Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Assessment of PV modules shunt resistance dependence

on solar irradiance
Cristiano Saboia Ruschel a,⇑,1, Fabiano Perin Gasparin b,2, Eurides Ramos Costa a,1,
Arno Krenzinger a,1
a
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
b
Universidade Estadual do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Received 13 August 2015; received in revised form 2 March 2016; accepted 21 March 2016
Available online 18 April 2016

Communicated by: Associate Editor Arturo Morales-Acevedo

Abstract

Modeling and simulation of photovoltaic systems, further than aiding on the project design phase, can be used to emulate the system
performance in real time, therefore helping to identify any malfunction that may occur. Among the available performance models for
photovoltaic systems, the single diode model is preferred by many authors, since it combines relative simplicity and accuracy. Previous
works reported that this model has some limitations on describing the photovoltaic system I–V curves under low irradiances, indicating
that the variation of the shunt resistance parameter with the irradiance level can be adopted to minimize this drawback. This paper aims
to study the shunt resistance dependence on the irradiance level in order to evaluate some of the usual expressions proposed on the
literature. A large area pulsed solar simulator model PASAN SunSim 3C was used to acquire the I–V characteristics of several
photovoltaic modules of different brands and technologies under 20 distinct irradiance levels ranging from 75 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2.
The shunt resistance parameter was calculated as the inverse slope of the I–V curve in the short circuit region, and fitting equations were
derived for each photovoltaic technology. The results in general agreed with previous published works, showing the tendency of an
increase of the shunt resistance on lower irradiance levels. Some empirical models tested did not present satisfactory accuracy to
reproduce the experimental data. Although simpler, an inverse dependence of the shunt resistance on the irradiance using the measured
value at STC as a reference was seen to describe adequately the experimental data. A preliminary study showed that the inclusion of this
dependence on the single-diode model indeed increases the model accuracy, reducing the average error on the performed tests by more
than half comparing to the original model.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Photovoltaic module; Single-diode model; Shunt resistance

1. Introduction

⇑ Corresponding author. The development of accurate simulation tools for

E-mail addresses: cristianosaboia@gmail.com (C.S. Ruschel), gasparin.
fabiano@gmail.com (F.P. Gasparin), didircosta@gmail.com (E.R. Costa),
arno.krenzinger@ufrgs.br (A. Krenzinger).
1
Address: LABSOL - Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500 – Prédio 42712, Porto
Alegre, RS CEP 91509-910, Brazil.
2
Address: Av. Bento Gonçalves, 8855, Bairro Agronomia, Porto
Alegre, RS CEP 91540-000, Brazil.
photovoltaic (PV) systems is a crucial issue not only for
project and performance prediction but also for plant oper-
ation supervision. An unreliable prediction model may
cause financial losses if the energy to be produced by the
system is overestimated, discouraging future investments
on PV projects. Using an overly cautious estimation to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.047
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
36 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
avoid this problem is not a reasonable alternative either,
since it may lead to a false conclusion that the system is
not economically viable. The use of simulation as a tool
to supervise photovoltaic systems can be of major assis-
tance, since it may indicate when a device is not working
correctly by comparing the actual operating conditions
with the simulated ones. Evidently, an adequate accuracy
is required on these cases; otherwise it would not be possible
to properly identify a system malfunction.
The characteristic I–V curve, and therefore the power
produced by a photovoltaic system, is highly dependent
on the environmental conditions, namely the temperature
and the solar irradiance. Several models are available to
forecast the operation of photovoltaic systems. However,
on the definition of the parameters for many models a
problem arises: the data provided by the manufacturer
datasheet usually contains only information at standard
test conditions (STC), or at best also for the NOCT
(nominal operating cell temperature). So, the knowledge
of the dependence of the I–V curve parameters on the
environmental conditions is necessary in order to establish
a model valid for every condition.
Among the alternatives for representing the electrical
characteristics of photovoltaic modules, the single diode
five-parameter model is one of the most commonly used.
Despite combining relative simplicity and accuracy,
previous works have shown that as a drawback this model
tends to fail on the description of I–V curves on lower
irradiance conditions (Ishaque et al., 2011). The variation
of the shunt resistance parameter with the irradiance can
be adopted to minimize this limitation. The aim of this
paper is to study the behavior of the shunt resistance with
the irradiance level for several photovoltaic modules, in
order to check the validity of some usual expressions and
propose viable alternatives based on experimental data.
2. Photovoltaic devices modeling
An ideal solar cell can be described, from the basic
theory of semiconductors, as a current source in parallel
with a diode. Representing the diode current with the
expression proposed by Shockley (1950), the characteristic
I–V curve of the ideal solar cell is given by Eq. (1).
   
qV cell
I ¼ I ph;cell  I 0;cell exp 1 ð1Þ
mkT
where Iph is the photogenerated current by the cell, I0 the
reverse saturation or leakage current, q is the electron
charge, V the applied voltage on the cell terminals, m the
diode ideality factor, k the Boltzmann constant and T the
absolute cell temperature.
Photovoltaic modules are assembled by connecting sev-
eral cells in series. When representing a module, Eq. (1) is
modified by adding one term representing the number of
cells in series, Ns, and by replacing the cell parameters by
the module ones, leading to Eq. (2).
   
qV
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1 ð2Þ
N s mkT
However, this ideal photovoltaic module equation has
little practical use, since photovoltaic modules with such
characteristics are impossible to build. For a better descrip-
tion of the I–V characteristic of PV modules, a series
resistance (Rs) is included. This component represents the
resistance of the materials which compose the module
and causes a reduction on the power converted by this
device, and the resulting current I is then described by
Eq. (3).
   
qðV þ IRs Þ
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1 ð3Þ
N s mkT
In addition to the parameters of the ideal cell, the series
resistance Rs must also be determined, increasing the
number of unknown parameters to four. This model is
known as the four-parameter model, and has been used for
several authors such as Xiao et al. (2004) and Chenni et al.
(2007), describing the behavior of PV devices adequately
for irradiance level of 1000 W/m2 under different tempera-
tures. On other studies though, this method was shown to
present a poor performance under certain conditions. Celik
and Acikgoz (2007) exhibit a comparison between measured
data for a sequence of five days, with two numerical
simulations, one using the four-parameter model and
another with a five-parameter model. The four-parameter
model was shown inadequate to describe the PV system
under some of the reported environmental conditions, with
the five-parameter model presenting a better agreement.
The main difference between the two aforementioned
models is the inclusion of the so-called shunt resistance
(Rsh), which is connected in parallel with the diode. The
complete circuit for the five-parameter model is presented
on Fig. 1.
The current I is therefore given by Eq. (4).
   
qðV þ IRs Þ V þ IRs
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1  ð4Þ
N s mkT Rsh
The shunt resistance accounts for alternative paths for
the free carriers produced by the solar radiation. A high
shunt resistance means that the vast majority of these
carriers generate power, whereas a low resistance indicates
large losses, affecting mainly the slope of the I–V curve on
the proximity of the short circuit region. Breitenstein et al.
(2004) attempts to reach a better understanding of the
Fig. 1. Five-parameter model circuit.
 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
nature of this shunt current by applying lock-in thermogra-
phy to investigate and classify different kinds of shunts.
The author states that the majority of the shunts are
process-induced, such as edge shunts, cracks, holes,
scratches or aluminum particles, rather than material-
induced shunts, these including crystal defects or inversion
layers due to SiC inclusions.
Although a more precise model for considering the
shunt resistance, the five-parameter model still has some
limitations, being reported to be less precise under low
irradiance conditions, especially on the vicinity of the open
circuit voltage (Ishaque et al., 2011). For that reason,
double-diode models are frequently used, but these have
the drawback of requiring the determination of additional
parameters, raising the complexity of the problem. There-
fore, an interesting approach to the problem is to improve
the single-diode model by studying the behavior of the
parameters under different conditions and then adding
adjustment equations for some of these parameters
appropriately.
3. Dependence of the parameters on irradiance and
temperature
According to the traditional approach for the five-
parameter model, the photocurrent Iph depends on the irra-
diance, I0 is affected by the temperature of the cell and m,
Rs and Rsh are constant. (Ciulla et al., 2014). The photo-
current is known to vary linearly with the irradiance and
the reverse saturation is frequently considered to change
with temperature following Eq. (5) (Townsend, 1989):
qeg
I 0 ðT Þ ¼ DT 3 eAkT ð5Þ
where D is the diode diffusion factor, approximately con-
stant, T the absolute cell temperature, A = cNs (for ideal
cells c is equal to 1) and eg the material energy band gap,
which is 1.12 eV for Silicon.
Some studies, such as De Soto (2004) suggest that the
series resistance has a dependence on the irradiance,
decreasing its value for lower irradiance levels, and even
assuming negative values for some of the operating condi-
tions. As a matter of fact, earlier works also indicate nega-
tive values for the series resistance on the five-parameter
model on low irradiance conditions (Chan et al., 1986).
Nevertheless, most authors do not consider these varia-
tions relevant, treating Rs as independent of the incident
irradiance and temperature and obtaining sufficient preci-
sion (de Blas et al., 2002; De Soto et al., 2006).
Previous works have also observed a dependence of the
shunt resistance on the irradiance. Bätzner et al. (2001)
measured the five characteristic parameters for three solar
cells from different technologies with irradiance ranging
from 0.1 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 and verified an increase of
the shunt resistance for lower irradiance levels in all cases.
Eikelboom and Reinders (1997) also tested a cell under
different irradiance levels and reached similar results,
37
although using the double diode model. This parameter
was also studied for photovoltaic modules exposed to
sunlight over the course of the day, and again the tendency
was of an increase of shunt resistance with the decrease of
irradiance levels.
Some recent models propose to consider these variations
on the shunt resistance with the irradiance. De Soto et al.
(2006) propose an inverse behavior of Rsh with respect to
the irradiance (G), described by Eq. (6), following observa-
tion based on experiments performed on the United States
National Institute of Standards and Technologies and on
an inference exposed by Schroeder (1998). However, the
latter only guarantees this approach as valid for very low
irradiance levels.
 
Gref
Rsh ¼ Rsh;ref ð6Þ
G
Other authors, such as Dongue et al. (2012) and Ma
et al. (2014) followed on the consideration of a variable
Rsh with the irradiance, describing it also with Eq. (6). A
study performed by Sandia National Laboratories (2015)
presents a comparison between the shunt resistance pre-
dicted with Eq. (6) and the one extracted from I–V curves
of several irradiance levels for a monocrystalline silicon
module. Although following the same tendency of increas-
ing Rsh for lower irradiances, the experimental data does
not match very closely the expected behavior for the tested
PV module.
Lo Brano et al. (2010) present a model with additional
parameters, which requires the measurement of the I–V
curve in different irradiance and temperature levels to be
obtained. Despite not explicitly defining an equation relat-
ing Rsh and G, this model results on an inverse dependence
of this resistance with the variation of G, similarly to the
De Soto et al. (2006) model.
Another procedure is suggested by the commercial soft-
ware PVsyst. This software is a well-known tool for design
and simulation of photovoltaic systems, which describes
the PV panel using the five parameter model presented
on Eq. (4). The shunt resistance is calculated by taking
the virtual Maximum Power Point conductance (IscImp)/
Vmp, corresponding to the absolute minimum value of
Rsh, and taking a given fraction of this quantity (PVsyst
SA, 2012). The model also includes an option to vary the
value of the shunt resistance with the irradiance, according
to the exponential presented on Eq. (7).
 
Rsh ¼ Rsh;ref þ Rsh ð0Þ  Rsh;ref :e5:5G=Gref ð7Þ
The constant Rsh(0) is suggested to assume the value of
12 times Rsh for amorphous silicon modules, and 4 times
Rsh for crystalline silicon panels. However, it is stated that
this equation is the result of few measurements, and there-
fore the software does not use it as default, leaving as an
option for the user.
Following these studies, several photovoltaic modules
of different brands and technologies were tested under
38 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

different irradiance levels in order to evaluate the validity Table 1

of Eqs. (6) and (7), and to help on the development of a LAPSS characteristics and IEC 60904-9 requirements for a class A solar
simulator.
more accurate single diode model. For that purpose, a
discussion of the extraction methods for the shunt Characteristic Class A solar LAPSS PASAN
simulator SunSim 3C
resistance is presented on the following section.
Non-uniformity 2% <1%
Temporal instability 2% <1%
4. Shunt resistance evaluation Spectral match ratio 0.75–1.25 0.875–1.125

A common method to assess the shunt resistance is by

using the Eq. (8), where the Rsh0 is the inverse of the slope
of the I–V curve at the short circuit region, as given by
Eq. (9), and Rs the series resistance (de Blas et al., 2002,
Lo Brano et al., 2010).
Rsh ¼ Rsh0  Rs
the international standard IEC 60904-9 (2007) and is rated
as AAA, even exceeding all standard requirements as
shown in Table 1.
Tests performed on site after installation of the solar
ð8Þ
 simulator have shown a spatial non-uniformity of 0.27%,
dV  therefore better than the nominal features. The flash
Rsh0 ¼   ð9Þ
dI I¼I sc
On the method proposed by Bouzidi et al. (2006), which
was also adopted on studies regarding the behavior of
photovoltaic cells on different conditions (Cheegar et al.,
2013; Cuce et al., 2013), although different coefficients are
used, the shunt resistance is ultimately calculated by Eq. (8).
However, the second term on Eq. (8) is often neglected
as it is usually much smaller than the first. The inverse of
the slope of the I–V curve at the short circuit region is con-
sidered to provide an accurate estimation for the shunt
resistance for the single-diode model, and this method,
Rsh = Rsh0, is preferred by several authors (Phang et al.,
1984; Hadj Arab et al., 2004). Furthermore, Chan et al.
(1986) compares different parameter extraction methods
and states that for the assessment of the shunt resistance,
Eq. (9) provides a better estimation than the use of curve
fitting methods.
Another approach for this problem is proposed by
Villalva et al. (2009), who applies an iterative process to
find the pair (Rs, Rsh) in which the calculated maximum
power coincides with the Pmp provided by the manufac-
turer. This strategy has the advantage of not requiring
the measurement of the characteristic curve, relying only
on data available on the PV module datasheet. Although
useful for practical applications, this method can only be
used for the extraction of parameters at the STC, since this
is the usual condition for which the manufacturer provides
data.
5. Measurement apparatus and procedure
The electrical characterization of the PV modules was
performed using a LAPSS (Large Area Pulsed Solar Simu-
lator), model PASAN SunSim 3C that is installed at the
facilities of Solar Energy Laboratory (LABSOL) at Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) – Brazil. The
PASAN SunSim 3C LAPSS has a 10 ms flash and an
illuminated area of 2 m  2 m for the device under test.
The electrical accuracy is at least 0.2% and the light
collimation is less than 15°. This LAPSS complies with
non-uniformity was tested by measuring the short circuit
current of a multicrystalline solar cell in 64 positions over
the device under test area.
The I–V curves were traced in 10 ms under a single volt-
age sweep varying from Isc to Voc, acquiring 418 I–V pairs.
The raw I–V curve is corrected to STC conditions
according to IEC 60891 (2009) by the LAPSS software.
The room temperature was maintained at 25 °C ± 1 °C,
and for each measurement the module temperature was
required to be stable between this range as well. A set of
six masks with attenuation ratios of 0.7, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2
and 0.1 was used to trace the I–V curves over a wide range
of irradiance levels. The I–V curves were traced with
irradiances varying from 1000 to 75 W/m2 with 50 W/m2
intervals. The measurements of 1000, 950, 900, 850, 800
and 750 W/m2 were performed without the use of attenua-
tion masks, only by regulating the flash intensity. The mea-
surements of 700, 650, 600 and 550 W/m2 were performed
with the mask with ratio of 0.7 and so on, until the 75 W/
m2 irradiance level, on which was employed the mask with
the attenuation ratio of 0.1. The lowest irradiance level was
75 W/m2 instead of 50 W/m2 due to technical limitations.
The LAPPS software gives several parameters from
each I–V curve, including short-circuit current, open circuit
voltage, maximum power, maximum power current, maxi-
mum power voltage and shunt resistance (Rsh). The method
for Rsh extraction on this work is the one based on the
direct use of Eq. (9), with Rsh = Rsh0, which gives suffi-
ciently precise results with relative simplicity. The Rsh value
is obtained from linear regression of the measured I–V
pairs ranging from 0 V to Vmp/2. This interval was seen
to contain sufficient points to minimize the effects of mea-
surement noises, at the same time that it is entirely inside
the linear region of the I–V curve for all measurements.
The global uncertainty for the I–V curve parameters
would involve reference cell and temperature sensor cali-
bration uncertainties, among several others typical for an
accurate I–V curve measurement, as presented by
Mullejans et al. (2009). However, since the absolute values
of the variables are not of major interest, the measurement
uncertainty for the purpose of this work is only the one
 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
related to the Rsh determination. In order to calculate this
expanded uncertainty, repeatability tests were conducted
by measuring the I–V curve of a multicrystalline PV
module 26 times consecutively.
Assuming that the measurement noise is constant, it is
reasonable to conjecture that their influence on a smaller
current measurement is more pronounced, and therefore
the uncertainty would be larger at lower irradiances. The
repeatability test was performed for two levels of
irradiance: 1000 W/m2 and 100 W/m2. The expanded
uncertainty for the Rsh value was determined by multiply-
ing the standard deviation of the Rsh measurements by a
coverage factor k = 2.105, the coefficient t of Student for
a confidence interval of 95%. The relative expanded uncer-
tainty was determined dividing the expanded uncertainty
by the mean value of Rsh, which resulted in ±4.8% for
the 1000 W/m2 irradiance level and ±7.7% at 100 W/m2,
confirming an increase in the uncertainty of Rsh for lower
irradiances.
6. Results and discussion
In order to better analyze the behavior of the photo-
voltaic modules, the measured data was sorted into smaller
groups according to their cell technology. Modules built
with the same photovoltaic technology are expected to
have more similar characteristics with one another.
Hence, six groups were established: one including 17
multicrystalline modules, another with 7 monocrystalline
modules, a third with 2 CIGS panels, and three groups with
one individual PV module on each: amorphous silicon,
tandem with amorphous/microcrystalline silicon, and
Cadmium Telluride. The measurements from two of the
modules, one multicrystalline and one monocrystalline,
were discarded due to negative values for the shunt resis-
tance on low irradiance levels. These unexpected results
can be credited to measurement noises, since on modules
which present a very small slope it is possible that these
noises may cause the linear regression to have an upward
direction. Characteristic I–V curves with upward-trending
current, and therefore negative shunt resistances, were also
observed by Sandia National Laboratories (2015), and the
approach of discarding the corresponding measurements
was taken as well. Moreover, this occurrence was observed
for only 2 of the 580 performed I–V curve measurements
on this work, representing 0.34% of the tests.
Fig. 2 presents the obtained Rsh for every measurement,
as well as a fitting power law equation for each group of PV
modules tested. For the sake of comparing the shunt
resistance dependence of each module on the irradiance,
instead of its absolute value, the results were normalized
taking the value at STC conditions as the reference.
A tendency of increase on the shunt resistance for
lower irradiances was observed on all groups. Further-
more, differences were observed between the distinct
photovoltaic technologies. CIGS modules presented less
variation on their shunt resistance with the irradiance, with
39
its higher value being nearly 7 times larger than the
reference value at STC. By contrast, the Tandem module
displayed a variation of 40 times between the reference
value and the lowest measured irradiance. The Cadmium
Telluride module increased about 9 times its shunt resis-
tance decreasing the radiation from 1000 W/m2 to
100 W/m2, and at 75 W/m2 the obtained value for this
parameter was 76 times larger than the reference one.
The correlation coefficient, R2, for the fitting equations
was calculated, with its value being in general larger for
the groups with less measured modules. The amorphous
silicon technology, from which only one module was
measured, presented the largest correlation coefficient.
The Cadmium Telluride technology, although also a
single-module group, presented a relatively low correlation
coefficient, meaning that the fitting equation does not
represent precisely the measured points. As for the groups
with several measured modules, namely the monocrys-
talline and multicrystalline technologies, it was noted a
large dispersion on the shunt resistance behavior with the
irradiance. Moreover, it was perceived that even panels
from the same manufacturer and belonging to the same
model exhibited fairly different behaviors in some cases.
In order to compare the different groups, each obtained
fitting equation was plotted on Fig. 3. This figure includes
also a representation of Eq. (6), corresponding to the De
Soto et al. model and Eq. (7), proposed on the PVsyst
model, to help on the evaluation of their validity for the
tested modules. The two suggested values for Rsh(0) on
Eq. (7) were included. For the sake of clarity, Table 2
compiles the represented equations. On this analysis, the
curves were extrapolated to irradiance levels lower than
the ones used on the experiment.
Except for the tandem technology, the six fitting equa-
tions provided very similar results for irradiances over
500 W/m2. For lower irradiance values, larger deviations
occurred, with the multicrystalline and the CIGS modules
showing a lower increase of the shunt resistance for low
radiation levels, while the CdTe and the Tandem techno-
logy panels presented a much more significant growth.
The values of Rsh for these groups under the lower levels
of irradiance are not visible on the chart as they surpass
the chosen axis limitation. The fitting for the amorphous
silicon module was shown to have a very close agreement
with Eq. (6), which seems therefore to be suitable for
this photovoltaic technology. As for the exponential pro-
posed by Eq. (7), the suggested value for crystalline silicon
modules did not agree with any of the verified fitting equa-
tions, while the recommended coefficient for amorphous
silicon presented a behavior which was quite similar to that
of the crystalline silicon modules.
A further analysis is introduced by Fig. 4, which shows a
histogram representation of the absolute values of Rsh,ref.
Both crystalline silicon groups presented a high variability
on the reference shunt resistance value, ranging from
173 X to 729 X for the multicrystalline and from 148 X to
1320 X for the monocrystalline technology. Once again,
40 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43

Fig. 2. Dimensionless shunt resistance versus irradiance for each measured group.
 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43 41

Table 3
Rsh,ref for the other photovoltaic groups measured at STC.
Module CIGS A CIGS B DA142 DA100A5 FS280
Rsh,ref (X) 1978 2086 2806 1218 3472

The effect of increasing the shunt resistance is larger

when its value is low, since the leakage current decays
asymptotically with it, as can be derived from Eq. (4).
Therefore, the measured data indicate that considering a
variation of the shunt resistance with the irradiance is
especially relevant for the crystalline silicon modules.
On an additional study, the I–V curve of the multi-
crystalline and monocrystalline modules measured at
Fig. 3. Comparison between the obtained fit equations and the methods every irradiance level was simulated with the single diode
proposed by De Soto and PVsyst. model using two different approaches. In both cases, the
parameters were extracted from the I–V curve at
Table 2
the 1000 W/m2 irradiance. While on the first one all the
Summary of the tested equations. parameters were maintained constant, with the exception
Model Equation
of Iph, on the second one Eq. (6) was used to determine
the Rsh value. Fig. 5 displays a comparison between I–V
De Soto et al. (2006) Rsh ¼ 1000G1

PVSYST amorphous Rsh ¼ 1 þ 11 exp  1000
5:5G curves at 150 W/m2 to illustrate the effectiveness of


PVSYST crystalline Rsh ¼ 1 þ 3 exp  1000
5:5G implementing the variation of the shunt resistance with
Multicrystalline fit Rsh ¼ 219:7G0:75 the irradiance on the single-diode model for one monocrys-
Monocrystalline fit Rsh ¼ 540:7G0:9 talline module of this study. The measured I–V curve is better
CIGS fit Rsh ¼ 144:7G0:7 represented by the simulated model which includes the
Tandem fit Rsh ¼ 12132:6G1:31
Amorphous fit Rsh ¼ 832:8G0:96
dependence of the shunt resistance on the irradiance level.
CdTe fit Rsh ¼ 3918:1G1:19 In order to calculate the overall improvement verified
for the single-diode model, the mean absolute error
between the measured I–V curves and the simulated ones
even modules with the same nominal characteristics for each module on all irradiance levels was determined.
presented large variability on this parameter. For the other Taking the average value of all errors, the error decreased
groups the results are shown on Table 3. Nothing can be 57% on the inverse Rsh model comparing with the constant
stated about these technologies variability since only one one. Despite the occurrence of some variation of this
or two modules of each were tested. It is interesting to decrease on the error for each individual module, it was
notice, though, that the absolute value of shunt resistance seen that the implementation of shunt resistance variation
for these four groups is, in general, similar or superior to with irradiance provided superior results for every tested
that of the best tested crystalline silicon modules. module.

Fig. 4. Distribution of Rsh,ref for (a) multicrystalline and (b) monocrystalline groups.
42
1.2
Current [A]
0.8 Measured
Simulated: Rsh=Rsh,ref(Gref/G)
Simulated: Rsh = Rsh,ref
0.4
0
0 10 20
Voltage [V]
Fig. 5. Measured and simulated I–V curves for a monocrystalline module
at 150 W/m2.
7. Conclusions
The results obtained from the experiments agreed with
previous studies published on the literature, confirming
that the shunt resistance on the five-parameter model
increases at lower irradiance levels when directly extracted
from measured I–V curves. Six fitting equations were
obtained, one for each tested photovoltaic technology,
demonstrating that there are considerable differences
between the distinct groups. It must be stressed that the
use of the equations here proposed for the behavior of
each technology requires caution, since few modules were
tested, and there is no guarantee that other modules from
the same technology will follow it. Additionally, a high
variability among different PV modules of the same
technology was verified on the shunt resistance indicating
a difficulty to generalize the results, as even PV modules
with the same nominal features presented considerable
variability on this parameter.
The comparison of the obtained fits with the PVsyst
method (Eq. (7)) indicated that it may be an interesting
alternative to represent the variation of the shunt resis-
tance. However, the proposed experimental coefficients in
PVsyst SA (2012) may not to be adequate to be used as
stated, since the recommended coefficient for the amor-
phous silicon modules presented results which were in fact
in better agreement with the crystalline modules, whereas
the recommended one for the crystalline modules failed
to describe any of the tested photovoltaic groups. Further
tests should be carried on to establish an improved set of
empirical coefficients if this method is chosen to be used.
Considering the shunt resistance inversely proportional
to the irradiance (Eq. (6)) as proposed by De Soto et al.
(2006) was seen to agree very closely with the amorphous
C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
silicon modules. This equation lies in fact between the
obtained fits for the experimental data, overstating the
shunt resistance value on low irradiance for CIGS and
crystalline cells and understating it for CdTe and Tandem
technologies. This method has the advantage of its simplicity,
since no empirical coefficients are used, and seems to be an
appropriate option if a single equation is desired to describe
the behavior of every photovoltaic technology.
A brief discussion on the inclusion of an inverse
dependence of the shunt resistance with the irradiance
showed that the results are indeed superior when this effect
is considered. The mean absolute error for this model was
less than half the error of the original single diode model,
considering the average of all tested crystalline modules
at all irradiance levels. The analysis of the I–V curve of
one of the modules at a low irradiance level with and
without the Rsh dependence on the irradiance corroborated
30 40 this result, since unlike the original single-diode model, the
modified one represented closely the measured data.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by CNPq – Brazil
(Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientı́fico e
Tecnológico) and CAPES – Brazil (Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel Superior).
References
Bätzner, D.L., Romeo, A., Zogg, H., Tiwari, A.N., 2001. CdTe/CdS solar
cell performance under low irradiance. In: Proceedings of the 17th
European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition,
paper VB1.40. Munich, Germany.
de Blas, M.A., Torres, J.L., Prieto, E., Garcı́a, A., 2002. Selecting a
suitable model for characterizing photovoltaic devices. Renew. Energy
25, 371–380.
Bouzidi, K., Chegaar, M., Bouhemadou, A., 2006. Solar cells parameters
evaluation considering the series and shunt resistance. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 1647–1651.
Breitenstein, O., Rakotoniaina, J.P., Al Rifai, M.H., Werner, M., 2004.
Shunt type crystalline silicon solar cells. Prog. Photovoltaics: Res.
Appl. 12, 529–538.
Celik, A.N., Acikgoz, N., 2007. Modelling and experimental verification
of the operating current of mono-crystalline photovoltaic modules
using four- and five-parameter models. Appl. Energy 84, 1–15.
Chan, D.S.H., Phillips, J.R., Phang, J.C.H., 1986. A comparative study of
extraction methods for solar cell model parameters. Solid-State
Electron. 29, 329–337.
Cheegar, M., Hamzaoui, A., Namoda, A., Petit, P., Aillerie, M., Herguth,
A., 2013. Effect of illumination intensity on solar cells parameters.
Energy Procedia 36, 722–729.
Chenni, R., Makhlouf, M., Kerbache, T., Bouzid, A., 2007. A detailed
modeling method for photovoltaic cells. Energy 32, 1724–1730.
Ciulla, G., Lo Brano, V., Di Dio, V., Cipriani, G., 2014. A comparison of
different one-diode models for the representation of I-V characteristic
of a PV cell. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 32, 684–696.
Cuce, E., Cuce, P.M., Bali, T., 2013. An experimental analysis of
illumination intensity and temperature dependency of photovoltaic cell
parameters. Appl. Energy 111, 374–382.
De Soto, W., 2004. Improvement and validation of a model for
photovoltaic array performance. M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineer-
ing, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
 C.S. Ruschel et al. / Solar Energy 133 (2016) 35–43
De Soto, W., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 2006. Improvement and
validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance. Sol. Energy
80, 78–88.
Dongue, S.B., Njomo, D., Tamba, J.G., Ebengai, L., 2012. Modeling of
electrical response of illuminated crystalline photovoltaic modules
using four- and five-parameter models. Int. J. Emerging Technol. Adv.
Eng. 2, 612–619.
Eikelboom, J.A., Reinders, A.H.M.E., 1997. Determination of the
irradiation dependent efficiency of multicrystalline Si PV modules on
basis of IV curve fitting and its influence on the annual performance.
In: Proceedings of the 14th European PV Solar Energy Conference,
293–296, Barcelona, Spain.
Hadj Arab, A., Chenlo, F., Benghanem, M., 2004. Loss-of-load proba-
bility of photovoltaic water pumping systems. Sol. Energy 76,
713–723.
IEC 60891 (2009) (International Electrotechnical Commission) Photo-
voltaic devices – Procedures for temperature and irradiance corrections
to measured I-V characteristics.
IEC 60904-9 (2007) (International Electrotechnical Commission) Photo-
voltaic devices – Part 9: Solar simulator performance requirements.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., Syafaruddin, 2011. Modeling and
Simulation of photovoltaic (PV) system during partial shading based
on a two-diode model. Simul. Modell. Practice Theory 19,
1613–1626.
Lo Brano, V., Orioli, A., Ciulla, G., Di Gangi, A., 2010. An improved
five-parameter model for photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 94, 1358–1370.
43
Ma, T., Yang, H., Lu, L., 2014. Development of a model to simulate the
performance characteristics of crystalline silicon photovoltaic mod-
ules/strings/arrays. Sol. Energy 100, 31–41.
Mullejans, H., Zaaiman, W., Galleano, R., 2009. Analysis and mitigation
of measurement uncertainties in the traceability chain for the calibra-
tion of photovoltaic devices. Meas. Sci. Technol. 20, 075101.
Phang, J.C.H., Chan, D.S.H., Phillips, J.R., 1984. Accurate analytical
method for the extraction of solar cell model parameters. Electron.
Lett. 20 (10), 406–408.
PVsyst SA, 2012. User’s Guide – Pvsyst Contextual Help. Satigny,
Switzerland.
Sandia National Laboratories, 2015. Parameters Estimation for Single
Diode Models of Photovoltaic Modules. Sandia Report, Albuquerque,
United States of America.
Shockley, W., 1950. Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors. Van
Nostrand, New York.
Schroeder, D.K., 1998. Semiconductor Material and Device Characteri-
zation, second ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Townsend, T.U., 1989. A method of estimating the long-term perfor-
mance of direct-coupled photovoltaic systems. M.S. Thesis, Mechan-
ical Engineering, University of Wisonsin-Madison.
Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Filho, E.R., 2009. Comprehensive approach
to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 24 (5), 1198–1208.
Xiao, W., Dunford, W.G., Capel, A., 2004. A novel modeling method for
photovoltaic cells. In: Proc. IEEE 35th Annual Power Electronics
Specialists Conference (PESC), vol. 3, pp. 1950–1956.