the energy calculated by estimation used decomposition (DISC) and transposition (Sandia)
software and using EHFS are not the same as the energy measured models. This estimate is necessary to calculate the efficiency and
actually in outdoor conditions. Software databases take long-term PR of the PV modules.
average values of irradiance, temperature and average daily sun- The power generation of both the panels is not significant
shine hours. These values may differ significantly from the long-term under low-irradiance conditions and differ by <1 percentage
average values when we study the PV performance for only a single point at a GHI value of 400 W/m2. However, the mono-Si PV mod-
year or season. So, energy generation depends on many factors such ule outperforms the poly-Si module under all conditions studied
as irradiation, temperature, weather conditions and geographical lo- in the present work. The mono-Si PV panel displayed more effi-
cation, and need to be measured in actual field conditions. ciency, a higher PR and a higher specific yield (Y) than the poly-Si
Here, it cannot be concluded that the mono-Si PV panel gener- PV panel in the geographical location of IIT Bhilai. So, mono-Si PV
ation is higher than poly-Si PV panel generation only because of panels may be preferred in east-central India. During the study,
the higher power rating of the mono-Si PV panel. As mentioned we observed that the maximum average ambient temperature
in the introduction section, Tihane et al. [12] found that poly- was recorded in the month of March, but the maximum average
Si panels had a higher value of PR than mono-Si panels under module temperature was observed in the month of November.
Moroccan conditions. Thermal losses are higher with higher module temperatures in
Using Equation 8 and Table 2, we can present the specific yield October and November, and lower in December due to low tem-
of panels for 5 months. For the mono-Si panel, the specific yield is peratures. Thermal losses increased gradually from December
calculated as 677.17, 690.24 and 563.55 kWh/kWp using the simu- 2020 to March 2021 according to the increase in temperature of
lation, EHFS and measured methods, respectively. For the poly-Si the modules. Thermal losses are higher for the poly-Si PV panel
panel, the specific yield is calculated as 683.27, 690.42 and 549.12 due to a higher temperature rise than the mono-Si PV panel.
kWh/kWp using the simulation, EHFS and measured methods, re- Energy generation was maximum in the month of February for
spectively. Here, the specific yield is higher for the poly-Si panel, both the panels and minimum in October. The mono-Si PV panel
resulting from the simulation and EHFS calculation. But the is more costly than the poly-Si PV panel. But the performance of
specific yield is higher for the mono-Si module, resulting from the mono-Si PV panel is better than that of the poly-Si PV panel.
outdoor measurement. So, the highest yield is produced by the So, residential and small system users can recover the extra in-
mono-Si panel under Raipur conditions. vestment in a few years and can get profit in terms of energy and
Therefore, it is essential to study different PV technologies money in the long run.
at a particular geographical site to make an informed decision.
Upon analysing Figs 13 and 14, we can clearly observe that the
mono-Si PV panel is more efficient than the poly-Si PV panel at
Acknowledgements
the geographical location of Raipur. So, the higher power rating of Financial support for the experimental set-up, received through
the mono-Si module combined with its higher efficiency leads to Department of Science and Technology, Government of India
a significantly improved performance than the poly-Si module. (grant number DST/INSPIRE/04/2015/003204) is thankfully ac-
After analysing all the results, we can conclude that the mono-Si knowledged. Authors thank Mr Arif Khan (Junior Technical
PV panel is more efficient and preferable than the poly-Si PV panel Superintendent) and Mr Shravan Kumar Singh (PhD scholar) for
under the climatic conditions of Raipur in east-central India. helping in the installation of the experimental set-up.
 Performance comparison of mono and polycrystalline silicon SPV modules | 177

Conflict of interest statement [14] Ali HM. Recent advancements in PV cooling and efficiency en-
hancement integrating phase change materials based systems:
None declared.
a comprehensive review. Sol Energy, 2020, 197:163–198. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2019.11.075.
[15] Usman M, Ali M, ur Rashid T, et al. Towards zero energy
References solar households: a model-based simulation and optimiza-
[1] Tripathi L, Mishra AK, Dubey AK, et al. Renewable energy: An tion analysis for a humid subtropical climate. Sustain Energy
overview on its contribution in current energy scenario of Technol Assessments, 2021, 48:101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2016, 60:226–233. https://doi. SETA.2021.101574.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.047. [16] Said Z, Ghodbane M, Tiwari AK, et al. 4E (Energy, Exergy, Economic,
[2] Khanzode P, Nigam S, Karthikeyan SP, et al. Indian power and Environment) examination of a small LFR solar water heater:
scenario—a road map to 2020. In: 2014 International Conference on an experimental and numerical study. Case Stud Therm Eng, 2021,
Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies, ICCPCT 2014, Nagercoil, 27:101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSITE.2021.101277.
India, 20-21 March 2014, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/ [17] Lave M, Hayes W, Pohl A, Hansen CW. Evaluation of global
ICCPCT.2014.7055032. horizontal irradiance to plane-of-array irradiance models at
[3] Dincer I. Energy and environmental impacts: present and fu- locations across the United States. IEEE J Photovoltaics, 2015,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/6/1/165/6532457 by guest on 20 April 2025

ture perspectives. Energy Sources, 1998, 20:427–453. https://doi. 5:597–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2015.2392938.
org/10.1080/00908319808970070. [18] Mousavi Maleki S, Hizam H, Gomes C. Estimation of hourly,
[4] Golive YR, Zachariah S, Dubey R, et al. Analysis of Field daily and monthly global solar radiation on inclined surfaces:
Degradation Rates Observed in All-India Survey of Photovoltaic models re-visited. Energies, 2017, 10:134. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Module Reliability 2018. IEEE J Photovoltaics, 2020, 10:560–567. en10010134.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2954777. [19] Myers DR Solar Radiation: Practical Modeling for Renewable Energy
[5] Magadley E, Kabha R, Yehia I. Outdoor comparison of two organic Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017.
photovoltaic panels: The effect of solar incidence angles and in- [20] PVSyst—Logiciel Photovoltaïque. https://www.pvsyst.com/ (27
cident irradiance. Renew Energy, 2021, 173:721–732. https://doi. November 2021, date last accessed).
org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.021. [21] Grewal BS. Higher Engineering Mathematics, 43rd edn. New Delhi:
[6] Bressan M, El Basri Y, Galeano AG, Alonso C. A shadow fault detec- Khanna Publishers, 2015.
tion method based on the standard error analysis of I-V curves. [22] Makrides G, Zinsser B, Georghiou GE, et al. Temperature
Renew Energy, 2016, 99:1181–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. behaviour of different photovoltaic systems installed in Cyprus
renene.2016.08.028. and Germany. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells, 2009, 93:1095–1099.
[7] Maghami MR, Hizam H, Gomes C, et al. Power loss due to soiling https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLMAT.2008.12.024.
on solar panel: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2016, 59:1307– [23] Andrea Y, Pogrebnaya T, Kichonge B. Effect of industrial dust
1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.044. deposition on photovoltaic module performance: experimental
[8] Tripathi AK, Murthy CSN. Effect of shading on PV panel technology. measurements in the tropical region. Int J Photoenergy, 2019,
In: 2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data 2019:1892148. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1892148
Analytics and Soft Computing (ICECDS), Chennai, India, 1-2 August [24] Gaglia AG, Lykoudis S, Argiriou AA, et al. Energy efficiency of
2017, 2075–2078. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECDS.2017.8389814. PV panels under real outdoor conditions: an experimental as-
[9] Oh J, Rammohan B, Pavgi A, et al. Reduction of PV module sessment in Athens, Greece. Renew Energy, 2017, 101:236–243.
temperature using thermally conductive backsheets. IEEE https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.08.051.
J Photovoltaics, 2018, 8:1160–1167. https://doi.org/10.1109/ [25] Adouane M, Al-Qattan A, Alabdulrazzaq B, Fakhraldeen A.
JPHOTOV.2018.2841511. Comparative performance evaluation of different photovoltaic
[10] Özden T, Tolgay D, Akinoglu BG. Daily and monthly module tem- modules technologies under Kuwait harsh climatic conditions.
perature variation for 9 different modules. In: 2018 International Energy Reports, 2020, 6:2689–2696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Conference on Photovoltaic Science and Technologies (PVCon), Ankara, egyr.2020.09.034.
Turkey, 4-6 July 2018, 4849–4854. https://doi.org/10.1109/ [26] Aste N, Del Pero C, Leonforte F. PV technologies performance
PVCon.2018.8523878 comparison in temperate climates. Sol Energy, 2014, 109:1–10.
[11] Aoun N, Bouchouicha K, Bailek N. Seasonal performance com- https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2014.08.015.
parison of four electrical models of monocrystalline PV module [27] Sharma V, Kumar A, Sastry OS, Chandel SS. Performance as-
operating in a harsh environment. IEEE J Photovoltaics, 2019, sessment of different solar photovoltaic technologies under
9:1057–1063. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2917272 similar outdoor conditions. Energy, 2013, 58:511–518. https://doi.
[12] Tihane A, Boulaid M, Elfanaoui A, et al. Performance analysis of org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2013.05.068.
mono and poly-crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules under [28] Mukerjee AK, Thakur N. Photovoltaic Systems: Analysis And Design.
Agadir climatic conditions in Morocco. Mater Today Proc, 2020, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd, 2014.
24:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.620 [29] Romero-Fiances I, Muñoz-Cerón E, Espinoza-Paredes R, et al.
[13] Elibol E, Özmen ÖT, Tutkun N, Köysal O. Outdoor performance Analysis of the performance of various PV module technologies
analysis of different PV panel types. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, in Peru. Energies, 2019, 12:186. https://doi.org/10.3390/
2017, 67:651–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.051 en12010186.