Ramchander Nirudi; G. Tulasi Ram Das; T. S. Surendra

Field Performance and Degradation Comparison of ESS Multicrystalline and Conventional Polysilicon PV Modules in Hot Indian Climates: A One-Year Rooftop Study

PDF (1372KB), PP.298-311

Views: 0 Downloads: 0

Author(s)

Ramchander Nirudi ^1,* G. Tulasi Ram Das ¹ T. S. Surendra ²

1. Department of EEE, JNTUK Kakinada, Kakinada, 533003, India

2. Department of EEE, B V Raju Institute of Technology, Narsapur, 502313, India

* Corresponding author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5815/ijem.2026.05.16

Received: 6 Jul. 2026 / Revised: 30 Jul. 2026 / Accepted: 7 Sep. 2026 / Published: 8 Oct. 2026

Index Terms

ESS, Multi Crystalline, Poly Crystalline, Degradation, PV

Abstract

Photovoltaic (PV) technology is crucial for sustainable energy generation, but the performance of PV systems in real-life conditions is closely associated with the material quality, degradation and the climatic conditions. While conventional poly-Si modules are already widely installed, Elkem Solar Silicon (ESS®)-based multicrystalline silicon modules are more sustainable owing to energy savings in silicon production. But little field data is available on their behaviour in the hot Indian climate. Thus, the field performance of ESS® multicrystalline silicon and conventional poly-Si modules after one year of installed operation in a rooftop grid-connected 6.71 kWp PV system at BVRIT, Telangana, India is assessed. The demonstration system comprises 28 modules (organized in four rows of seven, with 14 ESS® modules and 14 conventional poly-Si modules). Performance analysis was carried out using field-based energy yield, I–V and P–V characteristics, peak power degradation, electrical mismatch, as well as electroluminescence imaging of the modules. The findings show that both technologies had minimal degradation, with an average annual power loss of 0.3% for ESS® modules and 0.4% for conventional poly-Si modules. ESS® module technology showcased 1-1.5% higher energy yield than conventional poly-Si modules, mainly because of better high-temperature operation. At the module level, it was detected that the majority of the changes in power were due to variations in current (Isc and Imp) rather than in Voc = 37.56 V and Vmpp = 30.23 V. Electroluminescence image analysis showed only minor defects from handling, but no defects caused by material. The results confirm that ESS® modules offer higher energy yield and are more suitable for sustainable grid-connected PV systems.

Cite This Paper

Ramchander Nirudi, G. Tulasi Ram Das, T. S. Surendra, "Field Performance and Degradation Comparison of ESS® Multicrystalline and Conventional Polysilicon PV Modules in Hot Indian Climates: A One-Year Rooftop Study", International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM), Vol.16, No.5, pp. 298-311, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijem.2026.05.16

Reference

[1]Y. Kuwano, “Progress and perspectives in solar energy conversion,” Advanced Materials, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 295–297, Apr. 1997, doi: 10.1002/ADMA.19970090403.
[2]Z. Zhao, L. Yin, S. Xiaoying, L. Yuan, and T. Lu, “Recent development of technology and market of grid-connected PV system in China,” pp. 1–6, Dec. 2010.
[3]I. Tobías, C. del Cañizo, and J. Alonso, “Crystalline Silicon Solar Cells and Modules,” pp. 265–313, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1002/9780470974704.CH7.
[4]A. Rouholamini, H. Pourgharibshahi, R. Fadaeinedjad, and M. Abdolzadeh, “Temperature of a photovoltaic module under the influence of different environmental conditions – experimental investigation,” International journal of ambient energy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 266–272, May 2016, doi: 10.1080/01430750.2014.952842.
[5]D. Jordan and S. Kurtz, “Photovoltaic Degradation Rates—an Analytical Review,” Progress in Photovoltaics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 12–29, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1002/PIP.1182.
[6]L. Schreier, R. Kravets, S. Ransome, and J. Sutterlueti, “Characterising PV Modules Under Outdoor Conditions: What’s Most Important for Energy Yield,” pp. 3608–3614, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.4229/26thEUPVSEC2011-4AV.2.41.
[7]N. G. Dhere, S. A. Pethe, and A. Kaul, “Comparative study of various PV technologies in terms of energy yield and annual degradation,” pp. 002899–002903, June 2010, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2010.5614493.
[8]T. Lai, B. G. Potter, and K. Simmons-Potter, “Analysis of twelve-month degradation in three polycrystalline photovoltaic modules,” vol. 9938, Sept. 2016, doi: 10.1117/12.2237527.
[9]A. Bianchini, M. Gambuti, M. Pellegrini, and C. Saccani, “Performance analysis and economic assessment of different photovoltaic technologies based on experimental measurements,” Renewable Energy, vol. 85, pp. 1–11, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.06.017.
[10][Z. Taisheng, C. Mingbo, and L. Hongbo, “New Methods for the Production of Solar Grade Silicon,” pp. 1174–1179, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75997-3_234.
[11]E. Sirtl, “Production methods for mono- and multicrystalline silicon,” pp. 34–41, Jan. 1988, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-034315-0.50016-1.
[12]M. Tayyib et al., “Performance assessment of a grid-connected mc-Si PV system made up of silicon material from different manufacturing routes,” pp. 0109–0114, June 2013, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2013.6744110.
[13]E. L. Meyer and E. E. van Dyk, “Assessing the reliability and degradation of photovoltaic module performance parameters,” IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 83–92, Apr. 2004, doi: 10.1109/TR.2004.824831.
[14]A. Singla, K. Singh, and V. K. Yadav, “Environmental effects on performance of solar photovoltaic module,” pp. 1–6, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1109/PESTSE.2016.7516480.
[15]D. Polverini, M. Field, E. D. Dunlop, and W. Zaaiman, “Polycrystalline silicon PV modules performance and degradation over 20 years,” Progress in Photovoltaics, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1004–1015, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1002/PIP.2197.
[16]M. Schweiger and W. Herrmann, “Electrical stability of PV modules in different climates,” pp. 3685–3687, June 2016, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7750364.
[17]O. S. Sastry et al., “Performance analysis of field exposed single crystalline silicon modules,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1463–1468, Sept. 2010, doi: 10.1016/J.SOLMAT.2010.03.035.
[18]C. Leboeuf and H. A. Ossenbrink, “PV module power output: sensitivity and uncertainty in non-STC measurements,” pp. 614–619, Oct. 1991, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.1991.169284.
[19]T. J. McMahon, “Solar cell/module degradation and failure diagnostics,” pp. 172–177, July 2008, doi: 10.1109/RELPHY.2008.4558880.
[20]M. Tayyib, Y. H. Rao, M. Ramanjaneyulu, T. S. Surendra, J. O. Odden, and T. O. Saetre, “Initial light-induced degradation study of multicrystalline modules made from silicon material processed through different manufacturing routes,” pp. 002395–002399, June 2012, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2012.6318080.
[21]R. Dubey et al., “Performance degradation in field-aged crystalline silicon PV modules in different indian climatic conditions,” pp. 3182–3187, June 2014, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925612.
[22]D. K. Singh, B. Bora, A. Dhar, C. Banerjee, and M. Rihan, “Assessment of 21-Year Field-Exposed PV Module Performance and Degradation in the Composite Climatic Zones of India,” pp. 1–5, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1109/isgtmiddleeast65737.2025.11314428.
[23]In-Field Energy Performance of Solar PV Module Made of UMG Silicon, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1109–1115, Sept. 2022, doi: 10.1109/jphotov.2022.3181499.
[24]I. Guerrero, C. del Cañizo, and Y. Yu, “Yield Performance of Standard Multicrystalline, Monocrystalline, and Cast-Mono Modules in Outdoor Conditions,” Energies, vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 4544–4544, Sept. 2024, doi: 10.3390/en17184544.
[25]A. Frick, G. Makrides, M. B. Schubert, M. Schlecht, and G. E. Georghiou, “Degradation Rate Location Dependency of Photovoltaic Systems,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 24, p. 6751, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3390/EN13246751.
[26]R. J. Wieser, Y. Wang, A. Fairbrother, S. Napoli, A. W. Hauser, S. Julien, X. Gu, G. S. O’Brien, K.-T. Wan, L. Ji, M. D. Kempe, K. P. Boyce, and L. S. Bruckman, “Field retrieved photovoltaic backsheet survey from diverse climate zones: Analysis of degradation patterns and phenomena,” Solar Energy, vol. 259, pp. 49–62, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2023.04.061.
[27]“Defects and fault modes of field-aged photovoltaic modules in the Nordics,” Energy Reports, vol. 9, pp. 3104–3119, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.01.126.
[28]S. Gyamfi, B. Aboagye, F. Peprah, and M. Obeng, “Degradation analysis of polycrystalline silicon modules from different manufacturers under the same climatic conditions,” Energy Conversion and Management: X, vol. 20, Art. no. 100403, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100403.
[29]“Temperature profiles of field-aged photovoltaic modules affected by optical degradation,” Heliyon, vol. 9, Art. no. e19566, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19566.
[30]D. C. Jordan, “Degradation science from nanometers to kilometers: A pathway to rapid detection for reliable photovoltaics,” Solar RRL, 2023, Art. no. 2300170, doi: 10.1002/solr.202300170.

International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM)