Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Modeling, analysis and comparison of solar photovoltaic

array configurations under partial shading conditions
F. Belhachat a,b, C. Larbes b,⇑
a
Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Technologie Rouı̈ba, Alger 16200, Algeria
b
Laboratoire des Dispositifs de Communication et Conversion Photovoltaı̈que, Ecole Nationale Polytechnique, Alger 16200, Algeria

Received 19 April 2015; received in revised form 24 July 2015; accepted 24 July 2015
Available online 15 August 2015

Communicated by: Subject Editor Nik Romeo

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to model, study and analyze the performance of different photovoltaic (PV) array configurations
under various partial shading conditions (PSC). The aim is to improve the efficiency of PV systems in general by reducing mismatch
losses and to select the most appropriate PV array configuration which provides the best performance i.e. the highest maximum power
and hence the lowest relative power losses under partial shading conditions. For this purpose, a comprehensive study which considers all
the available PV array configurations: Series (S), Parallel (P), Series–Parallel (SP), Total-Cross-Tied (TCT), Bridge-Linked (BL), and
Honey-Comb (HC), is carried out under all possible scenarios of shading. The performance and output characteristics of these array
configurations are analyzed and compared by using a 6  4 PV array size under various possible shading scenarios.
The Bishop model of a photovoltaic module which describes best the solar cell behavior at negative voltages is considered in this paper
for modeling the PV arrays, and it is implemented by using the Simulink and SimPower software.
On the whole, the obtained results prove the superiority of the TCT configuration which provides the best performances under most
cases of PSC: uneven or random distribution of partial shading. However, for some cases of PSC this is not the case because the
performance depends strongly on the patterns of shade. Therefore, this paper will enrich and complement previous studies in this area
through a detailed analysis and comprehensive study of the different PV array configurations under all possible shading scenarios which
may occur in reality, the thing that has not been carried out previously.
In addition, these results represent an interesting guide which provides useful and relevant information concerning the performance of
each PV array configuration under any pattern of shading. This will allow the estimation and prediction of maximum power and
consequently will help to select the most suitable PV array configuration.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Photovoltaic array configurations; Partial shading; Series–Parallel; Bridge-Linked; Honey-Comb; Total-Cross-Tied

1. Introduction by clouds, trees, nearby buildings, chimneys, snow, dust,

Partial shading is the major cause for mismatch losses
which can reduce considerably the energy yield of
photovoltaic (PV) systems. Partial shading may be caused
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +213 772 506002; fax: +213 21 522973.
E-mail address: cherif.larbes@enp.edu.dz (C. Larbes).
dirt, bird droppings. The presence of shade on PV panels
causes masks which block all or part of the direct sun radi-
ation, so there is a loss of energy received by the cells.
Moreover, when a solar cell is shaded it becomes equivalent
to a resistor which consumes the energy generated by its
neighboring cells. The absorbed energy is converted into
heat which raises the temperature of the cell and damages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.07.039
0038-092X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
400 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418
it. This is known as hot spot effect and fortunately, this
problem can be solved by using bypass diodes. Similarly,
partial shading of a single module in a module Series will
limit the power of the whole PV array. The effect of shad-
ing has been widely studied with respect to the PV module
performances (Quaschning and Hanitsch, 1996; Hanitsch
et al., 2001; Villa et al., 2012; Parlak et al., 2014).
The losses associated to the shading effect can be reduced
by using several approaches: maximum power point track-
ing (MPPT) techniques that allow the extraction of the glo-
bal maximum power point, system architectures, converter
topologies and PV array configurations (Bidram et al.,
2012). PV array configuration which is considered in this
paper is one of the solutions that can significantly reduce
mismatch losses. It is based on the PV array interconnec-
tions of PV modules which are Series (S), Parallel (P),
Series–parallel (SP), Total-Cross-Tied (TCT),
Bridge-Linked (BL) and Honey-Comb (HC) configurations.
Several researchers proposed models to study and ana-
lyze the effect of shading on different PV array configura-
tions in order to reduce mismatch losses and to find the
best PV array configuration which provides the highest per-
formances. Shams El-Dein et al. (2011a,b) proposed novel
configurations for photovoltaic farms which reduce partial
shading losses. They introduced a novel mathematical for-
mulation for irradiance level mismatch that can be used for
comparative evaluation of different photovoltaic configura-
tions. Wang and Hsu (2011) analyzed the electrical perfor-
mance of a PV module with S, SP, TCT, BL and HC
configurations by using the Newton–Raphson and the
piecewise linear parallel branches (PLPB) model methods
of PV cells. The authors found, by using both methods,
that the TCT configuration has the maximum power value
which is followed by the BL and HC configurations for the
solar irradiance pattern considered. However, in this work
the authors considered only one case of partial shading pat-
tern which is inadequate to draw conclusions on the best
configuration. (Ramabadran and Mathur, 2012) developed
a generalized Matlab program to study, analyze and com-
pare different PV array configurations for different random
shading patterns to determine the configuration which is
less sensitive to power losses under partial shading. The
authors found that the TCT configuration is the best con-
figuration for symmetrical array sizes and the HC configu-
ration is the best for asymmetrical array sizes. The authors
analyzed the five configurations for different PV array sizes,
but their studies were focused on a single case of shading
pattern which is the one with random distribution.
Jazayeri and Uysal (2014) have made comparative analysis
based on the performances of different PV array topologies
under various irradiance conditions. The SP, BL and TCT
PV array configurations were analyzed. Simulation models
for PV array topologies were conducted using
Matlab/Simulink and the performances were analyzed with
and without bypass diodes. The authors found that the
TCT configuration outperforms the SP and BL configura-
tions under partial shading conditions. Pareek and Dahiya
(2014) simulated and discussed the SP, TCT and BL inter-
connection schemes for moving shade on 4  4 PV array.
The authors concluded that gaining more power could be
achieved by choosing the right interconnection scheme
according to the shading pattern.
On the whole, the results obtained by the above cited
works showed the superiority of the TCT configuration
which provides the best performances in most cases of
partial shading conditions. The work proposed in this
paper comes in its turn to confirm and prove these results.
Furthermore, it provides additional results concerning all
the considered configurations which come to enrich and
complement the obtained results through a detailed analy-
sis and complete study of the different configurations by
testing several possible shading scenarios which may occur
in reality, the thing that has not been carried out by the
previous studies.
So, compared with previous research works in this field,
the main objective of this paper is to present a comprehen-
sive study that considers all the available PV array config-
urations under almost all the possible patterns of shading.
The approach adopted for this purpose, involves first, the
modeling of all the PV array configurations with different
sizes and then the analysis of their performances under dif-
ferent scenarios of partial shading. This will provide a solu-
tion for the choice of the most optimal configuration under
a given partial shading patterns which improves the effi-
ciency of the overall system.
The model of the PV array used in this work is based on
the PV cell model presented by Bishop (Bishop, 1988). It is
implemented by using the MATLAB Simulink and
SimPower software. All scenarios were tested on different
PV array sizes but only the 6  4 PV array size is presented
in this paper.
This paper starts with the development of a PV module
equivalent circuit model which is based on the Bishop PV
cell model. This is followed by the application of the
proposed PV module model for the modeling and analysis
of the different PV array configurations under partial
shading patterns: Series (S), Parallel (P), Series–Parallel
(SP), Total-Cross-Tied (TCT), Bridge-Linked (BL) and
Honey-Comb (HC) configurations. Section 4 is devoted
to the study and analysis of different PV array configura-
tions under different partial shading scenarios. All the
considered PV array configurations are analyzed and
compared using several scenarios of shading in order to
evaluate their performances and the ability of each config-
uration to increase the power and reduce losses caused by
partial shading. Finally, the obtained results are discussed
and evaluated.
2. Modeling and simulation of one PV module under partial
shading conditions using Bishop model
The two diodes equivalent circuit is the most used model
for PV cells. Shaded cells in a PV module can be driven into
the negative voltage region. If there are no bypass diodes
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 401
   
V þ Rs I
I ¼ I ph  I s1 exp 1
m1 V t
   
V þ Rs I
 I s2 exp 1
m2 V t
   n 
V þ Rs I V þ Rs I
 1þa 1 ð1Þ
Rp Vb

where Iph is the photocurrent relative to the irradiance and

Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of the solar cell.
for cell protection, a diode breakdown can happen during
high negative voltages. This breakdown is not taken into
account in the two diodes model (Quaschning and
Hanitsch, 1996; Paraskevadaki and Papathanassiou,
2010); therefore, the model of Bishop that includes an
extension term which describes the diode breakdown at
high negative voltages is used (Bishop, 1988). The equiva-
lent circuit of this model is given in Fig. 1.
The electrical behavior of the solar cell can be described
by Eq. (1) over the whole voltage range.
temperature of the PV cell, Is1 and Is2 are inverse saturation
currents of the first and second diode respectively, m is the
ideality factor of the diode, Vb is the breakdown voltage, a
and n are constants, Vt is the thermal voltage, Rs and Rp
are the Series and shunt resistance, respectively.
The model of a photovoltaic generator presented in this
paper is implemented by using the MATLAB Simulink and
SimPower softwares. A photovoltaic module is modeled by
using the equivalent circuit of a photovoltaic cell presented
in Fig. 1 which is based on the Bishop model. The Bishop
model of PV module is adopted in this paper to simulate
effects and analyze PV arrays under uniform and partial
shading conditions for all different PV array

Fig. 2. Simulink/SimPower model of one PV module using Bishop model.

Fig. 3. Simulink/SimPower model of a photovoltaic system.

402 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

configurations. Fig. 2 shows a Simulink/SimPower model
of one PV module.
Fig. 3 shows the Simulink/SimPower model of a
stand-alone photovoltaic system which consists of: PV
module, MPPT controller, a DC–DC boost converter, a
battery and a load.
As an example of simulation, Figs. 4 and 5 show respec-
tively the P–V and I–V characteristics of one PV module of
36 cells obtained with Simulink and SimPower using the
model described above. The simulation was carried out
under uniform condition i.e. with no shading (at 25 °C and
1000 W/m2) and under PSC at 25 °C and different irradiance
levels: 18 cells are exposed to an irradiance of 1000 W/m2, 12
cells are exposed to 800 W/m2, 4 cells are exposed to
600 W/m2 and 2 cells are exposed to an irradiance of
200 W/m2. The solar cell parameters used in this simulation
are: m1 = 1, Is1 = 1.26  109 A, m2 = 2, Is2 = 2.53  106
A, Rs = 1 m O, Rp = 1 k O; Iph = 3.798 A. Bishop’s term:
Vb = 15 V, a = 2  103, n = 3 (Silvestre et al., 2009).
Uniform condition
60
Partial shading conditions
50
40
Power (W)
Under partial shading conditions, the P–V characteristic
exhibits multiple peaks and the maximum output power is
43.51 W. Table 1 gives maximum power, voltage and cur-
rent of the module under uniform and partial shading
conditions.
3. Modeling, presentation and simulation of different PV
array configurations under partial shading conditions
The aim of this part is to present all the PV array con-
figurations used. For all the simulation tests and for all
analyzed configurations, we have used 24 PV modules
and each module consists of 36 cells connected in Series
and protected by anti-parallel bypass diodes. The tempera-
ture was fixed at 25 °C and the irradiance levels of the
shading patterns on the PV array are illustrated in Table 2.
3.1. Parallel (P) configuration
The Simulink/SimPower model of a parallel configura-
tion of PV array is shown in Fig. 6. The P–V and I–V char-
acteristics under uniform and partial shading conditions
for parallel configuration are shown in Figs. 7 and 8
respectively.
We notice that the obtained characteristics exhibit a sin-

gle peak even under partial shading conditions and the

30
presence of the bypass diodes in the parallel case have no
20 effect on the maximum power.
10
3.2. Series (S) configuration
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Voltage(V)
The Simulink/SimPower model of Series configuration
Fig. 4. Simulated V–P characteristics of one PV module under uniform for 24 PV modules connected in Series is shown in Fig. 9.
and PSC using Bishop model. The P–V and I–V characteristics under uniform and partial
shading conditions for Series configuration are shown in
Figs. 10 and 11 respectively.
4

3.5 3.3. Series–Parallel (SP) configuration

3
Uniform condition
The Simulink/SimPower model for SP configuration is
Current (A)

2.5 Partial shading conditions

2
shown in Fig. 12. The PV array has four parallel strings
1.5
and each string contains six modules connected in Series.
The P–V and I–V characteristics under uniform and partial
1
shading conditions for Series–Parallel configuration are
0.5
shown in Figs. 13 and 14 respectively.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Voltage (V)

Fig. 5. Simulated I–V characteristics of one PV module under uniform Table 2

and PSC using Bishop model. Illustration of a random shading patterns in [W/m2] for 6  4 PV array
configuration.
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
Table 1
Maximum power, voltage and current of a PV module under uniform and Row 1 800 200 400 1000
PSC. Row 2 800 200 1000 1000
Row 3 800 1000 1000 1000
PM (W) VM (V) IM (A)
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
Uniform condition 61.76 17.38 3.55 Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
Partial shading conditions 43.51 14.81 2.94 Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 403

Fig. 6. Simulink/SimPower model of the parallel PV array configuration.

1500
Uniform condition 100
Partial shading conditions

80
1000
Uniform condition
Power (W)

Current (A)

60 Partial shading conditions

500 40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)
Fig. 7. Simulated P–V characteristics for 6  4 parallel PV array
configuration under uniform and PSC. Fig. 8. Simulated I–V characteristics for 6  4 parallel PV array config-
uration under uniform and PSC.

3.4. Total-Cross-Tied (TCT) configuration

Fig. 15 shows a TCT architecture where each PV mod-
ule is connected to its adjacent PV module. All the PV
modules are then cross connected. The P–V and I–V char-
acteristics under uniform and partial shading conditions
for TCT configuration are shown in Figs. 16 and 17
respectively.
3.5. Bridge-Linked (BL) configuration
Fig. 18 shows the model of the BL configuration. The P–
V and I–V characteristics under uniform and partial shad-
ing conditions for BL configuration are shown in Figs. 19
and 20 respectively.
404 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Fig. 9. Simulink/SimPower model of the Series PV array configuration.

1500
Uniform condition
3.6. Honey-Comb (HC) configuration
Partial shading conditions

The model of the HC scheme is shown in Fig. 21. The P–

1000
Power (W)

V and I–V characteristics under uniform and partial shad-

ing conditions for HC configuration are shown in Figs. 22
500 and 23 respectively.
Table 3 summarizes the obtained maximum powers and
the corresponding maximum voltages and currents for P, S,
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 SP, TCT, BL and HC configurations under uniform and
Voltage (V) partial shading conditions for a 24 modules PV array.
Fig. 10. Simulated P–V characteristics for 6  4 Series PV array config- Table 3 gives as well the relative power losses DPL (%)
uration under uniform and PSC. which are computed by Eq. (2).
P M  P MPS
DP L ¼  100 ð2Þ
PM
4

3.5
Uniform condition where PM refers to the maximum power of the PV array
3 Partial shading conditions under uniform condition and PMPS is the maximum power
Current (A)

2.5 of the partially shaded PV array.

2

1.5
4. Study and analysis of different PV array configurations
1
under different shading scenarios
0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 In order to evaluate the behavior of each PV array con-
Voltage (V)
figuration under mismatch caused by non-uniform solar
Fig. 11. Simulated I–V characteristics for 6  4 Series PV array config- irradiance and in order to choose the most optimal config-
uration under uniform and PSC. uration that provides the highest performances, we carried
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 405

Fig. 12. Simulink/SimPower model of the SP PV array configuration.

out tests under several shading scenarios on a 6  4 PV

1500
Uniform condittion
array size. In this paper, the case of one bypass diode per
Partial shading conditions module is considered and the temperature of all the mod-
ules is set to 25 °C. In order to generate patterns of shading
1000
and build all possible scenarios of partial shading that may
Power (W)

occur in reality, different irradiance values are used. These

scenarios are used for the analysis of the behavior of the six
500
PV array configurations under partial shading conditions.
The possible partial shading scenarios considered in
order to perform the various simulations are the following:
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Voltage (V)
PS-A: One row is completely and uniformly shaded.
Fig. 13. Simulated P–V characteristics for 6  4 SP PV array configura- PS-B: One row is completely and unevenly shaded.
tion under uniform and PSC. PS-C: A column is completely and uniformly shaded.
PS-D: A column is completely and unevenly shaded.
PS-E: Different shading patterns are randomly dis-
16
tributed in the PV array.
PS-F: Spread of shading in the same column from top to
14
Uniform condition
bottom.
12
Partial shading conditions PS-G: Spread of shading in the same row from left to
Current (A)

10 right.
8 PS-H: The same pattern of shading is moving randomly
6 in the PV array.
4

2 In this part we focus on the performances of the five

0
configurations: S, SP, TCT, BL and HC regardless of the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
parallel configuration. This latter, as shown in the previous
Voltage (V)
section, outperforms all the configurations in nearly all
Fig. 14. Simulated I–V characteristics for 6  4 Series–Parallel PV array cases of partial shading and its corresponding P–V charac-
configuration under uniform and PSC. teristics have a single power peak. However, its low voltage
406 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Fig. 15. Simulink/SimPower model of the TCT PV array configuration.

1500 16
Uniform condition
Partial shading conditions 14

12
Uniform condition
1000
Power (W)

Current (A)

10 Partial shading conditions

6
500
4

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)

Fig. 16. Simulated P–V characteristics for 6  4 TCT PV array config- Fig. 17. Simulated I–V characteristics for 6  4 TCT PV array configu-
uration under uniform and PSC. ration under uniform and PSC.

and high current make this configuration not suitable in PV

system applications (Gao et al., 2009; Ramabadran and
Mathur, 2009; Ramabadran et al., 2010; Buddala et al.,
2013). The maximum power values of the parallel configu-
ration are still given in all scenarios of shading for informa-
tion only.
Before presenting the different shading scenarios we first
present the case under uniform irradiance condition i.e.
with no shading.
4.1. Under uniform irradiance condition (1000 W/m2)
The simulation results for all the configurations under
uniform irradiance condition for a 6  4 array are pre-
sented in Table 3. Fig. 24 shows the maximum powers
obtained under uniform irradiance condition.
All the configurations present the same maximum power
under uniform condition.
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 407

Fig. 18. Simulink/SimPower model of the BL PV array configuration.

1500 16
Uniform condition
Partial shading conditions 14

12
1000 Uniform condition
Current (A)

10
Power (W)

Partial shading conditions

6
500
4

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)

Fig. 19. Simulated P–V characteristics for 6  4 BL PV array configura- Fig. 20. Simulated I–V characteristics for 6  4 BL PV array configura-
tion under uniform and PSC. tion under uniform and PSC.

4.2. Under partial shading conditions
4.2.1. Scenario PS-A: one row is completely and uniformly
shaded
The shading patterns and the corresponding simulation
results for scenario PS-A are shown in Tables 4 and 5
respectively.
Fig. 25 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
tive power losses with scenario PS-A.
We notice that the configurations S, SP, TCT, BL and
HC present the same maximum power and hence the same
relative power losses.
- We tested the case where two rows are completely and
evenly shaded. The first and the second row receive
the same irradiance value of 300 W/m2. The simulations
give the same results as for scenario PS-A. The configu-
rations S, SP, TCT, BL and HC provide the same max-
imum power (988.85 W) and thus the same relative
power losses (33.33%).
- We tested as well the case where two rows are com-
pletely and unevenly shaded. The first and the second
row receive different irradiance values of 300 W/m2
and 800 W/m2 respectively. The simulations give the
same results as for scenario PS-A. The configurations
408 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Fig. 21. Simulink/SimPower model of the HC PV array configuration.

1500 16
Uniform condittion
Partial shading conditions 14

12
1000
Power (W)

10 Uniform condition
Current (A)

Partial shading conditions

8

500 6

2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Voltage (V) Voltage (V)

Fig. 22. Simulated PV characteristics for 6  4 HC PV array configu- Fig. 23. Simulated IV characteristics for 6  4 HC PV array configu-
ration under uniform and PSC. ration under uniform and PSC.

Fig. 26 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-

S, SP, TCT, BL and HC provide the same maximum tive power losses with scenario PS-B.
power (1075.60 W) and therefore the same relative We notice that the configurations S, SP, TCT, BL and
power losses (27.49%). HC present the same maximum powers and hence the same
relative power losses.

4.2.2. Scenario PS-B: one row is completely and unevenly
shaded
The shading patterns and the corresponding simulation
results for scenario PS-B are shown in Tables 6 and 7
respectively.
- We tested the case where two rows are completely and not
uniformly shaded. The first row receives different irradi-
ance values of 100, 200, 300 and 400 W/m2 respectively
and the second row receives 500, 600, 700 and
800 W/m2 respectively. The simulations give the same
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 409

Table 3
Maximum power and relative power losses for different topologies and 6  4 PV array.
Configuration Uniform condition Partial shading conditions
PM (W) VM (V) IM (A) PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
P 1483.30 17.26 85.95 1301.70 17.10 76.14 12.22
S 1483.30 413.62 3.59 1009.80 73.54 13.73 31.92
SP 1481.50 104.57 14.17 1009.80 73.54 13.73 31.92
TCT 1483.30 103.26 14.36 1014.90 90.66 11.19 31.58
BL 1481.50 104.57 14.17 993.17 89.50 11.10 33.04
HC 1481.50 104.57 14.17 998.45 89.92 11.10 32.69

Power (W)
1600 Table 5
1400 Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
1200 A.
1000 Configuration Scenario PS-A
800 PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
600
400
P 1301.70 17.18 75.77 12.24
S 1236.10 345.07 3.58 16.67
200
SP 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
0
TCT 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
P S SP TCT BL HC
BL 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
Fig. 24. The obtained power for different configurations under uniform HC 1236.10 86.21 14.34 16.67
irradiance condition.

Power (W) Power Losses Table 6

Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-B and for 6  4 PV array.
1400 20
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
1350
15 Row 1 1000 1000 1000 1000
1300 Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000
10 Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000
1250
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
5 Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
1200
Row 6 300 300 700 700
1150 0
P S SP TCT BL HC

Fig. 25. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with Table 7
scenario PS-A. Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
B.
Table 4 Configuration Scenario PS-B
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-A and for 6  4 PV array.
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
P 1353.50 17.17 78.81 8.75
Row 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 S 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 SP 1236.10 86.21 14.34 16.67
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 TCT 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 BL 1236.10 86.21 14.34 16.67
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 HC 1236.10 86.14 14.35 16.67
Row 6 300 300 300 300

results as for scenario PS-B. The configurations S, SP,
TCT, BL, and HC provide the same maximum powers
(988.85 W) and therefore the same relative power losses
(33.33%).
4.2.3. Scenario PS-C: a column is completely and uniformly
shaded
The shading patterns and the corresponding simulation
results for scenario PS-C are shown in Tables 8 and 9
respectively.
Fig. 27 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
tive power losses with scenario PS-C.
For the partial shading scenario PS-C, we notice that the
configurations SP, TCT, BL and HC have the same best
performance. They show higher maximum powers and
hence lower relative power losses with respect to the
Series configuration.
- We tested the case where two columns (strings) are com-
pletely and evenly shaded. The first and the second col-
umn receive the same value of irradiance of 300 W/m2.
410 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Power (W) Power Losses Table 11

Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
1400 20
D.
1350 Configuration Scenario PS-D
15
1300 PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
10
1250 P 1301.70 17.18 75.77 12.24
5 S 1112.50 310.43 3.58 25.00
1200
SP 1229.10 103.44 11.88 17.14
1150 0 TCT 1268.60 103.89 12.21 14.47
P S SP TCT BL HC BL 1260.30 104.86 12.02 15.03
HC 1239.60 104.33 11.88 16.43
Fig. 26. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-B.
Power(W) Power Losses
1350 30
Table 8
1300 25
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-C and for 6  4 PV array.
1250
20
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4 1200
15
Row 1 300 1000 1000 1000 1150
Row 2 300 1000 1000 1000 1100 10
Row 3 300 1000 1000 1000 1050 5
Row 4 300 1000 1000 1000 1000 0
Row 5 300 1000 1000 1000 P S SP TCT BL HC
Row 6 300 1000 1000 1000
Fig. 28. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-D.
Table 9
Simulation results for different configurations PSC for scenario PS-C. The simulations give the same results as for scenario
Configuration Scenario PS-C
PS-C. The configurations SP, TCT, BL, and HC provide
the same maximum power (941.46 W) and the same rel-
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
ative power loss (36.53%) while the Series configuration
P 1209.70 16.874 71.69 18.45 Series gives a lower maximum power of 741.64 W and a
S 1112.50 310.39 3.59 25
SP 1211.30 102.64 11.80 18.34
higher relative power loss of 50%.
TCT 1211.30 102.72 11.79 18.34 - For the case where two columns are completely and
BL 1211.30 102.64 11.80 18.34 unevenly shaded. The first and the second column
HC 1211.30 102.65 11.80 18.34 receive 300 W/m2 and 800 W/m2 respectively. The simu-
lations give the same results as for scenario PS-C. The
configurations SP, TCT, BL, and HC provide the same
Power (W) Power Losses maximum power (1133.80 W) and the same relative
1250 30 power loss (23.56%) while the Series configuration
25 Series gives a lower maximum power of 949.15 W and
1200
20 a higher relative power loss of 36.01%.
1150 15
10
1100 4.2.4. Scenario PS-D: a column is completely and unevenly
5
shaded
1050 0
P S SP TCT BL HC The shading patterns and the corresponding simulation
results for scenario PS-D are shown in Tables 10 and 11
Fig. 27. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with respectively.
scenario PS-C.
Fig. 28 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
tive power losses with scenario PS-D.
Table 10
The results show that the TCT configuration provides
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-D and for 6  4 PV array. the best performances i.e. the highest maximum power
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
and the lowest relative power losses. The BL configuration
comes second best whereas the Series configuration has the
Row 1 300 1000 1000 1000
Row 2 300 1000 1000 1000
lowest performances.
Row 3 500 1000 1000 1000
Row 4 500 1000 1000 1000 - We also tested the case where two columns are com-
Row 5 800 1000 1000 1000 pletely and not uniformly shaded. The first column
Row 6 800 1000 1000 1000 receives irradiance values of 300, 300, 300, 800, 800
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 411

Table 12 Power (W) Power Losses

Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-E-1 and for 6  4 PV array.
1000 80
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
800
Row 1 140 450 300 500 60
Row 2 540 300 640 1000 600
Row 3 700 200 420 420 40
400
Row 4 600 1000 240 500
20
Row 5 320 180 1000 900 200
Row 6 1000 700 800 800
0 0
P S SP TCT BL HC
Table 13
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS- Fig. 29. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
E-1. scenario PS-E-1.
Configuration Scenario PS-E-1
Table 14
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-E-2 and for 6  4 PV array.
P 799.99 15.83 50.53 46.08 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
S 489.48 310.41 1.58 67.00
SP 398.51 34.69 11.49 73.13 Row 1 300 400 200 800
TCT 593.06 68.95 8.60 60.02 Row 2 1000 300 200 1000
BL 492.85 53.56 9.20 66.77 Row 3 700 600 600 1000
HC 500.86 53.24 9.41 66.23 Row 4 200 500 700 500
Row 5 800 1000 1000 400
Row 6 300 800 300 300
and 800 W/m2 respectively and the second column
receives irradiance values of 800, 800, 800, 300, 300
and 300 W/m2 respectively. The configuration TCT Table 15
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
gives the best performances with the highest maximum
E-2.
power (1133.80 W) and the lowest relative power losses
Configuration Scenario PS-E-2
(23.56%) which is followed by the BL configuration with
a maximum power of 1010.10 W and a relative power PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
loss of 31.90%. The Series configuration shows the low- P 820.95 16.02 51.24 44.65
est performances with a maximum power of 949.15 W S 490.15 217.89 2.25 66.96
SP 532.88 53.25 10.01 64.07
and a relative power loss of 36.05%.
TCT 662.15 105.23 6.29 55.36
- We tested as well the case where all the 24 modules are BL 625.56 104.93 5.96 57.83
completely and unevenly shaded. The first and the third HC 509.03 72.05 7.07 65.68
column receive irradiance values of 300, 300, 300, 800,
800 and 800 W/m2 respectively and the second and the and the lowest relative power loss. It is followed by the
fourth column receive irradiance values of 800, 800, HC configuration. The SP configuration presents the low-
800, 300, 300 and 300 W/m2 respectively. The simula- est performances.
tions give the same results as for scenario PS-D. The
configuration TCT outperforms the other configuration 4.2.5.2. Scenario PS-E-2. The shading patterns and the cor-
having the presents the highest maximum power responding simulation results for scenario PS-E-2 are
(789.12 W) and the lowest relative power loss shown in Tables 14 and 15 respectively.
(46.80%). The BL configuration is second best with a Fig. 30 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
maximum power value of 639.83 W and a relative power tive power losses with scenario PS-E-2.
loss of 56.86%. The Series configuration has the lowest The TCT configuration provides the best performances
performances with a maximum power value of with the highest maximum power and the lowest relative
585.82 W and a relative power loss of 60.51%. power loss. It is followed by the HC configuration. The
Series configuration presents the lowest performances with
the lowest maximum power and the highest relative power
4.2.5. Scenario PS-E: different shading patterns are loss.
randomly distributed on the PV array
4.2.5.1. Scenario PS-E-1. The shading patterns and the cor- 4.2.6. Scenario PS-F: spread of shading in the same column
responding simulation results for scenario PS-E-1 are from top to bottom
shown in Tables 12 and 13 respectively. 4.2.6.1. Scenario PS-F-1. The shading patterns and the cor-
Fig. 29 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela- responding simulation results for scenario PS-F-1 are
tive power losses with scenario PS-E-1. shown in Tables 16 and 17 respectively.
The results show that the TCT configuration provides Fig. 31 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
the best performances with the highest maximum power tive power losses with scenario PS-F-1.
412 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Power (W) Power Losses Table 18

Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-2 and for 6  4 PV array.
1000 80
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
800
60 Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000
600 Row 2 800 1000 1000 1000
40 Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000
400
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
20
200 Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
0 0
P S SP TCT BL HC

Fig. 30. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with Table 19
scenario PS-E-2. Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
F-2.
Configuration Scenario PS-F-2
Table 16
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-1 and for 6  4 PV array. PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)

String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4 P 1457.30 17.22 84.62 1.75

S 1359.70 379.26 3.59 8.33
Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000 SP 1424.90 104.95 13.58 3.94
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 TCT 1446.20 102.83 14.06 2.50
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 BL 1443.80 104.24 13.85 2.66
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 HC 1430.10 105.37 13.57 3.59
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
Power (W) Power Losses

Table 17 1500 10
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS- 8
1450
F-1.
6
Configuration Scenario PS-F-1 1400
4
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
1350
P 1470.30 17.21 85.42 0.88 2
S 1421.50 396.24 3.59 4.17 1300 0
SP 1427.50 105.35 13.55 3.76 P S SP TCT BL HC
TCT 1462.40 103.74 14.10 1.41
BL 1448.40 105.31 13.75 2.35 Fig. 32. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
HC 1456.20 104.07 13.99 1.83 scenario PS-F-2.

Power (W) Power Losses Table 20

1480 5 Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-3 and for 6  4 PV array.
1460 4 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4

1440 3 Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000

Row 2 800 1000 1000 1000
1420 2 Row 3 800 1000 1000 1000
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
1400 1
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
1380 0 Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
P S SP TCT BL HC

Fig. 31. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-F-1. Fig. 33 shows the obtained maximum powers and
relative power losses with scenario PS-F-3.

4.2.6.2. Scenario PS-F-2. The shading patterns and the
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-F-2 are
shown in Tables 18 and 19 respectively.
Fig. 32 shows the obtained maximum powers and
relative power losses with scenario PS-F-2.
4.2.6.4. Scenario PS-F-4. The shading patterns and the
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-F-4 are
shown in Tables 22 and 23 respectively.
Fig. 34 shows the obtained maximum powers and
relative power losses with scenario PS-F-4.

4.2.6.3. Scenario PS-F-3. The shading patterns and the 4.2.6.5. Scenario PS-F-5. The shading patterns and the
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-F-3 are corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-F-5 are
shown in Tables 20 and 21 respectively. shown in Tables 24 and 25 respectively.
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 413

Table 21 Power(W) Power Losses (%)

Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
F-3. 1450 14
12
Configuration Scenario PS-F-3 1400
10
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) 1350 8
P 1444.30 17.23 83.83 2.63 1300 6
S 1308.30 435.31 3.00 11.8 4
1250
SP 1420.50 104.50 13.59 4.23 2
TCT 1434.50 104.65 13.71 3.29 1200 0
BL 1427.80 104.07 13.72 3.74 P S SP TCT BL HC
HC 1426.80 104.20 13.69 3.81
Fig. 34. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-F-4.
Power(W) Power Losses
1500 14
Table 24
1450 12
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-5 and for 6  4 PV array.
1400 10
8 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
1350
6 Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000
1300 Row 2 800 1000 1000 1000
4
1250 Row 3 800 1000 1000 1000
2
Row 4 800 1000 1000 1000
1200 0 Row 5 800 1000 1000 1000
P S SP TCT BL HC Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
Fig. 33. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-F-3.
Table 25
Table 22 Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-4 and for 6  4 PV array. F-5.

String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4 Configuration Scenario PS-F-5

Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000 PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
Row 2 800 1000 1000 1000 P 1418.40 17.23 82.34 4.38
Row 3 800 1000 1000 1000 S 1289.50 431.32 2.99 13.07
Row 4 800 1000 1000 1000 SP 1409.80 102.61 13.74 4.96
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 TCT 1414.60 103.10 13.72 4.63
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000 BL 1409.10 102.34 13.77 5.00
HC 1412.00 104.19 13.55 4.81

Table 23
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
F-4.
From scenarios PS-F-1 to PS-F-5, we can observe that
the TCT has the best performance, with the highest maxi-
Configuration Scenario PS-F-4
mum power and the lowest relative power losses. Whereas
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) for scenario PS-F-6, which is in fact similar to scenario
P 1431.20 17.15 83.45 3.51 PS-C with a column completely and uniformly shaded,
S 1298.50 433.09 3.00 12.46 we have a confirmation of the result obtained with this
SP 1415.40 103.06 13.73 4.58
TCT 1424.60 103.28 13.79 3.96
latter. The configurations SP, TCT, BL and HC have the
BL 1421.80 103.19 13.78 4.15 same best performance with respect to the Series
HC 1421.00 103.71 13.70 4.19 configuration.
The above tests were carried out with a moving shading
pattern having an irradiance of 800 W/m2. However, when
Fig. 35 shows the obtained maximum powers and the moving shading pattern is dense with an irradiance
relative power losses with scenario PS-F-5. value of 300 W/m2, the Series configuration provides the
best performance with the highest maximum power and
4.2.6.6. Scenario PS-F-6. The shading patterns and the hence the lowest relative power losses for scenarios
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-F-6 are PS-F-1 to PS-F-5. For scenario PS-F-6, we have the same
shown in Tables 26 and 27 respectively. results as above and as for scenario PS-C. The configura-
Fig. 36 shows the obtained maximum powers and tions SP, TCT, BL and HC have the same best perfor-
relative power losses with scenario PS-F-6. mance with respect to the Series configuration.
414 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Power (W) Power Losses Table 28

1450 14 Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-G-2 and for 6  4 PV array.
12 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
1400
10 Row 1 800 800 1000 1000
1350 8 Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000
1300 6 Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000
4 Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
1250
2 Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
1200 0 Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
P S SP TCT BL HC

Fig. 35. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-F-5. Table 29
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
G-2.
Table 26 Configuration Scenario PS-G-2
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-F-6 and for 6  4 PV array.
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
P 1457.30 17.22 84.62 1.75
Row 1 800 1000 1000 1000 S 1359.70 379.26 3.59 8.33
Row 2 800 1000 1000 1000 SP 1378.30 106.02 13.00 7.08
Row 3 800 1000 1000 1000 TCT 1419.70 106.23 13.36 4.29
Row 4 800 1000 1000 1000 BL 1412.50 106.18 13.30 4.77
Row 5 800 1000 1000 1000 HC 1401.60 106.25 13.19 5.51
Row 6 800 1000 1000 1000

Table 27 Power (W) Power Losses

Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS- 1500 10
F-6.
8
Configuration Scenario PS-F-6 1450
6
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) 1400
P 1405.30 17.16 81.88 5.26 4
S 1281.10 429.89 2.98 13.63 1350
2
SP 1404.10 104.18 13.48 5.34
TCT 1404.00 104.18 13.48 5.35 1300 0
BL 1404.00 104.18 13.48 5.35 P S SP TCT BL HC
HC 1404.10 104.18 13.48 5.34
Fig. 37. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-G-2.
Power (W) Power Losses
1450 15
Fig. 37 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
1400 tive power losses with scenario PS-G-2.
10
1350

1300 4.2.7.3. Scenario PS-G-3. The shading patterns and the cor-
5
responding simulation results for scenario PS-G-3 are
1250
shown in Tables 30 and 31 respectively.
1200 0 Fig. 38 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
P S SP TCT BL HC
tive power losses with scenario PS-G-3.
Fig. 36. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-F-6.
4.2.7.4. Scenario PS-G-4. The shading patterns and the cor-
responding simulation results for scenario PS-G-4 are
4.2.7. Scenario PS-G: spread of shading in the same row shown in Tables 32 and 33 respectively.
from left to right Fig. 39 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
4.2.7.1. Scenario PS-G-1. This scenario is similar to sce- tive power losses with scenario PS-G-4.
nario PS-F-1 and the corresponding results are given in From scenarios PS-G-1 to PS-G-3, we notice that the
Tables 14, 15 and Fig. 30. TCT has the best performance, with the highest maximum
power and the lowest relative power losses. Whereas for
4.2.7.2. Scenario PS-G-2. The shading patterns and the cor- scenario PS-G-4, which is in fact similar to scenario PS-A
responding simulation results for scenario PS-G-2 are with a row completely and uniformly shaded, we have a
shown in Tables 28 and 29 respectively. confirmation of the result obtained with this latter. The
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 415

Table 30 Table 33
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-G-3 and for 6  4 PV array. Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
G-4.
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
Configuration Scenario PS-G-4
Row 1 800 800 800 1000
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 P 1431.20 17.15 83.45 3.51
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
S 1298.50 433.13 3.00 12.46
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
SP 1295.30 107.35 12.07 12.67
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
TCT 1297.50 107.78 12.04 12.53
BL 1297.90 108.68 11.94 12.50
HC 1295.30 107.34 12.07 12.67
Table 31
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
G-3. Power (W) Power Losses
Configuration Scenario PS-G-3 1450 14
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) 12
1400
10
P 1444.30 17.23 83.83 2.63 1350 8
S 1308.30 435.31 3.01 11.68
SP 1335.60 107.33 12.44 9.96 1300 6
TCT 1363.70 107.16 12.73 8.06 4
1250
BL 1355.10 107.06 12.66 8.64 2
HC 1358.90 106.15 12.80 8.39 1200 0
P S SP TCT BL HC

Fig. 39. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
Power (W) Power Losses scenario PS-G-4.
1500 14
1450 12
10 Table 34
1400
8 Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-H-1 and for 6  4 PV array.
1350
6 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
1300
4
Row 1 500 1000 1000 1000
1250 2
Row 2 500 1000 1000 1000
1200 0 Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000
P S SP TCT BL HC Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
Fig. 38. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000
scenario PS-G-3.

Table 32 configurations S, SP, TCT, BL and HC have the same max-

Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-G-4 and for 6  4 PV array. imum powers and hence the same relative power losses.
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
Row 1 800 800 800 800 4.2.8. Scenario PS-H: the same partial shading pattern is
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000 moving randomly in the PV array
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 4.2.8.1. Scenario PS-H-1. The shading patterns and the
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-H-1 are
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000 shown in Tables 34 and 35 respectively.
Fig. 40 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
tive power losses with scenario PS-H-1.
configurations S, SP, TCT, BL and HC have the same max-
imum powers and thus the same relative power losses. 4.2.8.2. Scenario PS-H-2. The shading patterns and the
The above tests were carried out with a moving shading corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-H-2 are
pattern having an irradiance of 800 W/m2. However, when shown in Tables 36 and 37 respectively.
the moving shading pattern is dense with an irradiance Fig. 41 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
value of 300 W/m2, the Series configuration provides the tive power losses with scenario PS-H-2.
best performance with the highest maximum power and
hence the lowest relative power losses for scenarios 4.2.8.3. Scenario PS-H-3. The shading patterns and the
PS-G-1 to PS-G-3. For scenario PS-G-4, we have the same corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-H-3 are
results as above and as for scenario PS-A. The shown in Tables 38 and 39 respectively.
416 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418

Table 35 Power (W) Power Losses

Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
1450 14
H-1.
12
Configuration Scenario PS-H-1 1400 10
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) 8
1350
P 1418.30 17.23 82.34 4.38 6
S 1359.70 379.26 3.59 8.33 1300 4
SP 1307.90 105.02 12.45 11.82 2
TCT 1365.10 105.94 12.88 7.97 1250 0
BL 1351.10 105.81 12.77 8.91 P S SP TCT BL HC
HC 1318.90 104.29 12.65 11.08
Fig. 41. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-H-2.

Power (W) Power Losses

1450 14 Table 38
12 Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-H-3 and for 6  4 PV array.
1400 10 String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
8
1350 Row 1 1000 1000 1000 1000
6
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000
1300 4 Row 3 1000 1000 500 1000
2 Row 4 1000 1000 500 1000
1250 0 Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000
P S SP TCT BL HC Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000

Fig. 40. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-H-1.
Table 39
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS-
Table 36 H-3.
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-H-2 and for 6  4 PV array. Configuration Scenario PS-H-3
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4 PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
Row 1 1000 500 1000 1000 P 1418.30 17.23 82.34 4.38
Row 2 1000 500 1000 1000 S 1359.70 379.26 3.59 8.33
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000 SP 1307.90 105.01 12.46 11.82
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 TCT 1365.10 105.94 12.88 7.97
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 1000 BL 1341.20 105.07 12.76 9.47
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 1000 HC 1339.70 105.69 12.68 9.57

Table 37
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS- Power (W) Power Losses
H-2. 1450 14
12
Configuration Scenario PS-H-2 1400 10
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%) 8
1350
P 1418.30 17.23 82.34 4.38 6
S 1359.70 379.21 3.59 8.33 1300 4
SP 1307.80 105.04 12.45 11.83 2
TCT 1365.10 105.94 12.88 7.97 1250 0
BL 1351.10 105.81 12.77 8.91 P S SP TCT BL HC
HC 1346.20 105.67 12.74 9.24
Fig. 42. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with
scenario PS-H-3.
Fig. 42 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela-
tive power losses with scenario PS-H-3.
highest maximum power and the lowest relative power
4.2.8.4. Scenario PS-H-4. The shading patterns and the losses. The S configuration comes second best whereas
corresponding simulation results for scenario PS-H-4 are the SP configuration has the lowest performances.
shown in Tables 40 and 41 respectively. The results show as well that the performances of the BL
Fig. 43 shows the obtained maximum powers and rela- and HC configurations are sensitive to changes in position
tive power losses with scenario PS-H-4. of the same shading pattern whereas the performances of
The results for the entire scenario PS-H show that the the TCT, S and SP configurations are unaffected by these
TCT configuration provides the best performances i.e. the changes.
 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418 417

Power (W) Power Losses  When the shading covers completely the PV array and
1450 14 symmetrically with respect to the columns, the SP, TCT,
12 BL and HC configurations provide the best performance.
1400 10
 When the shading covers completely the PV array and
8
1350 symmetrically with respect to the rows, the S, SP,
6
4 TCT, BL and HC configurations provide the best
1300
2 performance.
1250 0  When the shading covers partially and unevenly the PV
P S SP TCT BL HC array, the TCT configuration provides, in almost all
Fig. 43. The obtained maximum powers and relative power losses with cases, the best performance in terms of highest maxi-
scenario PS-H-4. mum power and lowest relative power losses. It is usu-
ally followed by the BL or HC configurations.
 For high irradiance values, when the shading pattern
Table 40
Shading patterns in [W/m2] for scenario PS-H-4 and for 6  4 PV array.
spread in the same row or in the same column of an
array, the TCT configuration outperforms all the other
String 1 String 2 String 3 String 4
configurations.
Row 1 1000 1000 1000 1000  For low irradiance values, when the shading pattern
Row 2 1000 1000 1000 1000
Row 3 1000 1000 1000 1000
spread in the same row or in the same column of an
Row 4 1000 1000 1000 1000 array, the S configuration outperforms all the other
Row 5 1000 1000 1000 500 configurations.
Row 6 1000 1000 1000 500  When the same shading pattern is moving randomly in
the array, the performances of the BL and HC configu-
Table 41 rations are sensitive to the changes in position whereas
Simulation results for different configurations under PSC for scenario PS- the performances of the TCT, S and SP configurations
H-4. are unaffected by these changes.
Configuration Scenario PS-H-4
PMPS (W) VMPS (V) IMPS (A) DPL (%)
P 1418.30 17.23 82.34 4.38 6. Conclusion
S 1359.70 379.28 3.58 8.33
SP 1307.80 105.04 12.45 11.83 In this paper, a comprehensive study which considers all
TCT 1365.10 105.94 12.88 7.97 the available PV array configurations: Series (S), Parallel
BL 1351.40 105.20 12.85 8.89
(P), Series–Parallel (SP), Total-Cross-Tied (TCT),
HC 1349.20 105.63 12.77 9.04
Bridge-Linked (BL), and Honey-Comb (HC), has been car-
ried out under all possible scenarios of shading. For this
5. Results and performance evaluation purpose, the modeling of PV arrays was performed using
the model of Bishop and was implemented using
From the above obtained results it can be concluded Simulink/SimPower software.
that: Under partial shading conditions, the results clearly
show that the performances of the PV array configurations
 The S, SP, TCT, BL and HC configurations provide the are variables and depend strongly on the scenario of shad-
same maximum powers and hence the same relative ing used. The detailed analysis of each configuration
power losses when one or two rows are completely through multiple shading scenarios show that the choice
and either evenly or unevenly shaded. of the most optimal and appropriate configuration depends
 The SP, TCT, BL and HC configurations provide the strongly on the intensity of shading, the shading pattern,
same maximum powers and hence the same relative the location of the shading pattern, and the type of shading
power losses when one or two columns are completely affecting the PV array (uniform or not).
and uniformly shaded. Finally, this study gives useful information on how and
 The TCT configuration presents the best performance when to use each PV array configuration in the case of
i.e. the highest maximum power and hence the lowest shading; it helps to predict and therefore to choose the
relative power losses when one or two columns are com- optimal PV array configuration, which gives the best per-
pletely and unevenly shaded. formance i.e. highest maximum power and lowest relative
 When the shading covers completely and unevenly the power losses, according to the shading pattern. The
PV array, the TCT configuration provides, in all cases, obtained results could also be used in an intelligent algo-
the best performance in terms of highest maximum rithm for the tracking of the global maximum power point
power and lowest relative power losses. in the case of shading.
418 F. Belhachat, C. Larbes / Solar Energy 120 (2015) 399–418
References
Bidram, Ali, Davoudi, Ali, Balog, Robert S., 2012. Control and circuit
techniques to mitigate partial shading effects in photovoltaic arrays.
IEEE J. Photovoltaics 2 (4), 532–546.
Bishop, J.W., 1988. Computer simulation of the effects of electrical
mismatches in photovoltaic cell interconnection circuits. Sol. Cells 25,
73–89.
Buddala, S.S., Vemuru, S., Devabhaktuni, V., 2013. Small signal modeling
of diode in a parallel module subjected to partial shading. In: IEEE
Int. Conference on Electro/Information Technology (EIT), pp. 1–5.
Gao, L., Dougal, R.A., Liu, S., Iotova, A.P., 2009. Parallel-connected
solar PV system to address partial and rapidly fluctuating shadow
conditions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 56 (5), 1548–1556.
Hanitsch, R.E., Schulz, Detlef, Siegfried, Udo, 2001. Shading effects on
output power of grid connected photovoltaic generator systems. Rev.
Energy Ren.: Power Eng., 93–99
Jazayeri, Moein, Uysal, Sener, 2014. A comparative study on different
photovoltaic array topologies under partial shading conditions. In:
T&D Conference and Exposition, IEEE PES, April, pp. 1–5.
Paraskevadaki, E., Papathanassiou, S., 2010. Performance of conventional
MPPT techniques in the presence of partial shading. In: Proc. 5th
European PV-Hybrid and Mini-Grid Conference, Tarragona, Spain,
April.
Pareek, Smita, Dahiya, Ratna, 2014. Output power maximization of
partially shaded 4*4 PV field by altering its topology. Energy Procedia
54, 116–126.
Parlak, Koray Sener, 2014. PV array reconfiguration method under partial
shading conditions. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 63, 713–721.
Quaschning, Volker, Hanitsch, Rolf, 1996. Numerical simulation of
current–voltage characteristics of photovoltaic systems with shaded
solar cells. Sol. Energy 56 (6), 513–520.
Ramabadran, Ramaprabha, Mathur, Badrilal, 2009. Effect of shading on
series and parallel connected solar PV modules. Mod. Appl. Sci. 3 (10),
32–41.
Ramabadran, Ramaprabha, Mathur, Badrilal, Murthy, Madhuri,
Madhumitha, S., 2010. New configuration of solar photovoltaic array
to address partial shaded conditions. In: 3rd International Conference
on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology (ICETET), pp.
328–333.
Ramabadran, Ramaprabha, Mathur, B.L., 2012. A comprehensive review
and analysis of solar photovoltaic array configurations under partial
shaded conditions. Int. J. Photo Energy 2012, 1–16.
Shams El-Dein, M.Z., Kazerani, M., Salama, M.M.A., 2011a. Optimal
photovoltaic array reconfiguration to reduce partial shading losses.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4 (1), 145–153.
Shams El-Dein, M.Z., Kazerani, M., Salama, M.M.A., 2011b. Novel
configurations for photovoltaic farms to reduce partial shading losses.
IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., 1–5
Silvestre, S., Boronat, A., Chouder, A., 2009. Study of bypass diodes
configuration on PV modules. Appl. Energy 86, 1632–1640.
Villa, Luiz Fernando Lavado, Picault, Damien, Raison, Bertrand, Bacha,
Seddik, Labonne, Antoine, 2012. Maximizing the power output of
partially shaded photovoltaic plants through optimization of the
interconnections among its modules. IEEE, J. Photovoltaic 2 (2), 154–
163.
Wang, Yaw-Juen, Hsu, Po-Chun, 2011. An investigation on partial
shading of PV modules with different connection configurations of PV
cells. Energy 36, 3069–3078.