Jha 2019 Relevent

Received: 13 September 2018 Revised: 27 January 2019 Accepted: 24 February 2019
DOI: 10.1002/2050-7038.12020
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A detailed comparative analysis of different photovoltaic

array configurations under partial shading conditions
Vandana Jha | Uday Shankar Triar
Department of Electrical Engineering,

Summary
National Institute of Technology Patna,
Patna, India The objective of this paper is to compare the performances of different photo-
voltaic (PV) array configurations (series, parallel, series‐parallel, total‐cross‐
Correspondence
Vandana Jha, Department of Electrical
tied, bridge‐linked, and honey comb) and proposed hybrid configurations
Engineering, National Institute of (series parallel–total cross tied, bridge linked–total cross tied, honey comb–
Technology Patna, Patna, Bihar 800005, total cross tied, and bridge linked–honey comb) under artificial and realistic
India.
Email: vandanajha.electrical@gmail.com partial shading conditions. The performances of all these configurations have
been compared on the basis of their maximum powers, fill factors, thermal
voltages, and relative power losses. Different PV array configurations have also
been compared on the basis of other significant factors (faults, limitations of
specific parameters of the PV system, and cost). The single‐diode model of
PV module is considered in this paper for modelling of PV module. The
obtained results of different PV array configurations give beneficial knowledge
regarding the performances of these configurations for several shading patterns
and assist to choose the most satisfactory configuration for a particular shading
pattern.
KEYWORDS
bridge linked, fill factors, honey comb, photovoltaic array configurations, relative power losses, series
parallel, thermal voltages, total cross tied
Nomenclature: Ipv, photovoltaic (PV) current of the PV module (A); I0, reverse saturation or leakage current of the PV module (A); a, diode ideality
constant of the PV module; Rs, equivalent series resistance of the PV module (Ω); Rp, equivalent parallel resistance of the PV module (Ω); Vt, thermal
voltage of the PV module (V); q, electron charge (1.60217646 × 10−19 C); k, Boltzmann constant (1.3806503 × 10−23 J/K); G, irradiance (W/m2); T,
temperature of the PV module (K); Ns, number of cells connected in series in the PV module; Np, number of parallel connections of cells in the PV
module; Pmpp, power of the PV module at the maximum power point (W); Vmpp, voltage of the PV module at the maximum power point (V); Impp,
current of the PV module at the maximum power point (A); Voc, open‐circuit voltage of the PV module (V); Isc, short‐circuit current of the PV
module (A); K GPmpp , irradiance coefficient of Pmpp; K TPmpp , temperature coefficient of Pmpp (W/K); K GV mpp , irradiance coefficient of Vmpp; K TV mpp ,
temperature coefficient of Vmpp (V/K); K TImpp , temperature coefficient of Impp (A/K); K GV oc , irradiance coefficient of Voc; K TV oc , temperature coefficient
of Voc (V/K); K TIsc , temperature coefficient of Isc (A/K); PMPP, power of the PV array at the maximum power point (W); VMPP, voltage of the PV
array at the maximum power point (V); IMPP, current of the PV array at the maximum power point (A); VOC, open‐circuit voltage of the PV array
(V); ISC, short‐circuit current of the PV array (A)
Abbreviation: NOCTC, nominal operating cell temperature condition; PSC, partial shading condition; STC, standard test condition; UIC, uniform
irradiance condition
Int Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2019;e12020. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/etep © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 36
https://doi.org/10.1002/2050-7038.12020
2 of 36 JHA AND TRIAR
1 | INTRODUCTION
There is a rising transfer from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources for electricity generation, which has
led to the speedy expansion of photovoltaic (PV) market. There are mainly two different techniques for solar power
generation, namely, (a) solar PV and (b) concentrated solar thermal. Out of two, solar PV is the established and
economical alternative for electricity generation because of diminishing prices of solar modules and balance‐of‐system
components.1-3
Generally, grid‐connected PV (GCPV) systems comprise grid‐tied topologies where several panels are connected to a
central inverter supplying directly to the grid. The power generated by GCPV systems relies on several aspects such as
TABLE 1 Parameters of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV module at standard test condition (STC) given in the datasheets provided by the
manufacturers
KD260GX‐LFB2 (Multicrystalline)
Parameter Datasheet Value
PmppSTC, W 260
VmppSTC, V 31.0
ImppSTC, A 8.39
VocSTC, V 38.3
IscSTC, A 9.09
K TPmpp , °
%/ C −0.45
°
K TV mpp , %/ C −0.48
K TImpp , %/°C 0.02
K TV oc , %/°C −0.36
K TIsc , %/°C 0.06
Ns 60
Np 1
TABLE 2 Evaluated irradiance coefficients of Voc, Vmpp, and Pmpp and evaluated parameters of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV module at STC and
NOCTC
KD260GX‐LFB2 (Multicrystalline)
Environmental Conditions Parameter Evaluated Value
Irradiance coefficients K GV oc 0.055 781

K GV mpp 0.019 829
K GPmpp 0.053 982
STC (25°C and 1000 W/m2) IpvSTC (A) 9.089 999 904
aSTC 1.631 19
I0STC (A) 2.2066 × 10−6
RsSTC (Ω) 0.102 86
RpSTC (Ω) 324 974.945
NOCTC (45°C and 800 W/m2) IpvNOCTC (A) 7.359 264 000
aNOCTC 1.500 15
I0NOCTC (A) 4.8923 × 10−6
RsNOCTC (Ω) 0.153 16
RpNOCTC (Ω) 552.7469
Abbreviations: NOCTC, nominal operating cell temperature condition; STC, standard test condition.
JHA AND TRIAR 3 of 36
PV panel's irradiance and temperature, soiling, pitch and orientation of PV panels, cell damage, efficiency of inverters
and batteries, wiring losses, and partial shading. Partial shading is the condition when the entire PV source does not
receive uniform irradiance and temperature. Partial shading is a noteworthy issue, leading to mismatch losses, directly
affecting the output power of the PV systems.2-5
There are mainly two categories of partial shading, namely, “objective” and “subjective” shading. Objective shading
is caused because of environmental conditions such as stationary or moving clouds. As a result of which, it cannot be
FIGURE 1 A, Schematic diagram of photovoltaic (PV) array of size 8 × 4, having series (S) configuration. B, Schematic diagram of PV
array of size 8 × 4, having parallel (P) configuration. C, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having series‐parallel (SP)
configuration. D, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having total‐cross‐tied (TCT) configuration. E, Schematic diagram of PV array
of size 8 × 4, having bridge‐linked (BL) configuration. F, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having honey comb (HC) configuration.
G, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having SPTCT configuration. H, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having BLTCT
configuration. I, Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4, having HCTCT configuration. J: Schematic diagram of PV array of size 8 × 4,
having BLHC configuration
TABLE 3 Results for UIC for PV arrays of size 6 × 4 (made of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules)
Configuration PMPPUIC (W) VOCUIC (V) ISCUIC (A) VMPPUIC (V) IMPPUIC (A) FF VT (V)
S 6242.10 919.20 9.11 743.94 8.39 0.75 40.07

P 6242.00 38.30 218.66 30.95 201.70 0.75 1.63
SP 6242.14 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
TCT 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
BL 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
HC 6242.09 229.80 36.44 186.02 33.56 0.75 10.02
SPTCT 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
BLTCT 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
HCTCT 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
BLHC 6242.10 229.80 36.44 185.98 33.56 0.75 10.02
Abbreviations: BL, bridge linked; FF, fill factor; HC, honey comb; P, parallel; PV, photovoltaic; S, series; TCT, total cross tied; UIC, uniform irradiance
condition.
TABLE 4 Results for UIC for PV arrays of size 8 × 4 (made of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules)
Configuration PMPPUIC (W) VOCUIC (V) ISCUIC (A) VMPPUIC (V) IMPPUIC (A) FF VT (V)
S 8322.66 1225.60 9.11 991.51 8.39 0.75 53.37

P 8322.66 38.30 291.55 30.95 268.94 0.75 1.63
SP 8322.63 306.40 36.44 248.03 33.55 0.75 13.41
TCT 8322.79 306.40 36.44 248.03 33.56 0.75 13.37
BL 8322.79 306.40 36.44 248.03 33.56 0.75 13.37
HC 8322.79 306.40 36.44 247.99 33.56 0.75 13.36
SPTCT 8322.79 306.40 36.44 248.03 33.56 0.75 13.37
BLTCT 8322.81 306.40 36.44 248.34 33.51 0.75 13.63
HCTCT 8322.79 306.40 36.44 247.99 33.56 0.75 13.36
BLHC 8322.80 306.40 36.44 248.03 33.56 0.75 13.37
Abbreviations: BL, bridge linked; FF, fill factor; HC, honey comb; P, parallel; PV, photovoltaic; S, series; TCT, total cross tied; UIC, uniform irradiance condition.
FIGURE 2 Thermal voltages for uniform irradiance condition (UIC) for photovoltaic (PV) arrays of sizes 6 × 4 and 8 × 4 (made of
KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules)
FIGURE 3 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern 1

TABLE 5 Results for pattern 1
Case 1(a) Case 1(b) Case 1(c)

Configuration PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A)
S 5178.27 617.70 8.38 4114.05 490.85 8.38 3050.05 363.39 8.39

P 5406.35 30.95 174.70 4784.07 30.95 154.59 4267.60 30.95 137.90
SP 5178.11 154.27 33.56 4113.96 122.56 33.57 3050.06 91.00 33.52
TCT 5178.04 154.27 33.56 4114.05 122.71 33.53 3050.12 91.00 33.52
BL 5178.04 154.27 33.56 4114.05 122.71 33.53 3050.12 91.00 33.52
HC 5178.04 154.31 33.56 4114.06 122.67 33.54 3050.11 91.00 33.52
SPTCT 5178.04 154.27 33.56 4114.05 122.71 33.53 3050.11 91.00 33.52
BLTCT 5178.04 154.27 33.56 4114.01 122.56 33.57 3050.12 91.00 33.52
HCTCT 5178.04 154.31 33.56 4114.06 122.67 33.54 3050.12 91.00 33.52
BLHC 5178.04 154.27 33.56 4114.05 122.71 33.53 3050.12 91.00 33.52
Abbreviations: BL, bridge linked; HC, honey comb; P, parallel; S, series; TCT, total cross tied.
avoided as the sun gets obstructed and the entire PV system gets uniformly affected. The subjective shading can be fur-
ther categorised into “static” or “hard” shading and “dynamic” or “soft” shading. Static shading occurs because of an
oddity in the surrounding area of a PV system such as dirt, birds and bird wastes, snow, dust, and so forth. Dynamic
shading can be caused because of neighbouring buildings, structures, trees, and self‐shading, shading the surface of
PV sources.2-7
Partial shading may cause reverse biasing of solar cells due to which they start behaving as an external load consum-
ing the power produced by other solar cells. This lowers the overall output power of PV modules. In more alarming sit-
uation, partial shading may cause permanent damage of PV modules because of hot spot phenomena, which can be
dealt using bypass diodes. Thus, it is beneficial to reduce the effects caused by partial shading in a PV system.2,4,8,9
Various techniques have been employed to eliminate the losses associated with partial shading such as maximum
power point tracking (MPPT) techniques,10-14 converter topologies, system framework, and PV array configurations.
Under partial shading condition (PSC), the PV system exhibits multiple‐peak output power characteristics. Therefore,
a dependable technique is needed to track the global maximum power point (GMPP) accurately. Conventional tech-
niques such as perturb and observe (P&O) and incremental conductance (INC) are incapable of tracking the GMPP
under PSC. Several MPPT techniques have been recommended in the literature having tracking accuracy of GMPP
for partially shaded PV system superior to the conventional techniques. Among them, the soft computing (SC) tech-
niques because of their ability to solve the complex nonlinear equations have appeared as one of the best options for
detecting the GMPP.14 Consequently, several optimization algorithms have been proposed in the literature. Particle
swarm optimization (PSO),15 glowworm swarm optimization (GSO),16 grey wolf optimization (GWO),17,18 artificial
bee colony (ABC),19 ant colony optimization (ACO),20 bat algorithm,21 firefly algorithm,22 simulated annealing
(SA),23 flower pollination algorithm,24 and S‐Jaya algorithm25 are few to name. However, instead of utilising a compli-
cated MPPT algorithm under PSC, the maximum obtainable direct current (DC) power from a PV array can also be
enhanced by reconfiguring the connection of the PV modules. This necessitates the derivation of different PV array con-
figurations.7 PV array configuration is one of the significant solutions that can reduce mismatch losses in PV installa-
tions. Several efforts were made by researchers to examine and review the effect of shading on different PV array
configurations so as to minimise the mismatch losses and therefore maximise the output power of the PV system under
PSCs. Different PV array configurations that have been proposed in the literature are series (S), parallel (P), series par-
allel (SP), total cross tied (TCT), bridge linked (BL), and honey comb (HC).2-9,26
A method to determine the PV SP array configuration that provides the highest GMPP is proposed.27 In Belhachat
and Larbes,6 a complete research on basic PV array configurations has been accomplished under a few scenarios of
shading. In Bingöl O and Özkaya,28 an all‐inclusive study that considers five different PV array configuration schemes
has been carried out using 6 × 6 PV array under six different shading cases. A comprehensive MATLAB M‐code has
been proposed in Ramaprabha and Mathur7 for basic PV array configurations of any size, having any number of bypass
diodes, and for any shading pattern. The performances of basic PV array configurations under partial shading and faulty
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Case 1(d) Case 1(e) Case 1(f)

Configuration PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A)
S 2374.39 674.69 3.52 2359.60 669.79 3.52 2354.88 669.18 3.52
P 3856.24 30.95 124.61 3549.32 31.10 114.13 3448.30 31.10 110.88
SP 2374.15 168.52 14.09 2358.94 167.60 14.07 2354.89 167.29 14.08
TCT 2373.80 168.52 14.09 2360.74 166.99 14.14 2354.88 167.29 14.08
BL 2374.38 168.67 14.08 2358.93 167.60 14.07 2354.90 167.29 14.08
HC 2374.42 168.67 14.08 2358.99 167.56 14.08 2354.92 167.26 14.08
SPTCT 2374.49 168.52 14.09 2358.97 167.60 14.07 2354.92 167.29 14.08
BLTCT 2374.37 168.52 14.09 2358.95 167.60 14.07 2354.88 167.29 14.08
HCTCT 2374.66 168.52 14.09 2359.21 167.49 14.09 2354.90 167.26 14.08
BLHC 2374.38 168.67 14.08 2359.00 167.60 14.08 2354.91 167.29 14.08
PV conditions have been tested.3 In Pareek et al,29 SP and TCT interconnections and their impact on MPP power are
studied for some shading scenarios using 2 × PV array. However, in these researches, hybrid configurations are not con-
sidered. Moreover, only a single dimension of PV arrays and very few patterns of shading have been considered for the
analysis. An original formulation of the control problem for optimal PV array reconfiguration, following a TCT layout,
is proposed in Sanseverino et al.30 In Nejad et al,31 also, mathematical analysis of only TCT PV array configuration
under some PSCs and its comparison with other configurations has been investigated. A complete technique, based
on the combination of algorithms, devoted to minimise losses and increase efficiency of TCT‐connected PV systems
under not so many situations of non‐homogeneous solar irradiance, based on irradiance equalisation criterion, has been
presented.32 In this work, also, importance has been given only to the TCT configuration, ignoring all the other config-
urations. In Rana et al,2 the authors have presented an analytical and simulation framework for improving performance
ratio under a few PSCs through alteration of string connections in a string‐level inverter system, but in this work, also,
emphasis has been given only to the TCT and BL orientations. The analysis of the self‐shading annual output energy
losses on fixed PV systems with crystalline silicon and thin‐film PV modules in rows has been presented in Brecl and
Topic.33 In Deline et al,34 a novel analytical approximation of the effect of interrow shading on large SP‐connected
PV arrays has been presented. In Wurster and Schubert,35 the power losses arising from string length mismatch in
PV arrays having SP configuration, corresponding to a particular power range, are investigated. Though in these works,
the other practical complex PSCs have not been paid attention. The losses caused by moving clouds on PV arrays have
been analysed,36-40 neglecting the losses caused because of subjective shading.
Therefore, keeping in mind the available literature in this area, the aim of this paper is to extensively compare the
performances of different PV array configurations (S, P, SP, TCT, BL, and HC) and proposed hybrid configurations
(SPTCT, BLTCT, HCTCT, and BLHC) under PSCs. Comparison of different PV array configurations on the basis of
other significant factors (faults, limitations of specific parameters of the PV system, and cost) has also been performed.
The paper is arranged as follows. Modelling of PV module using the single‐diode model of PV module is explained in
Section 2. Modelling of different PV array configurations is presented in Section 3. In Sections 4 to 7, comparison of dif-
ferent PV array configurations under uniform irradiance condition (UIC), artificial PSCs, realistic PSCs, and real‐life
PSCs is presented, respectively. Analysis and interpretations in terms of cumulative distribution function are illustrated
in Section 8. Section 9 deals with the comparison of different PV array configurations on the basis of other significant
factors. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Section 10.
2 | MODELLING O F A PV MODULE
A practical PV module is composed of a number of series‐connected PV cells. The mathematical equation that illustrates
the I − V characteristic of a practical PV module (based on single‐diode model) is
JHA AND TRIAR
TABLE 6 Fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for pattern 1
Case 1(a) Case 1(b) Case 1(c) Case 1(d) Case 1(e) Case 1(f)
Configuration FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%)
S 0.62 22.58 17.04 0.49 4.46 34.09 0.36 −13.56 51.14 0.28 384.75 61.96 0.28 375.98 62.20 0.28 374.89 62.27
P 0.65 4.23 13.39 0.57 6.48 23.36 0.51 8.73 31.63 0.46 10.88 38.22 0.42 13.06 43.14 0.41 13.77 44.76
SP 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.08 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 95.81 61.97 0.28 94.37 62.21 0.28 93.71 62.27
TCT 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.11 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 95.81 61.97 0.28 92.59 62.18 0.28 93.71 62.27
BL 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.11 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 96.18 61.96 0.28 94.37 62.21 0.28 93.71 62.27
HC 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.10 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 96.18 61.96 0.28 94.20 62.21 0.28 93.66 62.27
SPTCT 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.11 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 95.81 61.96 0.28 94.37 62.21 0.28 93.71 62.27
BLTCT 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.08 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 95.81 61.96 0.28 94.37 62.21 0.28 93.71 62.27
HCTCT 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.10 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 95.81 61.96 0.28 93.97 62.20 0.28 93.66 62.27
BLHC 0.62 5.55 17.05 0.49 1.11 34.09 0.36 −3.41 51.14 0.28 96.18 61.96 0.28 94.27 62.21 0.28 93.71 62.27
7 of 36

V þ Rs I V þ Rs I
I ¼ I pv − I 0 exp −1 − : (1)
V ta Rp
V t ¼ N s kT=q (2)
FIGURE 4 A, Fill factors for pattern 1. B, Thermal voltages for pattern 1. C, Relative power losses for pattern 1
Evaluation of all the parameters of Equation 1 is needed to study the characteristics of the PV module. The manufac-
turer's datasheets typically provide information about the parameters, characteristics, and performances of PV modules
under the standard test condition (STC), which is taken as 1000‐W/m2 solar irradiance and 25°C module temperature.41
Some datasheets also give information about PV modules under the nominal operating cell temperature condition
(NOCTC), which is generally taken as 800‐W/m2 irradiance and 45°C module temperature.42
Table 1 shows the values of the parameters of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV module (multicrystalline) at STC given in the
datasheets provided by the manufacturers.41
Table 2 shows the values of the evaluated irradiance coefficients of Voc, Vmpp, and Pmpp and evaluated parameters of
KD260GX‐LFB2 PV module at STC and NOCTC.43
3 | M O D E L L I N G O F DI F F E R E N T P V A R R A Y CO N F I G U R A T I O N S
A practical PV array is made by connecting various PV modules in different configurations. Ten PV arrays of size 8 × 4,
each having a different configuration, are shown in Figure 1A‐J.
Fill factor (FF) can be computed by Equation 3.
V MPP × I MPP
FF ¼ (3)
V OC × I SC
Thermal voltage (VT) can be evaluated by Equation 4.
ð2V MPP − V OC ÞðI SC − I MPP Þ

VT ¼ (4)
I SC − I MPP
I MPP − ðI SC − I MPP Þ ln
I SC
Relative power loss (ΔPloss) can be calculated by Equation 5.

10 of 36
Case 2(a) Case 2(b) Case 2(c) Case 2(d)

Configuration PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A)
S 4681.58 557.95 8.39 3121.05 371.97 8.39 2579.97 593.15 4.35 2558.97 588.88 4.35
P 5148.95 30.95 166.38 4374.24 30.95 141.35 3757.36 31.10 120.82 3452.41 31.10 111.01
SP 5148.95 185.83 27.71 4374.20 185.83 23.54 3757.46 186.29 20.17 3452.32 186.29 18.53
TCT 5148.95 185.83 27.71 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.46 186.29 20.17 3452.38 186.44 18.52
BL 5148.95 185.83 27.71 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.46 186.29 20.17 3452.43 186.60 18.50
HC 5148.95 185.87 27.70 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.47 186.21 20.18 3452.68 186.41 18.52
SPTCT 5148.97 185.98 27.68 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.46 186.29 20.17 3452.38 186.44 18.52
BLTCT 5148.95 185.83 27.71 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.33 186.44 20.15 3452.38 186.44 18.52
HCTCT 5148.95 185.87 27.70 4374.39 185.95 23.53 3757.46 186.18 20.18 3452.38 186.52 18.51
BLHC 5148.95 185.83 27.71 4374.31 185.98 23.52 3757.46 186.29 20.17 3452.38 186.44 18.52
JHA AND TRIAR
PMPP UIC − PMPPPSC

ΔPloss ¼ × 100 (5)
PMPPUIC
4 | COMPAR I S ON OF D I FFER ENT P V A R R A Y CO NF I GUR A T I O NS UND ER

U IC
The results for 10 PV arrays of sizes 6 × 4 and 8 × 4 (made of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules), each having a different
configuration, under UIC, are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The thermal voltages are shown using bar graph
form in Figure 2.
From Tables 3 and 4 and Figure 2, it can be concluded that all the PV arrays of size 6 × 4 (made of KD260GX‐LFB2
PV modules), each having a different configuration, provide the same maximum power and fill factor under UIC. The
thermal voltage of S and P configurations is the highest and the lowest, respectively, and the thermal voltages of
the remaining configurations are approximately equal. Similar is the trend of the results for PV arrays of size 8 × 4.
The thermal voltage of the S configuration is high because of its high voltage and low current rating, and the thermal
voltage of the P configuration is low because of low voltage and high current rating. The maximum powers and the
thermal voltages for each configuration in case of PV arrays of size 8 × 4 are higher as compared with the PV arrays
of size 6 × 4. However, the fill factors for each configuration in case of PV arrays of size 8 × 4 are equal to the PV
arrays of size 6 × 4.

SEVERAL ARTIFICIAL PSCs
In this section, MATLAB is used to analyse and compare the performances of 10 PV arrays (made of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV
modules), each having a different configuration, under PSCs, for selecting the most favourable configuration that gives
the optimal performances in several artificial shading situations. The analysis and comparison have been done in two
segments as follows.
a) Different PSCs on 10 PV arrays of size 6 × 4, each having a different configuration
The probable partial shading patterns considered to compare the performances of 10 PV array configurations are the
following:

Configuration FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%)
S 0.56 13.86 25.00 0.37 −12.35 50.00 0.31 170.89 58.67 0.31 165.43 59.00
P 0.61 5.12 17.51 0.52 8.23 29.92 0.45 11.72 39.81 0.41 13.74 44.69
SP 0.61 30.82 17.51 0.52 49.55 29.92 0.45 69.78 39.80 0.41 81.83 44.69
TCT 0.61 30.82 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 69.78 39.80 0.41 82.08 44.69
BL 0.61 30.82 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 69.78 39.80 0.41 82.42 44.69
HC 0.61 30.88 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 69.64 39.80 0.41 82.04 44.69
SPTCT 0.61 31.00 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 69.78 39.80 0.41 82.08 44.69
BLTCT 0.61 30.82 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 70.07 39.81 0.41 82.08 44.69
HCTCT 0.61 30.88 17.51 0.52 49.68 29.92 0.45 69.61 39.80 0.41 82.25 44.69
BLHC 0.61 30.82 17.51 0.52 49.75 29.92 0.45 69.78 39.80 0.41 82.08 44.69
Pattern 1: The bottommost row is completely and uniformly shaded, and the shadow movement is steadily increas-
ing from bottom to top in steps of one row with different irradiance in each step.
Pattern 2: The rightmost column is completely and uniformly shaded, and the shadow movement is steadily
increasing from right to left in steps of one column with different irradiance in each step.
b) Different PSCs on 10 PV arrays of size 8 × 4, each having a different configuration
The probable partial shading patterns considered to compare the performances of 10 PV array configurations are the
following:
Pattern 3: The bottommost two rows are completely and unevenly shaded, and the shadow movement is steadily
increasing from bottom to top in steps of two rows with different set of irradiances in each step.
Pattern 4: The rightmost column is completely and unevenly shaded, and the shadow movement is steadily increas-
ing from right to left in steps of one column with different set of irradiances in each step.
The temperature of all the PV modules is assumed to be fixed at 25°C.

The S configuration because of its low current and high voltage and the P configuration because of its high current
and low voltage are unsuitable for PV system applications. Consequently, attention has been paid to the performances
of only eight configurations: SP, TCT, BL, HC, SPTCT, BLTCT, HCTCT, and BLHC for patterns 3 and 4. However, the
results of S and P configurations are provided for all the shading patterns.
5.1 | Pattern 1
The shading patterns and the corresponding results (maximum powers and their corresponding voltages and currents
for all configurations) for cases 1(a) to 1(f) are shown in Figure 3 and Table 5, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for cases 1(a) to 1(f) are presented
using tabular form in Table 6 and bar graph form in Figure 4A‐C, respectively.
For the shading pattern of case 1(a), it is concluded that all the configurations except P configuration provide approx-
imately equal maximum powers, fill factors, and relative power losses. The P configuration exhibits highest maximum

14 of 36

S 6194.86 738.40 8.39 4580.35 648.26 7.07 3553.17 805.03 4.41 2892.39 661.26 4.37
P 7286.22 30.95 235.45 6459.50 30.95 208.73 5529.66 31.10 177.80 4596.67 31.10 147.80
SP 6195.09 184.76 33.53 5001.04 192.73 25.95 3628.52 192.57 18.84 3068.09 121.79 25.19
TCT 6194.86 184.61 33.56 4687.48 267.33 17.53 4562.11 260.75 17.50 4435.47 254.31 17.44
BL 6194.86 184.61 33.56 4367.94 165.00 26.47 3463.04 198.24 17.47 3229.27 265.04 12.18
HC 6194.84 184.64 33.55 4651.06 197.40 23.56 3514.90 267.03 13.16 3389.81 258.64 13.11
SPTCT 6194.86 184.73 33.53 5065.25 193.44 26.18 3757.65 196.12 19.16 3141.80 260.08 12.08
BLTCT 6194.86 184.61 33.56 4347.63 164.08 26.50 4014.70 229.34 17.51 3349.29 192.42 17.41
HCTCT 6194.87 184.68 33.54 4687.53 197.97 23.68 3754.32 196.17 19.14 3391.86 259.37 13.08
BLHC 6194.86 184.61 33.56 4680.81 267.03 17.53 4013.84 229.65 17.48 3887.92 223.21 17.42
JHA AND TRIAR
power and fill factor and hence lowest relative power loss with respect to all the other configurations. Similar are the
situations for cases 1(b) to 1(f). In spite of the fact that the P configuration has the lowest power loss almost in all
the cases of partial shading, still, it is not used in PV array installations because of its extreme low voltage and high
current.
5.2 | Pattern 2
for all configurations) for cases 2(a) to 2(d) are shown in Figure 5 and Table 7, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for cases 2(a) to 2(d) are presented
For the shading pattern of case 2(a), it is inferred that all the configurations except S configuration provide approx-
imately equal maximum powers, fill factors, and relative power losses. The S configuration exhibits lowest maximum
power and fill factor and therefore highest relative power loss with respect to all the other configurations. Similar are
the situations for cases 2(b) to 2(d).
5.3 | Pattern 3
for all configurations) for cases 3(a) to 3(f) are shown in Figure 7 and Table 9, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for cases 3(a) to 3(f) are presented
For the shading pattern of case 3(a), all the configurations present approximately equal maximum powers, fill factors,
and relative power losses.
For the shading pattern of case 3(b), it is observed that the best performance is given by the SPTCT configuration. It
shows the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss. It is followed by the SP, HCTCT,
TCT, BLHC, HC, and BL configurations. The BLTCT configuration provides the lowest performance.
According to the results of the shading pattern of case 3(c), the TCT configuration produces the foremost perfor-
mance, ie, the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss, followed by the BLTCT,
BLHC, SPTCT, HCTCT, SP, and HC configurations. The poorest performance is given by the BL configuration.
The data of the shading pattern of case 3(d) indicate that the TCT configuration provides top performance. The
BLHC, HCTCT, HC, BLTCT, BL, and SPTCT configurations come after it, and the SP configuration shows the lowest
performance.

S 0.55 17.70 25.57 0.41 14.29 44.97 0.32 240.27 57.31 0.26 61.53 65.25
P 0.65 4.04 12.45 0.58 6.25 22.39 0.50 9.54 33.56 0.41 13.77 44.77
SP 0.55 4.49 25.56 0.45 21.26 39.91 0.32 43.79 56.40 0.27 −18.40 63.14
TCT 0.55 4.43 25.57 0.42 144.19 43.68 0.41 136.28 45.19 0.40 128.87 46.71
BL 0.55 4.43 25.57 0.39 5.97 47.52 0.31 57.24 58.39 0.29 246.10 61.20
HC 0.55 4.45 25.57 0.42 30.81 44.12 0.31 224.66 57.77 0.30 209.23 59.27
SPTCT 0.55 4.49 25.57 0.45 21.07 39.14 0.34 46.28 54.85 0.28 237.88 62.25
BLTCT 0.55 4.43 25.57 0.39 5.49 47.76 0.36 96.39 51.76 0.30 50.14 59.76
HCTCT 0.55 4.47 25.57 0.42 30.82 43.68 0.34 46.42 54.89 0.30 211.37 59.25
BLHC 0.55 4.43 25.57 0.42 143.82 43.76 0.36 97.06 51.77 0.35 89.41 53.29
5.4 | Pattern 4
for all configurations) for cases 4(a) to 4(d) are shown in Figure 9 and Table 11, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for cases 4(a) to 4(d) are presented
For the shading pattern of case 4(a), it is noticed that the best performance with the highest maximum power and fill
factor and the lowest relative power loss is delivered by the TCT configuration. The BLHC, BLTCT, BL, HCTCT, SPTCT,
and HC configurations follow it. The SP configuration has the poorest performance.
From the results of the shading pattern of case 4(b), it is perceived that the BL, BLTCT, BLHC, and TCT configura-
tions produce approximately equal and top performances with the highest maximum powers and fill factors and the
lowest relative power losses. The performances of HCTCT, HC, and SPTCT configurations follow them whereas the per-
formance of SP configuration comes last.
According to the results of the shading pattern of case 4(c), again, the TCT configuration produces the foremost per-
formance, ie, the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss, followed by the BLHC,
BLTCT, HC, HCTCT, BL, and SPTCT configurations. The poorest performance is given again by the SP configuration.
The data of the shading pattern of case 4(d) indicate that the BLTCT and TCT configurations give approximately
equal and top performances. They show the highest maximum powers and fill factors and the lowest relative power
losses. The BLHC, HC, HCTCT, SPTCT, and BL configurations come after them, and again, the SP configuration shows
the lowest performance.

SEVERAL REALISTIC PSCs
In this section, again, MATLAB is utilised to examine and compare the performances of 10 PV arrays of size 6 × 4 (made
of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules), each having a different configuration, under PSCs, for choosing the most favourable
configuration that gives the best possible performances in various realistic shading situations. The examination and
comparison have been done in three sections as follows.
18 of 36

S 6542.65 823.85 7.94 4580.28 647.79 7.07 3574.83 581.87 6.14 2894.62 658.85 4.39
P 7495.95 30.95 242.22 6459.50 30.95 208.73 5526.40 30.95 178.58 4596.67 31.10 147.80
SP 6911.40 249.26 27.73 5281.16 250.94 21.05 4018.63 200.39 20.05 3089.60 196.86 15.69
TCT 7272.03 253.39 28.70 6459.79 248.18 26.03 5159.14 257.53 20.03 4524.38 250.94 18.03
BL 7223.32 253.70 28.47 6459.85 248.18 26.03 4738.39 258.14 18.36 3849.36 258.91 14.87
HC 7127.66 253.85 28.08 6203.21 252.21 24.60 5086.60 256.04 19.87 4196.71 256.04 16.39
SPTCT 7164.30 252.78 28.34 6141.15 250.79 24.49 4721.24 259.83 18.17 3885.63 261.05 14.88
BLTCT 7236.42 253.70 28.52 6459.84 248.18 26.03 5133.62 256.92 19.98 4524.44 251.09 18.02
HCTCT 7193.64 252.70 28.47 6220.46 251.21 24.76 4769.36 260.55 18.30 3927.54 263.01 14.93
BLHC 7265.97 253.39 28.67 6459.80 248.18 26.03 5153.90 256.76 20.07 4507.05 250.79 17.97
JHA AND TRIAR

S 0.59 47.76 21.39 0.41 14.10 44.97 0.32 −19.40 57.05 0.26 58.01 65.22
P 0.67 3.53 9.93 0.58 6.25 22.39 0.49 9.33 33.60 0.41 13.77 44.77
SP 0.62 41.63 16.96 0.47 87.67 36.54 0.36 46.67 51.71 0.28 66.19 62.88
TCT 0.65 38.11 12.63 0.58 50.61 22.38 0.46 103.38 38.01 0.41 117.61 45.64
BL 0.65 39.47 13.21 0.58 50.61 22.38 0.42 122.28 43.07 0.34 174.19 53.75
HC 0.64 41.67 14.36 0.56 61.84 25.47 0.46 103.50 38.88 0.38 145.37 49.58
SPTCT 0.64 39.81 13.92 0.55 61.68 26.21 0.42 126.57 43.27 0.35 177.53 53.31
BLTCT 0.65 39.20 13.05 0.58 50.61 22.38 0.46 103.28 38.32 0.41 117.90 45.64
HCTCT 0.64 39.08 13.57 0.56 60.17 25.26 0.43 125.82 42.70 0.35 179.83 52.81
BLHC 0.65 38.28 12.70 0.58 50.61 22.38 0.46 102.22 38.07 0.40 118.12 45.85
a) Objective shading
The possible partial shading patterns considered to compare the performances of 10 PV array configurations are the
following:
Pattern CD: The PSC caused because of the shadow of clouds on PV array.
b) Subjective shading
i. Dynamic or soft shading
following:
Pattern BG: The PSC caused because of the shadow of a neighbouring building on PV array.
Pattern SS: The PSC caused because of the self‐shading effects in PV array (the PV modules in a row in array
may partially shade the PV modules in the following row(s)).
ii. Static or hard shading
following:
Pattern DD: The PSC caused because of the accumulation of dirt and dust on modules of PV array.
c) Hybrid shading
following:
Pattern CDBG: The PSC caused because of the shadows of both clouds and a neighbouring building on PV array.
Pattern CDSS: The PSC caused because of both the shadow of clouds and self‐shading effects in PV array.
Pattern CDDD: The PSC caused because of both the shadow of clouds and accumulation of dirt and dust on
modules of PV array.
Each PV module (Ns = 60) is assumed to be of size 15 × 4. The temperature of all the PV modules is considered to be
fixed at 25°C.
Again, the S and P configurations have been neglected because of the obvious reasons. However, the results of both
configurations are given for all the shading patterns.
6.1 | Pattern CD
The shading pattern and the corresponding results for pattern CD are shown in Figure 11 and Table 13, respectively.
FIGURE 11 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern CD
TABLE 13 Results for pattern CD
Pattern CD
Configuration PMPPPSC (W) VMPPPSC (V) IMPPPSC (A) FF VT (V) ΔPloss (%)
S 5434.17 774.72 7.01 0.65 131.15 12.94

P 5785.23 31.10 186.02 0.69 3.14 7.32
SP 5593.80 190.12 29.42 0.67 25.77 10.39
TCT 5760.97 186.90 30.82 0.69 19.58 7.71
BL 5610.26 189.97 29.53 0.67 25.29 10.12
HC 5661.04 189.36 29.90 0.68 23.68 9.31
SPTCT 5604.09 189.66 29.55 0.67 25.11 10.22
BLTCT 5614.45 190.27 29.51 0.67 25.47 10.06
HCTCT 5663.68 188.67 30.02 0.68 23.01 9.27
BLHC 5697.42 188.44 30.24 0.68 22.12 8.73
Abbreviations: BL, bridge linked; HC, honeycomb; P, parallel; S, series; TCT, total cross tied.
The maximum powers, relative power losses, fill factors, and thermal voltages for all configurations for pattern CD
are presented using bar graph form in Figure 12A,B, respectively.
For the shading pattern of pattern CD, it is observed that the best performance is given by the TCT configuration.
It shows the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest thermal voltage and relative power loss. The
BLHC, HCTCT, HC, BLTCT, BL, and SPTCT configurations follow it. The SP configuration provides the lowest
performance.
6.2 | Patterns BG and CDBG
The shading patterns and the corresponding results for patterns BG and CDBG are shown in Figure 13A,B and Table 14,
respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for patterns BG and CDBG are pre-
sented using bar graph form in Figure 14A‐C, respectively.
For the shading pattern of pattern BG, it is noticed that the top performance with the highest maximum power and
fill factor and the lowest relative power loss is delivered by the BLTCT configuration. It is followed by the TCT, HCTCT,
SPTCT, BL, BLHC, and HC configurations. The SP configuration has the poorest performance.
FIGURE 12 A, Maximum powers and relative power losses for pattern CD. B, Fill factors and thermal voltages for pattern CD
FIGURE 13 A, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern BG. B, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern CDBG
According to the results of the shading pattern of pattern CDBG, the TCT configuration produces the foremost per-
formance, ie, the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss, followed by the BLTCT,
HCTCT, BL, SPTCT, BLHC, and HC configurations. The poorest performance is given by the SP configuration.
6.3 | Patterns SS and CDSS
The shading patterns and the corresponding results for patterns SS and CDSS are shown in Figure 15A,B and Table 15,
respectively.
TABLE 14 Results for patterns BG and CDBG
Pattern BG Pattern CDBG

PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC VT ΔPloss PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC VT ΔPloss
Configuration (W) (V) (A) FF (V) (%) (W) (V) (A) FF (V) (%)
S 4391.50 523.35 8.39 0.52 8.98 29.65 3877.23 803.38 4.83 0.46 364.96 37.89
P 5357.04 31.10 172.25 0.64 4.54 14.18 5039.72 31.10 162.05 0.60 5.67 19.26
SP 4143.84 158.26 26.18 0.49 22.71 33.62 3892.54 160.71 24.22 0.46 29.80 37.64
TCT 4372.71 161.47 27.08 0.52 21.90 29.95 4158.58 161.01 25.83 0.50 25.14 33.38
BL 4344.34 160.71 27.03 0.52 21.68 30.40 4087.09 161.78 25.26 0.49 27.25 34.52
HC 4267.81 158.98 26.84 0.51 21.35 31.63 4016.97 160.44 25.04 0.48 27.12 35.65
SPTCT 4363.40 161.78 26.97 0.52 22.35 30.10 4085.13 163.00 25.06 0.49 28.58 34.56
BLTCT 4401.67 161.93 27.18 0.53 21.85 29.48 4129.52 162.70 25.38 0.49 27.42 33.84
HCTCT 4372.71 161.13 27.14 0.52 21.58 29.95 4104.34 161.89 25.35 0.49 27.04 34.25
BLHC 4317.51 160.09 26.97 0.52 21.54 30.83 4056.47 161.17 25.17 0.48 27.16 35.01
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for patterns SS and CDSS are pre-
For the shading pattern of pattern SS, it is concluded that all the configurations provide approximately equal maxi-
mum powers, fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses.
The data of the shading pattern of pattern CDSS indicate that the TCT configuration provides the best performance.
The BLHC, HCTCT, HC, BLTCT, BL, and SPTCT configurations come after it, and again, the SP configuration shows
the lowest performance.
6.4 | Patterns DD and CDDD
The shading patterns and the corresponding results for patterns DD and CDDD are shown in Figure 17A,B and
Table 16, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for patterns DD and CDDD are pre-
For the shading pattern of pattern DD, it is concluded that all the configurations present approximately equal max-
imum powers, fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses.
From the results of the shading pattern of CDDD, it is perceived that again, the TCT configuration produces the top
performance with the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss. The performances of
BLHC, HCTCT, HC, BLTCT, BL, and SPTCT configurations follow it whereas the performance of SP configuration
again comes last.

R E A L‐ LIFE PSC s
In this section, again, MATLAB is applied to observe and compare the performances of 10 PV arrays of size 6 × 4 (made
of KD260GX‐LFB2 PV modules), each having a different configuration, under PSCs, for deciding the most favourable
configuration that gives the finest performances in real‐life shading situations. The real‐life shading pattern considered
to compare the performances of 10 PV array configurations is as follows.
FIGURE 14 A, Fill factors for patterns BG and CDBG. B, Thermal voltages for patterns BG and CDBG. C, Relative power losses for
patterns BG and CDBG
Pattern real building: The PSC caused on PV array because of the shadow of a neighbouring building located on the
east of PV array installation.
The solar irradiance and temperature for the simulation are taken from Table 17 that is in accordance to the solar
irradiance and temperature for October 01, 2018, at National Institute of Technology Patna, India.
Again, the performances of S and P configurations have been ignored. Still, the results of both configurations are pro-
vided for the considered real‐life shading pattern.
FIGURE 15 A, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern SS. B, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern CDSS
TABLE 15 Results for patterns SS and CDSS
Pattern SS Pattern CDSS

PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC VT ΔPloss PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC VT ΔPloss
Configuration (W) (V) (A) FF (V) (%) (W) (V) (A) FF (V) (%)
S 3187.24 380.75 8.37 0.38 −11.41 48.94 2779.61 395.97 7.02 0.33 −26.34 55.47
P 3187.37 15.87 200.82 0.38 −0.48 48.94 2954.38 15.87 186.14 0.35 −0.86 52.67
SP 3187.41 95.27 33.46 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2858.97 97.23 29.40 0.34 −6.07 54.20
TCT 3187.34 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2942.38 95.73 30.74 0.35 −5.29 52.86
BL 3187.34 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2867.40 97.23 29.49 0.34 −5.99 54.06
HC 3187.33 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2891.80 96.59 29.94 0.35 −5.79 53.67
SPTCT 3187.31 95.30 33.44 0.38 −2.87 48.94 2864.19 97.23 29.46 0.34 −6.02 54.11
BLTCT 3187.34 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2869.53 97.16 29.53 0.34 −5.98 54.03
HCTCT 3187.34 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2892.85 96.52 29.97 0.35 −5.78 53.66
BLHC 3187.34 95.23 33.47 0.38 −2.86 48.94 2911.04 96.44 30.18 0.35 −5.61 53.36
7.1 | Pattern real building
for all configurations) for pattern real building are shown in Figure 19 and Table 18, respectively.
The fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for all configurations for pattern real building are pre-
sented using tabular form in Table 19 and bar graph form in Figure 20A‐C, respectively.
For the shading pattern of pattern real building at 8:29:07 AM of October 01, 2018, it is noticed that the top perfor-
mance with the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss is delivered by the TCT con-
figuration. It is followed by the BLHC, BL, BLTCT, HC, and HCTCT configurations. The SPTCT and SP configurations
have the poorest performances.
The data of the shading pattern of pattern real building at 9:29:07 AM of October 01, 2018, indicate that again, the
TCT configuration provides the best performance. The performances of BLHC, HCTCT, HC, BLTCT, and BL configu-
rations come after it, and again, the SPTCT and SP configurations show the lowest performances.
For the shading pattern of pattern real building at 10:29:07 AM of October 01, 2018, it is observed that the best perfor-
mance with the highest maximum power and fill factor and the lowest relative power loss is delivered again by the TCT
configuration. It is followed by the BLHC, BL, BLTCT, HC, and HCTCT configurations. The SP and SPTCT configurations
again have the poorest performances. Similar is the situation for pattern real building at 11:29:07 AM of October 01, 2018.
FIGURE 16 A, Fill factors for patterns SS and CDSS. B, Thermal voltages for patterns SS and CDSS. C, Relative power losses for patterns
SS and CDSS
8 | CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
For over viewing which configuration is the optimum, the data of different PV array configurations for all the consid-
ered shading patterns have been analysed using cumulative distribution function to examine the behaviour of the PV
array configurations in terms of the relative power losses. Figure 21 represents the cumulative distribution function
FIGURE 17 A, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern DD. B, Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern CDDD
TABLE 16 Results for patterns DD and CDDD
Pattern DD Pattern CDDD

PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC ΔPloss PMPPPSC VMPPPSC IMPPPSC ΔPloss
Configuration (W) (V) (A) FF VT (V) (%) (W) (V) (A) FF VT (V) (%)
S 1241.34 150.99 8.22 0.15 −53.38 80.11 1093.71 157.05 6.96 0.13 −129.26 82.48
P 1241.36 6.29 197.31 0.15 −2.22 80.11 1151.36 6.29 183.00 0.14 −3.70 81.55
SP 1241.36 37.67 32.96 0.15 −13.07 80.11 1119.67 38.52 29.06 0.13 −27.60 82.06
TCT 1241.35 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1147.64 37.87 30.30 0.14 −22.94 81.61
BL 1241.35 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1122.79 38.48 29.18 0.13 −27.14 82.01
HC 1241.39 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1130.52 38.24 29.56 0.13 −25.71 81.89
SPTCT 1241.35 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1121.47 38.44 29.17 0.13 −27.19 82.03
BLTCT 1241.37 37.75 32.89 0.15 −13.31 80.11 1123.43 38.44 29.22 0.13 −26.99 82.00
HCTCT 1241.35 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1130.87 38.24 29.57 0.14 −25.67 81.88
BLHC 1241.35 37.71 32.92 0.15 −13.21 80.11 1137.45 38.16 29.81 0.14 −24.75 81.78
FIGURE 18 A, Fill factors for patterns DD and CDDD. B, Thermal voltages for patterns DD and CDDD. C, Relative power losses for
patterns DD and CDDD
of the normal distribution of relative power losses of different PV array configurations for all the considered shading
patterns plotted against the relative power losses.
From Figure 21, it can be concluded that the TCT configuration is the most optimal configuration that provides the
finest performance. The hybrid configurations (BLHC, BLTCT, and HCTCT) deliver the second category performances.
The third category performances are provided by the conventional configurations: HC and BL. The worst performances
are given by the SPTCT and SP configurations.
TABLE 17 Data of solar irradiance (W/m2) and temperature (°C) at National Institute of Technology Patna, India
Date: October 01, 2018

Time
Parameters 8:29:07 AM 9:29:07 AM 10:29:07 AM 11:29:07 AM
Irradiance, W/m2 491 656 742 804

Temperature, °C 29 31 33 34
FIGURE 19 Shading pattern (W/m2)

for pattern real building
9 | COMPARISON OF DIFFER ENT PV ARRAY CONFIGURATIONS ON THE

B A S I S O F S I G N IF IC A N T F A C T O R S
In this section, comparison of different PV array configurations on the basis of other significant factors has been carried
out. The comparison has been done in three sections as follows.
9.1 | Faults associated with different PV array configurations
Various types of faults associated with different PV array configurations are listed in Table 20.44-46 The tick and cross
marks indicate, respectively, the presence and absence of particular fault in specific PV array configuration.
It can be concluded from Table 20 that more or less every type of discussed fault is associated with each PV array
configuration.
9.2 | Limitations of different PV array configurations in terms of specific parameters
Table 21 shows the limitations of different PV array configurations in terms of specific parameters.47
It can be observed from Table 21 that almost all the listed drawbacks of the aforesaid parameters of a PV system are
prevalent in each PV array configuration.
30 of 36
TABLE 18 Results for pattern real building

Time
8:29:07 AM 9:29:07 AM 10:29:07 AM 11:29:07 AM
S 2257.54 545.47 4.14 3334.65 603.35 5.53 4118.61 658.63 6.25 4639.21 684.53 6.78
P 2686.44 30.49 88.12 3716.52 30.33 122.52 4333.13 30.03 144.31 4682.60 29.87 156.74
SP 2114.86 190.89 11.08 3199.15 185.98 17.20 4039.07 181.85 22.21 4361.36 180.62 24.15
TCT 2197.41 192.88 11.39 3366.37 189.36 17.78 4211.67 184.30 22.85 4556.65 183.38 24.85
BL 2188.50 192.42 11.37 3242.63 187.06 17.33 4142.47 183.84 22.53 4476.41 182.61 24.51
HC 2166.05 191.54 11.31 3249.02 186.75 17.40 4099.16 183.30 22.36 4426.71 182.54 24.25
SPTCT 2114.88 190.89 11.08 3199.20 185.98 17.20 4038.93 181.70 22.23 4361.39 180.78 24.13
BLTCT 2188.46 192.27 11.38 3242.66 186.90 17.35 4142.47 183.84 22.53 4477.06 183.53 24.39
HCTCT 2164.87 191.19 11.32 3250.47 186.94 17.39 4098.55 183.15 22.38 4426.43 182.42 24.26
BLHC 2194.74 192.88 11.38 3320.43 188.13 17.65 4184.18 183.53 22.80 4522.98 182.92 24.73
JHA AND TRIAR
JHA AND TRIAR
TABLE 19 Fill factors, thermal voltages, and relative power losses for pattern real building

Time
8:29:07 AM 9:29:07 AM 10:29:07 AM 11:29:07 AM
S 0.27 119.35 63.83 0.40 115.99 46.58 0.49 119.04 34.02 0.55 105.27 25.68
P 0.32 19.04 56.96 0.44 10.67 40.46 0.52 7.21 30.58 0.56 5.65 24.98
SP 0.25 190.12 66.12 0.38 92.75 48.75 0.48 53.54 35.29 0.52 43.07 30.13
TCT 0.26 188.02 64.80 0.40 91.81 46.07 0.50 52.03 32.53 0.54 41.63 27.00
BL 0.26 187.35 64.94 0.39 92.97 48.05 0.49 53.38 33.64 0.53 42.70 28.29
HC 0.26 186.55 65.30 0.39 91.94 47.95 0.49 53.88 34.33 0.53 43.86 29.08
SPTCT 0.25 190.12 66.12 0.38 92.75 48.75 0.48 53.31 35.30 0.52 43.26 30.13
BLTCT 0.26 186.77 64.94 0.39 92.58 48.05 0.49 53.38 33.64 0.53 43.84 28.28
HCTCT 0.26 185.48 65.32 0.39 92.27 47.93 0.49 53.65 34.34 0.53 43.74 29.09
BLHC 0.26 188.24 64.84 0.40 91.44 46.81 0.50 51.71 32.97 0.54 41.90 27.54
31 of 36
FIGURE 20 A, Fill factors for pattern real building. B, Thermal voltages for pattern real building. C, Relative power losses for pattern real
building
9.3 | Cost estimation of different PV array configurations
The cost of a PV system is estimated as follows:
Cost of PV array ¼ number of PV modules × cost of a PV module; (6)

FIGURE 21 Cumulative distribution function of relative power losses of different photovoltaic (PV) array configurations
TABLE 20 Types of faults associated with different PV array configurations

PV Array Configurations
Type of Fault S P SP TCT BL HC SPTCT BLTCT HCTCT BLHC
Faults in the data acquisition ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty PV module(s) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty PV string(s) ✓ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Partial shading effect ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty bypass diodes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty MPPT unit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Faulty DC/AC inverter unit ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DC/AC inverter power efficiency reduction ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Abbreviations: AC, alternating current; BL, bridge linked; DC, direct current; HC, honey comb; MPPT, maximum power point tracking; P, parallel; PV, pho-
tovoltaic; S, series; TCT, total cross tied.
TABLE 21 Limitations of different PV array configurations in terms of specific parameters
Parameters Limitations Prevalence in Different PV Array Configurations
Monitoring units • Instrument failure Present in all PV array configurations

• Incorrect use of equipment
• Incorrectly specified/installed instrumentation
• Problem in data logging
• Running software problems
Battery storage • Cycle life Present in all PV array configurations
• Rate of charging and discharging
• Efficiency at different state‐of‐charge levels
• Self‐discharge
• Operating temperature range
• Life, design, and maintenance requirement
• Cost
• Manufacturing under strict quality controls
Deployment of DC/DC converter • Poor current overload capacity Present in all PV array configurations
• Complication
• Noise problem
Deployment of DC/AC inverter • Sensitive electronic devices Present in all PV array configurations
• Efficiency
• Expensive
Abbreviations: AC, alternating current; DC, direct current; PV, photovoltaic.

Total cost of PV system ¼ cost of PV array þ cost of battery þ cost of inverter þ cost of wiring: (7)
With each PV array configuration, only the cost of wiring is liable to change, and the prices of other equipments are
approximately the same. The S and P configurations have been excluded from this analysis because of their incompat-
ibility for practical executions.
10 | CONCLUSION
In this paper, comparison of the performances of different PV array configurations (S, P, SP, TCT, BL, and HC) and pro-
posed hybrid configurations (SPTCT, BLTCT, HCTCT, and BLHC) under artificial and realistic PSCs is presented. Also,
different PV array configurations have been compared on the basis of other significant factors (faults, limitations of spe-
cific parameters of the PV system, and cost).
• As compared with previous works available in literature, this paper presents an extensive comparative study of dif-
ferent PV array configurations (conventional and proposed hybrid configurations) for various artificial and realistic
shading patterns, which have not been considered earlier.
• It is evident that although S and P configurations give better results, still, they are unsuited for PV system implemen-
tation because of low current and high voltage in case of S configuration and high current and low voltage in case of
P configuration.
• The obtained results indicate that the performances of different PV array configurations rely strongly on the shading
pattern and hence serve as a helpful guide regarding the performances of different PV array configurations for sev-
eral shading patterns and accordingly aid to select the most appropriate configuration for a particular shading
pattern.
• According to the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution of relative power losses of different PV
array configurations for all the considered shading patterns, it can be concluded that overall, the TCT configuration
exhibits the best performance and the hybrid configurations (BLHC, BLTCT, and HCTCT) deliver the satisfactory
performances under all the considered PSCs.
• On the basis of the faults associated with each PV array configuration and limitations of different PV array config-
urations in terms of monitoring units, battery storage, and deployment of DC/DC converter or DC/alternating cur-
rent (AC) inverter, it can be observed that more or less, all the PV array configurations display alike performances.
• The TCT configuration because of the requirement of heavy wiring is less economical in comparison with the pro-
posed hybrid configurations. This proves the superiority of the proposed hybrid configurations over the conventional
configurations.
ORCID
Vandana Jha https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-8227
Uday Shankar Triar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0702-2312
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Pachauri R, Yadav AS, Chauhan YK, Sharma A, Kumar V. Shade dispersion‐based photovoltaic array configurations for performance
enhancement under partial shading conditions. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst. 2018;28(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2556
2. Rana AS, Nasir M, Khan HA. String level optimisation on grid‐tied solar PV systems to reduce partial shading loss. IET Renew Power
Gener. 2018;12(2):143‐148.
3. Dhimish M, Holmes V, Mehrdadi B, Dales M, Chong B, Zhang L. Seven indicators variations for multiple PV array configurations under
partial shading and faulty PV conditions. Renew Energy. 2017;113:438‐460.
4. Bai J, Cao Y, Hao Y, Zhang Z, Liu S, Cao F. Characteristic output of PV systems under partial shading or mismatch conditions. Sol Energy.
2015;112:41‐54.
5. Ahmada R, Murtazaa AF, Sherb HA, Shamic UT, Olalekand S. An analytical approach to study partial shading effects on PV array sup-
ported by literature. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;74:721‐732.
6. Belhachat F, Larbes C. Modeling, analysis and comparison of solar photovoltaic array configurations under partial shading conditions. Sol
Energy. 2015;120:399‐418.
7. Ramaprabha R, Mathur BL. A comprehensive review and analysis of solar photovoltaic array configurations under partial shaded condi-
tions. Int J Photoenergy. 2012;2012:1‐16.
8. Daliento S, Napoli FD, Guerriero P, d'Alessandro V. A modified bypass circuit for improved hot spot reliability of solar panels subject to
partial shading. Sol Energy. 2016;134:211‐218.
9. Ko SW, Ju YC, Hwang HM, et al. Electric and thermal characteristics of photovoltaic modules under partial shading and with a damaged
bypass diode. Energy. 2017;128:232‐243.
10. Mohapatraa A, Nayaka B, Dasa P, Mohanty KB. A review on MPPT techniques of PV system under partial shading condition. Renew Sust
Energ Rev. 2017;80:854‐867.
11. Ramli MAM, Twaha S, Ishaque K, Al‐Turki YA. A review on maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic systems with and without
shading conditions. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;67:144‐159.
12. Joshi P, Arora S. Maximum power point tracking methodologies for solar PV systems—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev.
2017;70:1154‐1177.
13. Subudhi B, Pradhan R. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems. IEEE Trans
Sustainable Energy. 2013;4(1):89‐98.
14. Belhachat F, Larbes C. A review of global maximum power point tracking techniques of photovoltaic system under partial shading con-
ditions. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2018;92:513‐553.
15. Babu TS, Ram JP, Dragicevic T, Miyatake M, Blaabjerg F, Rajasekar N. Particle swarm optimization based solar PV array reconfiguration
of the maximum power extraction under partial shading conditions. IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy. 2018;9(1):74‐85.
16. Jin Y, Hou W, Li G, Chen X. A glowworm swarm optimization‐based maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic/thermal systems
under non‐uniform solar irradiation and temperature distribution. Energies. 2017;10(4):1‐13.
17. Mohanty S, Subudhi B, Ray PK. A new MPPT design using grey wolf optimization technique for photovoltaic system under partial shad-
ing conditions. IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy. 2016;7(1):181‐188.
18. Mohanty S, Subudhi B, Ray PK. A grey wolf‐assisted perturb & observe MPPT algorithm for a PV system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers.
2017;32(1):340‐347.
19. Benyoucefa AS, Chouderb A, Karaa K, Silvestrec S, Sahedaa OA. Artificial bee colony based algorithm for maximum power point tracking
(MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded conditions. Appl Soft Comput. 2015;32:38‐48.
20. Titri S, Larbes C, Toumi KY, Benatchba K. A new MPPT controller based on the ant colony optimization algorithm for photovoltaic sys-
tems under partial shading conditions. Appl Soft Comput. 2017;58:465‐479.
21. Kaced K, Larbes C, Ramzan N, Bounabia M, Dahmane ZE. Bat algorithm based maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic system
under partial shading conditions. Sol Energy. 2017;158:490‐503.
22. Teshome DF, Lee CH, Lin YW, Lian KL. A modified firefly algorithm for photovoltaic maximum power point tracking control under par-
tial shading. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron. 2017;5(2):661‐671.
23. Lyden S, Haque MDE. A simulated annealing global maximum power point tracking approach for PV modules under partial shading con-
ditions. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2016;31(6):4171‐4181.
24. Ram JP, Rajasekar N. A novel flower pollination based global maximum power point method for solar maximum power point tracking.
IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2017;32(11):8486‐8499.
25. Huang C, Wang L, RS‐c Y, Zhang Z, Chung HS‐h, Bensoussan A. A prediction model guided Jaya algorithm for the PV system maximum
power point tracking. IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy. 2018;9(1):45‐55.
26. Jha V, Triar US. Experimental verification of different PV array configurations under partial shading condition. IEEE International WIE
Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (WIECON‐ECE);India, 18‐19 Dec. 2017:43‐46.
27. Bastidas‐Rodriguez JD, Ramos‐Paja CA, Saavedra‐Montes AJ. Reconfiguration analysis of photovoltaic arrays based on parameters esti-
mation. Simul Model Pract Theory. 2013;35:50‐68.
28. Bingöl O, Özkaya B. Analysis and comparison of different PV array configurations under partial shading conditions. Sol Energy.
2018;160:336‐343.
29. Pareek S, Chaturvedi N, Dahiya R. Optimal interconnections to address partial shading losses in solar photovoltaic arrays. Sol Energy.
2017;155:537‐551.
30. Sanseverino ER, Ngoc TN, Cardinale M, et al. Dynamic programming and Munkres algorithm for optimal photovoltaic arrays reconfig-
uration. Sol Energy. 2015;122:347‐358.
31. Nejad SM, Khalafi A, Ahmadi SM. Mathematical analysis of total‐cross‐tied photovoltaic array under partial shading condition and its
comparison with other configurations. Sol Energy. 2016;133:501‐511.
32. Ngoc TN, Phung QN, Tung LN, Sanseverino ER, Romano P, Viola F. Increasing efficiency of photovoltaic systems under non‐
homogeneous solar irradiation using improved dynamic programming methods. Sol Energy. 2017;150:325‐334.
33. Brecl K, Topic M. Self‐shading losses of fixed free‐standing PV arrays. Renew Energy. 2011;36(11):3211‐3216.
34. Deline C, Dobos A, Janzou S, Meydbray J, Donovan M. A simplified model of uniform shading in large photovoltaic arrays. Sol Energy.
2013;96:274‐282.
35. Wurster TS, Schubert MB. Mismatch loss in photovoltaic systems. Sol Energy. 2014;105:505‐511.
36. Lappalainen K, Valkealahti S. Recognition and modelling of irradiance transitions caused by moving clouds. Sol Energy. 2015;112:55‐67.
37. Lappalainen K, Valkealahti S. Analysis of shading periods caused by moving clouds. Sol Energy. 2016;135:188‐196.
38. Lappalainen K, Valkealahti S. Effects of PV array layout, electrical configuration and geographic orientation on mismatch losses caused
by moving clouds. Sol Energy. 2017;144:548‐555.
39. Lappalainen K, Valkealahti S. Photovoltaic mismatch losses caused by moving clouds. Sol Energy. 2017;158:455‐461.
40. Lappalainen K, Valkealahti S. Output power variation of different PV array configurations during irradiance transitions caused by moving
clouds. Appl Energy. 2017;190:902‐910.
41. KD260GX‐LFB2, KD 200‐60F series—KYOCERA SOLAR. Datasheet. [Online]. Available: http://www.kyocerasolar.com/dealers/product‐
center/, January 24 2019.
42. Asef P, Bargallo R, Barzegaran MR, Lapthorn A. A 3‐D Pareto‐based shading analysis on solar photovoltaic system design optimization.
IEEE Trans Sustainable Energy. 2018;1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2018.2849370
43. Jha V, Triar US. An improved generalized method for evaluation of parameters, modeling, and simulation of photovoltaic modules. Int J
Photoenergy (Hindawi. 2017;Article ID; 25321092017:1‐19.
44. Dhimish M, Holmes V. Fault detection algorithm for grid‐connected photovoltaic plants. Sol Energy. 2016;137:236‐245.
45. Dhimish M, Holmes V, Dales M. Parallel fault detection algorithm for grid‐connected photovoltaic plants. Renew Energy. 2017;113:94‐111.
46. Roy S, Alam MK, Khan F, Johnson J, Flicker J. An irradiance‐independent, robust ground‐fault detection scheme for PV arrays based on
spread spectrum time‐domain reflectometry (SSTDR). IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2018;33(8):7046‐7057.
47. Chaurey A, Deambi S. Battery storage for PV power systems: an overview. Renew Energy. 1992;2(3):227‐235.
How to cite this article: Jha V, Triar US. A detailed comparative analysis of different photovoltaic array
configurations under partial shading conditions. Int Trans Electr Energ Syst. 2019;e12020. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2050‐7038.12020

Jha 2019 Relevent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jha 2019 Relevent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 13 September 2018 Revised: 27 January 2019 Accepted: 24 February 2019

A detailed comparative analysis of different photovoltaic

Vandana Jha | Uday Shankar Triar

Department of Electrical Engineering,

K TImpp , %/°C 0.02

K TIsc , %/°C 0.06

Irradiance coefficients K GV oc 0.055 781

S 6242.10 919.20 9.11 743.94 8.39 0.75 40.07

S 8322.66 1225.60 9.11 991.51 8.39 0.75 53.37

FIGURE 3 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern 1

TABLE 5 Results for pattern 1

Case 1(a) Case 1(b) Case 1(c)

S 5178.27 617.70 8.38 4114.05 490.85 8.38 3050.05 363.39 8.39

Case 1(d) Case 1(e) Case 1(f)

Thermal voltage (VT) can be evaluated by Equation 4.

ð2V MPP − V OC ÞðI SC − I MPP Þ

Relative power loss (ΔPloss) can be calculated by Equation 5.

FIGURE 5 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern 2

TABLE 7 Results for pattern 2

Case 2(a) Case 2(b) Case 2(c) Case 2(d)

PMPP UIC − PMPPPSC

4 | COMPAR I S ON OF D I FFER ENT P V A R R A Y CO NF I GUR A T I O NS UND ER

5 | COMPAR I S ON OF D I FFER ENT P V A R R A Y CO NF I GUR A T I O NS UND ER

a) Different PSCs on 10 PV arrays of size 6 × 4, each having a different configuration

Case 2(a) Case 2(b) Case 2(c) Case 2(d)

b) Different PSCs on 10 PV arrays of size 8 × 4, each having a different configuration

The temperature of all the PV modules is assumed to be fixed at 25°C.

FIGURE 7 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern 3

TABLE 9 Results for pattern 3

Case 3(a) Case 3(b) Case 3(c) Case 3(d)

Case 3(a) Case 3(b) Case 3(c) Case 3(d)

FIGURE 9 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern 4

6 | COMPAR I S ON OF D I FFER ENT P V A R R A Y CO NF I GUR A T I O NS UND ER

TABLE 11 Results for pattern 4

Case 4(a) Case 4(b) Case 4(c) Case 4(d)

Case 4(a) Case 4(b) Case 4(c) Case 4(d)

ii. Static or hard shading

FIGURE 11 Shading pattern (W/m2) for pattern CD

TABLE 13 Results for pattern CD

S 5434.17 774.72 7.01 0.65 131.15 12.94

6.2 | Patterns BG and CDBG

6.3 | Patterns SS and CDSS

TABLE 14 Results for patterns BG and CDBG

Pattern BG Pattern CDBG

6.4 | Patterns DD and CDDD

7 | COMPAR I S ON OF D I FFER ENT P V A R R A Y CO NF I GUR A T I O NS UND ER

TABLE 15 Results for patterns SS and CDSS

Pattern SS Pattern CDSS

7.1 | Pattern real building

8 | CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION

TABLE 16 Results for patterns DD and CDDD

Pattern DD Pattern CDDD

Date: October 01, 2018

Irradiance, W/m2 491 656 742 804

FIGURE 19 Shading pattern (W/m2)

9 | COMPARISON OF DIFFER ENT PV ARRAY CONFIGURATIONS ON THE

9.1 | Faults associated with different PV array configurations

9.2 | Limitations of different PV array configurations in terms of specific parameters

TABLE 18 Results for pattern real building

Date: October 01, 2018

Date: October 01, 2018

9.3 | Cost estimation of different PV array configurations

The cost of a PV system is estimated as follows: