Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 343080, 19 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/343080

Research Article
Photovoltaic Pumps: Technical and Practical
Aspects for Applications in Agriculture

A. Petroselli,1 P. Biondi,1 A. Colantoni,1 D. Monarca,2

M. Cecchini,2 A. Marucci,2 and Cividino Sirio2
1
Department of Agriculture, Forests, Nature and Energy (DAFNE), University of Tuscia,
Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
2
Department of Agrarian and Environment Science, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208,
33100 Udine, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to A. Colantoni, [email protected]

Received 22 August 2012; Accepted 23 September 2012

Academic Editor: Massimo Scalia

Copyright q 2012 A. Petroselli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The paper deals with a series of tests conducted on a PV-DC pump in Viterbo 42◦ 24′ North, 12◦ 06′
East. The tests lasted from January 2003 up to November 2004 and involved measurements of
solar radiation, on both a horizontal surface and the tilted module surface, flow rates, volumes,
and total dynamic heads. In total, up to 3000 data were collected every day whose analysis allowed
us to find empirical relationships among system efficiencies, solar radiations, and total dynamic
heads. In the second part of the paper we develop a simple method that allows both the assessment
of performances of the whole system when installed in a different site from that in which the tests
were performed and the optimal inclination angle of the panel to be determined in relation to
annual or seasonal use see irrigation.

1. Introduction
Solar photovoltaic PV systems have shown their potential in rural electrification projects
around the world, especially concerning Solar Home Systems. With continuing price
decreases of PV systems, other applications are becoming economically attractive, and
growing experience is gained with the use of PV in such areas as social and communal
services, agriculture and other productive activities, which can have a significant impact
on rural development. There is still a lack of information, however, on the potential and
limitations of such PV applications. Rural energy is generally recognized as an important
element of rural socioeconomic development, not as an end in itself, but through the demand
for the services made possible through energy inputs, such as potable water pumping
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

and extension of the day by lighting and cooking. As a general trend, an increasing
energy demand—both in quantity and quality—is highly correlated with socioeconomic
development.
This study is focused on solar photovoltaic PV systems, which can fulfil only a part
of rural energy needs. As has been noted before, most PV programmes have given attention to
the so called “Solar Home Systems” as the most proven of PV applications. With continuing
advances in PV technology, decreasing prices and growing experience in the organizational
aspects of introducing this new technology, many other applications of PV have shown their
potential. This promises to open the door for a greater contribution of PV systems to rural
development 1.
Our department took on two research problems:

i to test the field performances of a commercialized solar pump that is sold with a
photovoltaic panel,

ii to estimate, once the system’s operational characteristics were defined, what
performances could be expected when the same complex would be located in such
African countries as Ghana, Benin, and Burkina Faso.

These were the cues to set up a test bed for this type of equipment and to try to deepen
our knowledge regarding a subject that is not without interest, also from an economic point
of view. At present, the lack of electricity and high gas-oil costs where and when available
are opening vast markets for these pumps in many developing countries, both Asian and
African particularly sub-Saharan.
The reasons for this increasing use are manifold, among them: easy and rapid
installation, low and rare maintenance, the long service life of these types of photovoltaic
panels, and the great increase in their efficiency 2, 3, with a vertiginous rapid descent of the
panels’ costs that in the last decade of the last century decreased—at equal power output—to
1/4 of their initial value 4–6.
Hence, there is a growing interest in this type of machinery and the promotion of their
diffusion, especially in third world countries, by individual western countries like Germany
and other northern European countries 7–10, as well by the UE, FAO, UNESCO, and the
previously cited World Bank.
Nevertheless, they are not many works in the literature which deal specifically with
tests run on photovoltaic pumps. In fact, with few exceptions e.g., 11, 12, the tests that
exist concern either the solar panel and its performance or—as in the case of the advertising
material supplied by the manufacturers—the solar pump for which it is provided, without
many details, only the total head-flow rate curves obtained by coupling the pump to the
electric network instead of to the photovoltaic panel 13, 14.
The tests conducted by Argaw—that, unlike the others, consider the whole
panel/pump complex—were performed on community plants in Brazil and, therefore,
were subject to a series of conditions that limited the possibility of the researchers to vary
the operating conditions of the system e.g., discharge and/or total head.
In this regard, a test bed was set up in the Hydraulic Laboratory of our department
that essentially consists of a closed hydraulic circuit, complete with valves and measuring
instruments flow rates, total heads, and volumes, and that is equipped with the measuring
instrumentation for photoelectric parameters solar radiation, both on the horizontal plane
and on the panel, intensity, and voltage of the electricity inside and outside the panel.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

The present work is organised in two parts:

i the first contains a description of the experimental equipment and a discussion of
the results obtained by a long series of tests that lasted for about two years;
ii the second is essentially theoretical and aimed at defining: first, a methodology
that allows a technician to easily and reliably estimate the performances of
the panel/pump system the one we experienced or another whose operational
characteristics are known, taking into consideration its installation in places
different from Viterbo 42◦ 24′ North; 12◦ 06′ East where the tests were performed;
second, the optimum spatial position to be assigned to the panel depending on the
use, annual, or seasonal irrigation, required of the pump.

This work ends with a practical application that shows what results are to be expected
in the case of installation of the experimented system in one of the African countries
mentioned above.

2. Layout of the Experimental Installation and

Measurement Techniques
2.1. Experimental Installation
The whole panel/pump system was installed in the experimental field of our department,
which is situated within the Faculty of Agriculture. The pump—a “SOLAFLUX” made by
FLUXINOS in Grosseto, central Italy—is a submerged piston pump of low power and fed
by direct current tension 20–70 V; intensity 1–4 Á.. Among the various models of pumps,
we gave preference to the lower total head type, for which the manufacturer specifies the
maximum available total head in 5.0 bars.
The photovoltaic panel, supplied by the same company, was produced by HELIOS
TECHNOLOGY; it has a surface S of 2.8 m2 and was mounted, on the supplier’s instructions,
with its surface directed south azimuth  180◦  and inclination β directed to the horizontal
plane in other terms, β is the angle between the normal line to the panel surface and the
vertical line of the site equal to the latitude ϕ of Viterbo 42◦ 24′ .
Panel performances were recorded by means of the followings tools, all having a
current exit from 4 to 20 mA for connection to the datalogger see below used for data
management and memorization:

i 2 silicon pyranometers: the first one in a horizontal plane for measuring global solar
radiation Rh on the horizontal plane and the second one, lined up with the panel,
for measuring global radiation Rβ on the panel itself; the radiations measured were
those with wavelengths between 0.3 and 2 µm;
ii 2 platinum thermometers: the first one for measuring standard atmosphere
temperature therefore placed, according to the law, inside a special ventilated
protection and the second one for measuring panel temperature, and therefore
glued to panel’s back side;
iii 1 voltmeter and 1 ammeter, both with a precision of 0.1% for measuring,
respectively, current voltage up to 100 V and intensity up to 10 A that, on leaving
the panel, feed the pump.
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

s 3 s

1 Pump 4 Flow rate measurer

2 Pressure measurer 5 Closing valve
3 Woltmann measurer s Vent valve

Figure 1: Hydraulic layout.

The hydraulic scheme is shown in Figure 1. The pump was connected to a plastic pipe PEAD,
Φ25 mm; PFA 16 bars that started from a plastic tank and then returned to the same tank;
the following tools, all with a current exit from 4 to 20 mA, were inserted on the pipe for the
connection to the datalogger:

i 1 GEMS piezoelectric pressure transducer, with /−0.25% precision, set immedi-
ately after the pump, to measure pressures up to 10 bars operating temperatures
−25/ 85◦ C;
ii 1 electromagnetic flow measurer operating temperatures −20 150◦ C, PN 40 bars,
equipped with a signal converter accuracy 0.5%, for connection to the datalogger;
it allowed the measurement of the instant flow rates and even total volumes.

A “Woltmann” type volumetric measurer, for checking the data recorded with the electro-
magnetic flow measurer described above, completed the equipment.
The experimental data, recorded by the datalogger, were transmitted to our depart-
ment by GSM modem. The datalogger used had 12 analogical and 2 digital channels and
the capability of memorizing up to 62,000 data. It was set in a closed container with an
emergency battery system and the equipment necessary to transfer the data. The datalogger,
pyranometers, thermometers, voltmeter, and ammeter alimentations were fed by a small
20 W photovoltaic panel.
Measurements were recorded by the instruments every 5 seconds and then averaged
over a time arc of 2 minutes for a variable daily duration dependant on the insolation hours
of the period considered, that is, in our tests 12 hours from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm for the
winter months and 16 hours from 5.00 am to 9.00 pm for the others.
The tests carried out can be divided into two series:

i in the first series, tests were conducted by modifying—within the total head limits
foreseen by the manufacturer—the relationships between flow rate Q and total head
H that characterized the hydraulic circuit. This was achieved by manually varying
the opening degree of the closing valve, as shown in the scheme of Figure 1, after
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

27 July 2 August
1500 900

1000 600

Q (I/h)
Q (I/h)

500 300

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 20 40 60
H (m) H (m)
a b

Figure 2: Daily H-Q relationships.

sunset when the pump was at rest. For every day, therefore, we have a unique
relationship between among Q and H; some examples are in Figure 2;

ii the second series was obtained by modifying the hydraulic scheme with the
insertion of a sustaining valve into the pipe that was able to assure a constant
total head—fixed by the operator—at the pump exit although the flow rate was
variable. This change was implemented for a double purpose to test the reliability
of the system under conditions of operation similar to real ones, to avoid the
introduction—as in the first test series—of an averaged value of the total head into
the formulas that concern the daily performances evaluation.

In this work we refer mostly to this second series of tests. The results obtained with the
first series of tests that have been the subject of a previous publication 15 will be briefly
summarized in the following section.

2.2. First Tests Results and Data Processing

As a premise, is should be noted that the performances of these types of pumps are influenced
negatively by the presence of cloudiness, especially if intermittent. That is because the pump
is forced to continuously “stop and go” with consequent dispersion of the experimental data
and, what is more important, with consequent diminution of efficiency, given the system’s
response time, both electric condensers and mechanic.
This is clearly visible in Figure 3 where two diagrams are shown: one June, 20th
relative to a cloudless day, the other June, 29th relative to a cloudy day. The following can
be seen in every diagram: in abscissas, time and minutes of the measurement hhmm; in
ordinates, the values of the radiation Rβ W m−2  incident on the panel plane and of the flow
rate Q L/h.
The results obtained with the first series of test will be synthesized below.
As usual, the panel/pump system’s efficiency is defined as the ratio between useful
power and absorbed power; in the latter case, to obtain this we must calculate the incident
radiation that is given by Rβ W m−2  times the panel surface S m2 .
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

20 June
1200 6000

800 4000

Rβ (W/m2 )

Q (I/h)
400 2000

0 0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
(hhmm)
a
29 June
1200 6000

800 4000
Rβ (W/m2 )

Q (I/h)

400 2000

0 0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
(hhmm)
Rβ
Q
b

Figure 3: Examples of daily radiation and flow rates.

Being Q in L/h and S  2 m2 , in the formulas we have the theoretical expression:

 
Q/3600H QH
η  9.81  9.73 · 10−4 . 2.1
Rβ S Rβ
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

Introducing the measured values 16,000 for every considered greatness of Q, H, and Rβ
into 2.1, many values of the output can be calculated. The empirical relationship obtained
by regression analysis of η, H, and Rβ is

H 0,577
η  0.0047 2.2
R0,02
β

with R2  0.934.
Using the same data, it is also possible, always through regression, to obtain the
empirical relationship that exists among Q, H, and Rβ :

R0,98
β
Q  4.92 2.3
H 0,42

with R2 equal to 0.89.

The two previous expressions were obtained independently; nevertheless, it is
important, as a proof of the validity of the results obtained, that 2.3 can be obtained by
replacing in 2.2 the expression of η as given by 2.1.
Concerning daily performances, if Hm is the daily average of total head, we calculated
through summations of Q · ΔT and Rβ · ΔT extended to the day duration T in hours,
respectively, daily pumped volumes w m3 day−1  and global energy Eβ incident daily on the
panel unity area Wh m−2 day−1 . The analysis of regression led to the following empirical
expression:

Eβ1,27
w  0.0033 2.4
0,44
Hm

with R2  0.976.
As H varies continuously during the day Figure 2, when we try to pass from
instantaneous values to daily values—as in the case of the evaluation of the daily lifted
volumes w—we are forced to introduce an averaged value Hm of H, 2.4, which could
arouse perplexities regarding the possibility of the practical use of the same 2.4.
Hence, as previously stated, the hydraulic circuit was modified by introducing an
automatic pressure regulation valve able to assure a constant total head at the pump exit
equal to that established by the operator.
Therefore, we began a second series of test whose results are shown in the following
paragraph.

2.3. Second Tests Results and Data Processing

This second and conclusive test series lasted from June to November 2004; the results were
basically identical to those previously described since there were no substantial changes.
Indeed, we modified, again with the pump at rest, the opening degree of the sustaining
pressure valve which allowed the total head to be kept constant for several consecutive days.
On the other hand, the solar incidental radiation changed—that is, the power input—affecting
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

6 August
25

20

15

H (m) 10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Q (I/h)

Figure 4: Example of H; Q daily data with the automatic sustaining valve.

the flow rate. Typically, the behaviour of the automatic valve was more than satisfactory, even
if it required continuous surveillance. Indeed—probably due to resonance phenomena—
sometimes when the pump started, the whole system became unstable; usually, but not
always, the problem resolved itself after few seconds; otherwise, the test had to be ended.
The field of total heads investigated varied from a 7 to 50 meter water column.
As an example, the relationship between Q and H for August, 6th, is visible in
Figure 4.
As you can see, total head remained virtually constant throughout the day, if we
exclude the points on the left of the figure which are characterized by almost null discharges.
The explanation of this phenomenon must be sought in two possible reasons:

i the first, already present in the preliminary tests, requires that there is an incidental
radiation threshold Rβ greater than 100–150 W/m2 for the whole system to be
functioning. This is particularly evident in Figure 3, in which the lower Q curves
begin later and end before of above Rβ curves;

ii the second, peculiar to this second series of test, is connected with the previously
described instabilities that raise the value limit of Rβ up to around 200–250 W m−2 ,
over which the experimental data become reliable.

Regarding the elaborations that follow reference will be made only to the mea-
surements obtained with Rβ > 250 W m−2 . In doing so there was obviously some data
manipulation, in particular concerning general daily evaluations, but, to our mind, this is
virtually of no importance for the reasons that follow:

i in the field Rβ ≤ 250 W m−2 values fall lower, and, therefore, there are less-significant
values of Q and of course, of Rβ ;

ii in the absence of clouds, modest values of Rβ occur only in the morning and in the
evening and, therefore, for a small part of the daily time of the pump’s functioning.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

0.04
Hm calculated = 1.007 Hm measured
R2 = 0.8677
0.03

Hm calculated with (6)

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Hm measured

Figure 5: Comparison between measured efficiencies and those calculated with 2.6.

To obtain a theoretical expression for daily efficiency, ηm is defined as the ratio between
the pump’s average power output and the panel’s average power input; proceeding as in
2.1, we have

Qm H
ηm  9.73 · 10−4 , 2.5
Rβ,m

where Qm is the average daily flow rate, Rβ,m is the average daily panel radiation, and H is
total head that was kept constant during the entire day for the tests of this series.
Once calculated, though 2.5 represents the experimental values of efficiency, from the
regression of ηm on H and Rβ,m we obtained an expression analogous to 2.2 but with the
exponent of Rβ,m so small that it was almost equal to zero. Therefore, for practical purposes,
this parameter is irrelevant, and the expression can be written as

√
ηm  0.0048 H. 2.6

In Figure 5, the values of ηm are reported, calculated by means of 2.6 versus the ηm
measured values; as can be seen, 2.6 succeeds in interpreting the experimental data in
a satisfactory way. Especially since it gives results that are practically identical to 2.2
which was obtained starting from instantaneous values of the parameters involved. In fact,
if considering only the daily average data, we calculate the efficiency with both the formulas
obtaining the relationship

η  1.02ηm 2.7

with R2  0.98.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

12
w calculated = 1.024 measured
R2 = 0.9607

w (m3 ) calculated with (7)

9

0
0 3 6 9 12
w (m3 ) measured

Figure 6: Comparison between measured volumes and those calculated with 2.8.

Considering now the daily lifted volumes, w, the relationship that best interprets the
experimental data is

Eβ
w  0.0049 √ , 2.8
H

where, as always, Eβ is the global daily energy incident on panel unit area obtained, as
previously stated, from summations of Rβ · ΔT obviously, between Eβ and Rβ,m there is the
relation: Eβ  T · Rβ,m  values extended to T .
In Figure 6, that has no need of any comments, the w values are shown calculated with
2.8 versus those measured.
Even in this case, 2.8 would have been directly derived from 2.5. In effect, replacing
2.5 with 2.6 we have

Rβ,m
Qm  4.95 √ 2.9
H

from which 2.8 is immediately obtained if we multiply both the members for T —day
duration by hours—and if we remember that w is in m3 while the product Qm · T is in litres.
Before proceeding further, a brief comment, throughout the whole trial period taken
into account, the values of Eβ ranged between 1,500 and 7,500 Wh m−2 day−1 . This means
that with, for example, H  30 m, the tested pump that of those produced by the supplier
company can be classified as of medium power would be able to raise from 1.5 to 6 m3 day−1 .
This performance—not exceptional if compared with traditional pumps—is mainly caused
by efficiencies ηm of the whole panel/pump complex that, in line with those of similar
installations 12, are around 2-3%. In particular, according to our measurements, this fact
is mainly due to the panel and, to a lesser extent, to the electric feeding circuit that, in our
tests, was able to feed the pump with electric power equal to 6-7% of the incidental solar
power.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

3. Operation Forecasts and Performances Optimization

Regarding forecasts, the problem can be posed in these terms: knowing operating
characteristics of the whole panel/pump system—those of the one we tested or others of
different manufacturers—assesses its performance when it is installed in locations different
from where tested. In concrete, we have to estimate, the total head H being fixed, the volumes
and/or the averages discharges lifted up daily or monthly or yearly even the possibility of
estimating “instantaneous” flow rates could exist. But it would be necessary to obtain hourly
distribution of solar radiation Rβ , starting from values of Eβ , which would implicate the
use of rather complex procedures to achieve an estimation that would usually be of limited
practical interest. To this end, in order to use relations such as 2.8 and 2.9, the values
of Eβ , incidental energy on panel, or of Rβ,m , average radiation on the same panel, must be
known, being climatological parameters that are variable from day to day and from place to
place.

3.1. Theory
Some databases currently exist that give the values, averaged over long series of years, of
global energy Eh that reaches the unit area of a horizontal surface for various places in
the world. In this paper we will refer mainly to ESRA 16 commissioned by the European
Commission and edited by a team of universities and organizations of our continent. The
years of observation are ten in number; the countries considered are those with latitudes ϕ
between 30◦ Morocco, Tunisia, and Middle-east and 60◦ Baltic countries. The parameters
considered are numerous the CD-ROM that accompanies the two-volume text contains, in
addition to the measured data, those derived from them yearly and monthly averages, e.g.
that proved to be very useful to verify our elaborations. temperature, pressure, rainfall,
etc.; among the ones that concern us are the daily values of energy Eh and of brightness
index Kt that depends on the presence of clouds and that will be defined later.
In Italy, the Central Bureau of Agricultural Ecology UCEA operates a database
commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture that, among other things, provides daily values
of Eh for thirty national locations.
In any case, if we do not use software programs to estimate w or Q, that is, in order
to use 2.8 or 2.9, it is necessary to obtain the values of Eβ or Rβ,m from the Eh values. The
procedure to be followed, which is quite long, is shown below and is furnished with diagrams
and tips to make it easier and also to allow us to make choices that are more appropriate in
relation to the optimal photovoltaic panel inclination.
In general, Eh is the sum of three components:

Eh  Eh,d Eh,r Eh,df , 3.1

where Eh,d is the direct radiation energy incident on a horizontal unit area with a precise
incidence angle; Eh,r is the reflected radiation energy on the same unit area that comes from
the ground and land objects; Eh,df is the diffuse radiation energy on the same unit area that
comes reflected from the sky and clouds, after reflection and dispersion in the atmosphere.
In any case, if we are not in the presence of snowy mantles very reflecting, generally
Eh,r is very small compared to the other two terms; furthermore, it depends on local situations
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

12000

9000 f = 10◦
f = 15◦

Eoh (Wh/m2 day)

f = 20◦
f = 25◦
6000
f = 30◦
f = 35◦
f = 40◦
3000 f = 45◦
f = 50◦
f = 55◦
f = 60◦
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Figure 7: Eoh annual trend.

that are evidently not possible to take into account. Therefore in our elaborations, we make
reference to the simplified relationship:

Eh  Eh,d Eh,df . 3.2

As known, with the purpose to optimize performances, photovoltaic panels are not
horizontally disposed, and thus, as previously mentioned, we are forced to deduce the Eβ
values by starting from the corresponding Eh ones. In fact, the procedure to follow is rather
laborious because the two components that form Eh by 3.2 vary according to laws when β
varies, and, therefore, we need to decompose Eh into Eh,d and Eh,df ; separately calculate the
Eβ,d and Eβ,df values that these two parameters assume on the panel plane, and, finally, by
the sum of these two, come to Eβ .
The proportions between the two components, from which Eh is constituted by 3.2,
exclusively depend on cloudiness and, therefore, on the so-called brightness coefficient:

Eh
Kt  , 3.3
Eoh

where Eoh is the maximum global radiation available. This represents the theoretical limit of
Eh in ideal atmospheric conditions and depends only on spatial latitude ϕ and on time, that
is, on angle δ declination which, in the moment, the sunrays form with the equatorial plane.
Following the procedure recommended by the ESRA, we calculated and reported in
Figure 7 the annual trend of Eoh for different latitudes one curve for each. As visible in
the same figure, as ϕ decreases, passing from 60◦ in Finland to 10◦ –15◦ in African countries,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

the diagram tends to flatten so that, for practical purposes, for ϕ < 10◦ , Eoh can be assumed
constant and equal to 10 kWh m−2 day−1 .
By 3.3, knowing Eh from the database and Eoh determined by the graphic of Figure 7,
it is possible to obtain Kt and, consequently, the value of Eh,df /Eh by means of the following
relations:

Eh,df  ′
 0.14 3.4
Eh

if Kt > 0.75;

Eh,df  ′′ 
 1 − 0.273Kt 2.45Kt2 − 11.95Kt3 9.39Kt4 3.4
Eh

if Kt ≤ 0.75.
By calculating Eh,df with the previous relations, by 3.2, it is possible to determine
direct radiation Eh,d .
The next step is to transform Eh,d and Eh,df values into those of Eβ,d and Eβ,df that the
two energies, respectively, direct and diffused, assume on the unity area and on an angle β
with respect to the horizon. The formulas to be used, in the case of a panel oriented, as always,
south for the northern and vice versa for the southern hemisphere, are
   
Eβ,d cos ϕ ∓ β cos δ · sen ωs ωs sen ϕ ∓ β senδ  ′
 , 3.5
Eh,d cos ϕ · cos δ · sen ωs ωs · sen ϕ · sen δ
Eβ,df 1 cos β  ′′ 
 . 3.5
Eh,df 2

Referring to 3.5′ , it must be noted that a minus sign for the northern hemisphere and a plus
 

sign for the other must be used; furthermore, in addition to the symbols already known, ωs
appears, which is function of δ and ϕ.
To simplify the calculations, even in this case, it was possible to develop graphs
Figure 8 that, for the values assigned to Kt , allow the daily values of Eβ /Eh  Eβ , d
Eβ,df /Eh to be estimated for several latitudes. To draw them,
 ′in thislast′′equation
 we had to
replace the expressions of Eβ,d and of E β,df obtained from 3.5 and 3.5 in the numerator;
use 3.2 and 3.4′ and 3.4′′ to write Eh,d and Eh,df as functions of Eh ; reduce the parameters
   

expressing β as function of ϕ. As will be explained in the next section, this last relationship
was obtained by determining mathematically the optimal value β∗ of β that, for a given ϕ, is
able to maximize the total energy reaching the panel. In doing so, two possible uses of the
pump were taken into account: annual, which, of course, is the most usual, and seasonal,
which is in connection with irrigation that lasts from May to September in our climate.

3.2. Best Panel Tilting

Obviously, the best panel position would be, in principle, that for which every day the sun’s
rays are at astronomical noon, exactly perpendicular to the panel itself, which implies a daily
update of its inclination β. If the values of β, in function of the different days of the year,
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

1.5 2.2
f = 50◦
1.4 2 f = 50◦
Kt = 0.5
Kt = 0.4 1.8
1.3
f = 45◦
1.6 f = 45◦
Eβ /Eh

Eβ /Eh
1.2
f = 40◦ 1.4 f = 40◦
1.1
f = 30◦ 1.2 f = 30◦
f = 20◦ f = 20◦
1 f = 10◦ 1 f = 10◦

0.9 0.8
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
a b
3

f = 50◦
2.5

Kt = 0.6
2 f = 45◦
Eβ /Eh

f = 40◦
1.5
f = 30◦
f = 20◦
1 f = 10◦

0.5
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

c

Figure 8: Annual trend of Eβ /Eh ratio.

are plotted in a graph, we obtain, for a fixed latitude, a sinusoidal curve that is symmetric
around its lowest point—which is the summer solstice in mid-June—with a maximum at the
winter solstice in mid-December. For instance for a latitude like that of Viterbo ϕ  42◦ ,
approximately β would rise from 17◦ at the winter solstice to 63◦ at the summer solstice.
Indeed, if you do not use the solar tracking that has been mentioned in a previous note,
to give the panel constant inclination, it is usual to refer to a kind of average value choosing
β  ϕ, which implies that the condition of perpendicularity of the sunrays is exactly verified
only in correspondence to the two equinoctial astronomical noons.
This practical rule is common and is very simple, yet it implies that the energy that
annually reaches the panel is not the maximum possible but is lower by about 4–5% in the
case of annual utilization and, on the basis of our evaluations, to a greater extent in the case
of seasonal use irrigation of the pump.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 15

Therefore, even if it is known that the influence of β is rather modest, we checked

whether there are equally easy alternative rules to optimize the position of the panel in both
utilization cases.
To this end,in thesumEβ  Eβ,d Eβ,df , we replaced the expressions of Eβ,d and Eβ,df ,
obtainable by 3.5′ and 3.5′′ , and tried to find mathematically the inclination values βa∗ and
βs∗ able to maximize the integrals of Eβ extended to the entire year or to the months from May
to September, respectively.
Assuming that Kt,a is the annual average value of Kt , for annual use we obtained the
relationship

βa∗  0.01 · ϕ2 0.4 · ϕ 3.6

that is valid for 0.4 < Kt,a < 0.6 which, in any case, is the range where the values of Kt,a usually
fall. In fact, from the data reported by the ESRA—and also from another database found on
the web So.Da, Joint Research Centre—Kt,a varies between 0.39–0.42 for northern countries
and 0.53–0.60 for Mediterranean countries Morocco, the Middle-East, etc. and north Africa.
With the exception of the equatorial areas, where it is worthwhile to keep the panel
horizontal or nearly so, from 3.6 we can deduce that a practical rule is to adopt an inclination
equal to ϕ minus 6◦ –7◦ , for latitudes between 10◦ and 55◦ .
Greater advantages, of 10–12% even of 17% for northern-Europe and also greater
corrections to the rule that would require β  ϕ, occur when we consider a primarily seasonal
pump utilization. In effect, if we consider the countries for which we have an irrigation
season covering the months from May to September—and therefore those between 30◦ of
latitude of the African Mediterranean countries and 53◦ of the northern Germany—following
the previously described procedure we obtained the empirical relationship:

βs∗  052 · ϕ − 13.2

 ′
3.6

which is valid, like 3.6, for 0.4 ≤ Kt,s ≤ 0.6. As for Kt,a , even the usual values of Kt,s are
within these limits. In effect, from the dataset of the ESRA, we can see that Kt,s is only 12–
 correspondent Kt,a .
13% greater than
From 3.6′ , we can deduce that in practice we can obtain the optimal panel inclination
by subtracting 13◦ from half the latitude value. This implies very low βs∗ values, from 2◦ to 14◦
for latitudes 30◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 53◦ , and in particular, for Italian countries 37◦ ≤ ϕ ≤ 46◦ , an almost
horizontal panel disposition βs∗  4◦ –10◦ .
One last note. In the case of a utilization primarily finalized, but not exclusively, for
agricultural uses, it would be worthwhile to increase the panel inclination at the end of the
irrigation season. It is a very simple operation that, with the help of an inclinometer, can be
performed in few minutes and that involves an increase in energy Eβ reaching the panel in
the remaining months of the year by some percentages points from October to April. In
such a case, our elaborations, carried out with the same previously adopted procedure, show
that angle β should be raised to a value equal to latitude ϕ plus 6◦ –8◦ at the end of the irrigation
season.
All the aforementioned conclusions have been verified through simulations. In
particular, reference has been made to the ESRA CD-ROM, for locations and for the years
from 1981 to 1990 of its database, furnishes the values of Eβ related to the various months,
16 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Table 1: Average value simulations for Tamalè.

Month Eh Rh,m Eβ Rβ,m w Qm

Jan 5766 501 5905 513 5.28 464
Feb 5994 512 6090 520 5.45 470
Mar 5917 495 5946 497 5.32 449
Apr 5624 460 5590 457 5.00 413
May 5433 436 5357 430 4.79 389
Jun 4640 369 4556 363 4.08 328
Jul 3900 312 3838 307 3.43 277
Aug 3623 294 3591 291 3.21 263
Sep 4003 332 4003 332 3.58 300
Oct 5352 453 5411 458 4.84 414
Nov 5771 499 5897 510 5.28 461
Dec 5686 497 5840 510 5.22 461

for each β value assigned; this allows us to proceed by trials to the determination of the β
value that maximizes the sum of Eβ extended to the period
 May–September.
Analogous checks have been performed for 3.5′ and 3.5′′ even if the presence of
 

some sites on the web which give the value of βa∗ must be cited. Of particular interest—see
bibliography—are the European Commission Joint Research Centre and the So.Da. Project
websites.

4. A Case Study
As a practical application of our work and in response to a specific request from the firm,
we have estimated the performances of a pump of the type that we tested in view of its
installation in the Tamalè area central Ghana; ϕ  9◦ 41′  assuming the total head being H 
30 m.
From the So.Da. Project website, monthly mean values of Kt were derived for the years
from 1997 to 2004; they ranged from about 0.40 in the summer months to 0.63–0.65 in the
period from November to February, with an average annual Kt,a value  0.54.
An inclination βa∗  5◦ was assigned to the panel according to 3.6, and in Table 1 the
following are reported:
i in the first and second column the monthly average values of Eh and Rh,m ,
respectively;
ii in columns three and four, the corresponding values of Eβ and Rβ,m , found—for ϕ ≈
10◦ and Kt ≡ Kt,a ≈ 0.5—by means of the graph in Figure 8;
iii in the last two columns, the monthly average values of w and Q estimated,
respectively, by 2.8 and 2.9.
The same procedure is to be followed, obviously, in the case we wish to expand the
estimates, going beyond the simple monthly averages. For example, with reference to the
month of January, we found that, over the arc of the years of observation, the daily values
of Rβ,m ranged between 439 and 544 W m−2 so, by 2.9, they led to values of average daily
flow rates of between 396 and 491 L h−1 . These Qm would correspond to possible peaks of
maximum discharge of the order of 1200–1300 L h−1 in the hottest hours if we consider that,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 17

on cloudless days, the hourly distribution of the solar radiation presents peaks of about 2.5–3
times the average value.

5. Conclusions
Thanks to an opportunity offered to us by company we became interested in photovoltaic
pumps and, in particular, in the development of a “test bench” that could test the
performances of a whole panel/pump complex. It is not, to our knowledge, a kind of
installation that is frequently created because even if it is quite easy to find information on
photovoltaic panel and pump performances produced by different companies, these data are
obtained from tests that were performed on the two components separately, that is, the panel
only or solely the pump, and not with the whole complex consisting of both. The results
are quite misleading because the companies test their pumps inside establishments, coupling
them to the electric network and not to a photovoltaic panel. The reasons for this state of
things are probably many; among them there are certainly economic reasons related to both
the costs of instruments and, above all, the necessarily long duration of the tests.
Our tests have clarified the operating characteristics of the panel/pump system in
the sense that they allowed us to find relationships that link flow rates and daily pumped
volumes to the total head and to the radiation incident on the panel. These results, however,
depending on solar radiation, have only a local validity in that they are useful only for
latitudes equal to those of Viterbo 42◦ 24′ North and on a panel inclination equal to that
latitude, as the general routine.
Therefore, we have developed—providing also a practical application—a simple
methodology that can allow

1 reliable assessment of the performances of the panel/pump complex tested in

Viterbo or of another complex whose operating characteristics are known and that
is called upon to operate in areas of different geographic coordinates;
2 a more informed choice of the panel inclination that maximizes the energy
incident, both in the case of annual operation of the pump or in the case of such
predominantly seasonal usage as irrigation, for example.

Regarding the panel/pump system we have tested: on the one hand, it proved to be reliable
during the whole long period of our tests, and, on the other, it also highlighted the limitations
typical of all these kinds of devices 12 that use photovoltaic energy.
Efficiencies equal to 2–3% are certainly not thrilling; nevertheless, they are not so
small that an installation of this type is not able to satisfy modest demands, both in western
countries and, above all—as in the case study related to Ghana—in those third world
countries where there are often no alternatives.
Of course, despite the progress in recent times, a great deal of work has to be done; just
think that the main reason for this state of affairs lies in the efficiency of the panel whose value
is currently about 10–12%. But this is precisely the reason that leads to hope in the future; PV
technology is relatively new and, therefore, as such, is an evolving area in which further
progress can be made in 1980, the average efficiency of the panels was approximately 3%.
The cost, even in terms of human lives, of traditional energy sources such as oil has reached
such levels that it is reasonable to expect that, even due to the recent pushing exerted by the
United States of President Obama, also the EU will develop an even stronger interest in this
area which could lead to an increased flow of resources, both human and financial.
18 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Symbols
For all the parameters we adopted international system units, or ones accepted by it (like
bar), with the exception of flow rates Q expressed, for obviously practical reasons, in liters
per hour.

E0h : Maximum specific energy referred to unit area of daily global

radiation incident on the horizontal plane, expressed in
Wh m−2 day−1
Eh : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily global radiation
incident on the horizontal plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eh,d : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily direct radiation
incident on the horizontal plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eh,df : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily diffuse radiation
incident on the horizontal plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eh,r : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily reflected radiation
incident on the horizontal plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eβ : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily global radiation
incident on the panel plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eβ,d : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily direct radiation
incident on the panel plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
Eβ,df : Specific energy referred to unit area of daily diffuse radiation
incident on the panel plane, expressed in Wh m−2 day−1
H: Total head pump m
Hm : Average daily total head pump m
Kt : Brightness index, adimensional
Kt,a : Average yearly brightness index
Kt,s : Average seasonal brightness index
Q: Flow rate L h−1 
Qm : Average daily flow rate L h−1 
Rh : Global radiation incident on the horizontal plane W m−2 
Rh,m : Average daily global radiation incident on the horizontal plane
W m−2 
Rβ : Global radiation incident on the panel plane W m−2 
Rβ,m : Average daily global radiation incident on the panel plane
W m−2 
2
R : Correlation coefficient
S: Panel surface m2 
T: Time duration hours
w: Volume daily pumped, expressed in m3 day−1
β: Panel tilt angle; that is, the angle between the normal line to the
surface of the panel and the vertical line of the site ◦ 
β∗ : Best panel tilt angle ◦ 
βa : Best panel tilt angle in the case of annual use ◦ 
∗

βs∗ : Best panel tilt angle in the case of seasonal use ◦ 

δ: Declination angle ◦ 
η: Panel/pump complex efficiency
ηm : Average daily panel/pump system efficiency
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 19

Φ: Latitude ◦ 
ωs : Examination site hourly angle at sunset
or sunrise.

Authors’ Contribution
The author’s contributions to this paper can be considered equal.

References
1 M. Carlini and S. Castellucci:, “Modelling and simulation for energy production parametric depend-
ence in greenhouses,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article ID 590943, 28 pages,
2010.
2 G. R. Whitfield, R. W. Bentley, and J. D. Burton, “Increasing the cost-effectiveness of small solar
photovoltaic pumping systems,” Renewable Energy, vol. 6, no. 5-6, pp. 483–486, 1995.
3 G. R. Whitfield, R. W. Bentley, J. D. Burton, and F. Ibanez, “Increasing the performance of small solar
photovoltaic water pumping systems,” in Proceedings of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES ’95),
World Solar Congress, Harare, Zimbabwe, 1995.
4 I. de Villiers, “Ensuring a bright future for solar powered water pumps,” World Pumps, no. 389, pp.
29–32, 1999.
5 World Bank Group, Solar Electricity—Rural and Renewable Energy, 2000, http://www.worldbank
.org/fpd/energy/subenergy/solar pv.htm.
6 A. Derrick, Testing and Cost Reduction of Photovoltaic water Pumping Systems, Contract number:
AVl-CT94-0∼04, IT Power Ltd, United Kingdom, 1997.
7 S. S. R. Prasad, “Management of solar photovoltaic water pumping systems in India,” Solar Energy
Society of India Journal, vol. 1, pp. 13–123, 1991.
8 M. A. R. Sarkar, Z. Mahud, and A. M. A. Huq, “Solar P-V submersible water pumping for small scale
use in Bangladesh,” in Proceedings of the Renewable Energy Technology for Rural Development Meeting
(RETRUD ’98), Kathmandu, Nepal, 1998.
9 G. R. Whitfield and L. J. Xiao, “A solar PV water pumping system for Chinese villages,” in Proceedings
of the 2nd World Renewable Energy Conference, 1992.
10 P. J. M. Mushamba, The Photovoltaic (PVP) Water Pumping Programme in Zimbabwe, World-wide
Information system for Renewable Energy WIRE, 1998.
11 R. Saravanan, G. Karthikeyan, R. Sethumadhavan, S. Renganarayanan, and A. N. Rao, “Performance
evaluation of solar photovoltaic water pumping system,” in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Role of Renewable Energy Technology for Rural Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, October 1998.
12 N. Argaw, Evaluation of real application experiences with PVP systems [M.S. thesis], Oldenburg University,
Oldenburg , Germany, 2000.
13 J. A. Duffie and W. A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY, USA, 1991.
14 D. L. Larson and S. Al Rawahy, “Development of a small solar thermal mechanical pumping system,”
in Proceedings of the of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual Meeting, 2002,
Paper number 024184.
15 A. Petroselli, M. Pica, and P. Biondi, “Prove su una pompa ad energia fotovoltaica: primi risultati,”
Rivista Di Ingegneria Agraria, no. 1, pp. 83–92, 2005.
16 J. J. Greif and K. Scharmer, The European Solar Radiation Atlas, vol. 1, 2, Ecole Des Mines de Paris Les
Presses, Paris, France, 2000.