Accelerat ing t he world's research.

An Accurate Method for MPPT to

Detect the Partial Shading
Occurrence in PV System
Jubaer Ahmed

IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

An Improved Met hod t o Predict t he Posit ion of Maximum Power Point During Part ial Shading …
Jubaer Ahmed

A Modified P&O Maximum Power Point Tracking Met hod wit h Reduced St eady St at e Oscillat ion and I…
Jubaer Ahmed

Experiment al assessment of maximum power point t racking met hods for phot ovolt aic syst ems Exp…
J-p Barbot , Rachid Boukenoui
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
An Accurate Method for MPPT to Detect the
Partial Shading Occurrence in PV System
Jubaer Ahmed, Member, IEEE, and Zainal Salam, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper proposes an accurate detection scheme
that effectively differentiates the partial shading from the
uniform change of irradiance. By doing so, it avoids the
unnecessary global peak search which results in a drop of the
maximum power point tracker (MPPT) efficiency. The detection
is achieved by calculating the irradiance at two designated points
on the I-V curve namely, i.e. the short circuit (Isc) and MPP (Impp)
currents. Since the mismatch of irradiance at these two points
differs greatly for the partial shading and uniform irradiance
change, the occurrence of the former is easily discriminated. To
prove its effectiveness, the scheme is integrated into perturb and
observe (P&O) and particle swarm optimization MPPT
algorithms using a buck-boost converter. Its performance under
several partial shading and dynamic shading condition is
simulated using Matlab/Simulink and validated using the dSpace
DS1104 platform. It only requires 3 samples to determine if
partial shading occurs; without the scheme, an unnecessary scans
of the entire P-V curve is initiated. Consequently, MPPT
transient efficiency is increased by 30-35%. In addition to this,
the calculated irradiance is utilized to update the open circuit
voltage of the array, thus eliminates the use of temperature and
irradiance sensors.
Index Terms—PV, Solar, Partial Shading, tracking MPP, Open
circuit voltage
I. INTRODUCTION
P artial shading in a PV system is a condition whereby only
a certain portion of the PV module (or array) is shaded,
while other parts are remained uniformly irradiated. It is
typically caused by shadow from the nearby buildings, trees,
poles, chimney, overhead cables etc. When the array is
subjected to partial shading, considerable amount of energy is
lost because the shaded module is short-circuited by its
respective bypass diode, thus forcing its voltage (and power)
to zero. As a consequence, multi-modal P-V curve, with
several local and a global peak is generated. To extract the
maximum power from the array, the maximum power point
tracker (MPPT) algorithm has to initiate a searching
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation, Malaysia, under Science Fund Grant SF 03-01-06-SF1399. The
grant was managed by the Research Management Centre, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, under Vote R.J130000.7909.4S119.
Jubaer Ahmed is a lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and
Science, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, 93350, Malaysia. He
was with Centre of Electrical Energy Systems, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia.
(E-mail: jahmed@swinburne.edu.my).
Zainal Salam (corresponding author) is with the Centre of Electrical Energy
Systems, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia. He is also attached to the Institute of Future
Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia.
E-mail: zainals@fke.utm.my).
Copyright © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
mechanism to differentiate between the local and global peak.
Although, numerous intelligent MPPT are suggested in
literature [1], it is surprising to note that most techniques are
unable to detect the occurrence of partial shading reliably and
consistently [2-9]. If a wrong decision is made—for example a
partial shading is assumed to take place (but actuality it does
not), unnecessary search for a global search is initiated. This
confusion results in efficiency drop as the operating voltage is
forced to move at different places along the P-V curve in its
effort to locate the global peak. The most common method to
identify the occurrence of partial shading is to check the
(sudden and large) change in output power of the PV array,
i.e. ΔP [10-13]. A threshold (Pth) is set for ΔP; if it exceeds a
certain value for consecutive control samples of the voltage,
the MPPT considers that partial shading occurs. Otherwise, a
uniform fluctuation of the irradiance (G) is assumed. Despite
its simplicity, the checking mechanism is not conclusive. It is
known that fluctuations of G under non-partial shading can
also create the similar change in ΔP. Alternatively, authors in
[14] used the current threshold (Ith), instead. However, the
ambiguity to distinguish between these two scenarios remains.
Furthermore, none of the published detection method
specifically indicates how the threshold, (i.e. Pth or Ith) is
determined. Thus, it is impossible to ensure its correct value
without resorting to trial and error method. If Pth is too large,
the MPPT cannot initiate the global peak search, even if it
existed. On the contrary, if the value is too small, the
algorithm is prone a false trigger, hence forcing the
unnecessary search for the global peak. Several values of Pth
are suggested in literature; for example in [15], Pth = 5 W for a
35 W module [16, 17]. By interpolation, Pth is taken to be
approximately 15% of rated array capacity. However, this
condition does not guarantee a unique detection for partial
shading. As argued by [18], it is possible that a 15% change
could be due to the variation of G of 150 W/m2. In [19], the
author proposed Pth to be 0.1~0.2 of Pmpp, and in another
recent work [20], Pth is set to 5% of the nominal power. There
is no evidence to suggest the suitability of this value, but in
practice, it is considered to be too small. In [21], the concept
of normalized deviation of power (ΔP/P) is proposed. The
value of Pth is set to 15% of the rated PV power. The same
method is adopted in [10-12, 22, 23], but in [22], Pth is set to
10%. Again, no specific reason is given for the selection of
these values.
In a separate work, the authors in [24-26] imposed both
current (Ith) and voltage (Vth) thresholds. They kept Ith and Vth
as tuning parameters. Nevertheless, Ith is easily breached
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
2

whenever G changes abruptly. In [27], Pth is assigned as a detection scheme is explained. To quantify its performance,
variable that requires certain tuning under different weather the scheme is integrated with two widely used MPPT, namely
conditions. In addition, Ith and Vth are chosen as 0.1 and 0.2, the adaptive P&O [32] and particle swarm optimization (PSO)
respectively. According to the authors, these two values [21]. They idea is simulated in Matlab/Simulink and
distinguish between power change due to partial shading and implemented in the buck-boost converter using the dSpace
load variation. However, they cannot be used to determine (DS 1104) platform. Several tests are carried out to prove the
whether the power change is due to partial shading or sudden effectiveness of the MPPT algorithm, with and without the
irradiance change—making it prone to false triggering. proposed detection scheme.
Another detection approach is proposed in [28], and later
adopted by [29]. In this method, the MPPT scans three II. THE PROPOSED DETECTION SCHEME OF PARTIAL SHADING
specific points on the P-V curve based on predetermined duty
A. Concept
cycle. Then it imposes Ith and Vth to 0.2 and 0.1, respectively.
Although effective in most of the cases, this method is To appreciate the proposed detection scheme, it is important
unsuccessful under specific partial shading curves, as to first understand the I-V relationship of the PV cell under the
uniform G. For this purpose, the single diode equivalent
explained in [1]. Furthermore, the threshold values need to be
circuit model [31], shown in Fig. 1 is considered.
tuned for specific shading cases. Since this method is based on
the “direct duty cycle” MPPT, therefore cannot be applied in I RS
voltage based types.
A recent technique in [30] proposes a partial shading RP
IPV V
detection by measuring a voltage mismatch in PV modules.
Id
This is straightforward approach because under partial
shading, the voltages of the shaded and unshaded modules
differs significantly. However, to apply this scheme, it is Fig. 1: Single diode model with Rs and Rp
  V  IR    V  IR 
necessary to install one voltage sensor for every module; thus
I I  I exp s 1   s

  VT    R p 
o
making it prohibitively expensive. In another work [31], a

 I pv _ STC  K I T 
pv
relationship is proposed based on the normalized current (1)
Where, V  
change in the vicinity of the MPP. It is observed that the nkT G
and I
change in current is much higher under uniform G, as T q pv GSTC
compared to partial shading. Further, it is assumed that local In (1), Ipv is the photocurrent (in A), I0 is the reverse
peaks are located at integer multiples of 0.8Voc under partial saturation current (in A), Rs is the series resistance (in Ω), Rp
shading. However, this relationship is not necessarily true—as is the parallel resistance (in Ω), n is the diode factor, q is the
argued by [18]. electron charge (in C), k is the Boltzmann’s constant (in
Despite the numerous work carried out to address this issue, J/Kelvin), T is the panel temperature (in Kelvin), KI
there is still a need to find an effective method that can temperature coefficient of current. If the variation of G is
consistently distinguish between partial shading occurrence considered while T remains constant, then Ipv (1) can be
and uniform irradiance change . Thus, this paper proposes an rewritten as


improved detection by scanning two designated points on the I pv G
I-V curve namely, short circuit current (Isc) and the MPP (2)
I pv _ STC GSTC
current (Impp). Afterwards, the irradiance is calculated from the
where, GSTC is the irradiance at standard test condition, i.e.
recorded currents using PV equations. Since the difference in
1000 W/m2 at 25oC. Considering the fact that the maximum
calculated irradiance (mismatch) between these two points
current (Impp) normally lies within the vicinity of 0.9Isc [33],
differs greatly between the partial shading and uniform Eqn. (2) can be approximated as
irradiance change, the occurrence of the former can be easily

 
discriminated. Consequently, the algorithm initiates the
I sc I mpp G
search for global peak (of the multiple peak P-V curve) only
when it is sure that partial shading has taken place. Else, it will I sc _ STC I mpp _ STC GSTC (3)

G  GSTC 
locate the MPP position of the uniform irradiance (which has I sc I mpp
only one unique peak). Since the procedure takes only three GSTC
control samples, the transient efficiency of the MPPT is I sc _ STC I mpp _ STC
significantly improved. In addition, the proposed scheme has The detection concept is outlined by the numerical
another inherent advantage: the open circuit voltage of the computation of the MSX60 module. The specifications of this
array can be determined using the information from the module are provided in TABLE I, while its I-V curve for
calculated irradiances at the two designated points mentioned selected values of G is shown in Fig. 2. By observing Isc, the
above. Consequently, the temperature/irradiance sensors is no drop of G from 1000 to 600 W/m2 results in the following
ratio in the short circuit currents, i.e.
  0.596  0.6
longer necessary, leading to lower implementation cost.
The paper begins with an analysis of PV module behavior I sc 2.265
(4)
under varying G and T. Then the concept of the proposed I sc _ STC 3.8

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
3

Which is the ratio between the respective values of G. While at I0.8Voc_array the value of G2 is

G2 
Coherently, same conclusion can be drawn from the ratio of I 0.8Voc _ array
the MPP currents when G drops from 1000 to 600 W/m2 i.e. GSTC (8)
I mpp _ STC
  0.596  0.6
I mpp 2.086
 G2  1000  1012
(5) 3.542
I mpp _ STC 3.5
TABLE I
3.5
The specifications of the PV module (MSX 60) used in this paper It can be seen that the values of G1 and G2 are very close to
Parameters Variable Value Unit actual the G i.e. 1000 W/m2. However, it must be noted that
Short Circuit current Isc 3.8 A (6) is approximated based on the observation that Impp is
Open circuit voltage Voc 21.1 V
located at 0.9Isc. This is not necessarily true under all values of
Current at Pmax IMPP 3.5 A
Voltage at Pmax VMPP 17.1 V irradiance. Consequently, it is expected that the computation
Maximum power PMPP 59.85 W of G using (6) inevitably introduces a mismatch value. For
Voc coef. of temperature Kv -0.08 V /oC example, in the above calculation (for G=1000 W/m2), the
Isc coef. of temperature Ki 3e-3 A / oC
mismatch between G1 and G2 is 16.7 W/m2. On the other hand,
for G=600 W/m2, the mismatch is decreased to nearly zero,
X=Voltage while at 300 W/m2 the mismatch increases to 17 W/m2. Based
G=1000 W/m2 Y=Current
on these observations, an important deduction can be made:
Current (A)

once G1 and G2 is calculated and mismatch remains below a

certain threshold, the algorithm treats the condition as a
0.8Voc_array

G=600 W/m2 uniform irradiance.

0.8Voc

To determine that threshold value, an extensive survey is

conducted on I-V curves of 10 monocrystalline and 10
G=300 W/m2 polycrystalline modules, as listed in Table II. The mismatch
between G1 and G2 is plotted vs irradiance in Fig. 3 (a) and
(b). It can be clearly seen that the mismatch for both types
Voltage (V) under any irradiance remains below 40 W/m2. Thus, it can be
concluded that if the mismatch is less than 40 W/m2, uniform
Fig.2: I-V curve to clarify (4) and (5)
irradiance prevails. Based on this conclusion, the following
The proposed detection scheme scans two designated points relationship is applied to differentiate between partial shading
on the I-V curve, namely Isc and Impp. As highlighted by Eqn. and uniform irradiance condition.
| G1  G2 | 40..............Uniform Irradiance
(3), the calculated values of G at the short circuit (Isc) and peak

| G1  G2 | 40..............Partial Shading
(Impp) conditions are almost equal. According to [33], Isc is in (9)
the vicinity of 0.8Voc, while Impp lies near 0.8Voc_array,. The Voc
and Voc_array refer to the open circuit voltage of a single module TABLE II
and array, respectively. Accordingly, in terms of current, Isc The manufacturer and PV module names
can be represented as I0.8Voc and Impp can be denoted as Monocrystalline Polycrystalline
Manufacturer Module Manufacturer Module
I0.8Voc_array. Using these terminologies, (3) can be rewritten as

G GSTC 
Solaria XT400 Kyocera KD145
I 0.8Voc I 0.8Voc _ array Sunmodule SW265 Solarex MSX60
GSTC (6) Sunpower SPR90 Solarex MSX83
I sc _ STC I mpp _ STC
Shell SP150 Aleo Solar P18
When the MPPT acquires samples at 0.8Voc and 0.8Voc_array, it Siemens SM55 Shell S75
records the respective current as I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array. From Panasonic N330 Solarland SLP150
these values, G at these two points is calculated using (6). For Mitsubishi MLT265 S-Energy SN60
brevity, the values of G calculated at I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array is Hyundai HIS-M300TI Trinal Solar TSM220
LG LG265S1C Yingli YL135
defined as G1 and G2, respectively.
Canadian Solar CS6P220 Zytech ZT300P
B. Detection of Uniform Irradiance Condition
A. Partial Shading Condition
If the array is under uniform irradiance, the values of G1 and
G2 are almost equal because that the slope of the current in the On the other hand, for partial shading, multiple stairs I-V
I-V curve between I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array is very small. This fact curve [18, 31], such as shown in Fig. 4 is generated. In this
is numerically verified using the I-V curve in Fig. 2. For three case, the curves are due to the shading at three levels of
values of irradiances, namely 1000, 600 and 300 W/m2, the irradiances, i.e. 1000, 800 and 400 W/m2. Although I0.8Voc
respective current at I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array are marked. At STC, remains at Isc (similar to the uniform irradiance case), the
Isc=3.8 A and Impp = 3.5 A. Thus, using (6), the value of G1 at I0.8Voc_array is positioned at a much lower value due to the
I0.8Voc is calculated as continuous drop of the staircase curve. Consequently, the

G1 
values of G1 and G2 differ greatly, as illustrated by the marked
I 0.8Voc
GSTC (7) points of I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array. Using (7) and (8), G1 = 996
I sc _ STC W/m2, while G2 = 414 W/m2. The mismatch between the two

 G1  1000  995.3
3.782 is 582 W/m2, which is much larger that the case for uniform
irradiance.
3.8

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
4

As suggested by [33, 36], the approximate position of the

Irradiance mismatch
MPP voltage Vmpp is 0.8Voc_array at any temperature. While
tracking at MPP, the algorithm is able to update the open
circuit voltage by using (11). As being an approximation
under uniform irradiance, open circuit voltage is represented
as Voc_array,u.

Voc _ array ,u 
Vmpp
(11)
Irradiance (W/m ) 2
0.8
Step 2: when the irradiance changes or partial shading takes
place, the MPPT scans 0.8Voc and 0.8Voc_array voltages to
Irradiance mismatch

determine G1 and G2 respectively. It is evident from the

Section II (B) that the value of G1 is more accurate than G2.
Thus, Voc_array can be updated by modifying the (10) to
 G 
Voc _ array  Voc _ array ,u  aVt N s ln  1 
 GSTC 
(12)
2
Irradiance (W/m )
Fig. 3: Mismatch in calculated G1 and G2 vs. irradiance(a) Monocrystalline Afterward, dividing the Voc_array by number of modules in

Voc  Voc _ array N s

(b) Polycrystalline series (Ns), Voc of a single module is found.
Since the mismatch under partial shading differs by one (13)
order of magnitude, the MPPT can easily distinguish this
condition to the uniform change in irradiance. Similar The scheme can be explained more clearly by using the I-V
observation can be drawn from the Curve 2 which is shaded curve in Fig. 5 where four cases are considered: 1) from 1000
by four levels of irradiances, i.e. 1000, 600, 400 and 200 to 700 W/m2, 2) from 1000 to 400 m2 and 3) from 1000 to 100
W/m2. The calculated values of G1 and G2 is 996 and 217 W/m2 and 4) from 1000 W/m2 to partial shading curve. At
W/m2, giving a mismatch of approximately 780 W/m2 1000 W/m2 and 250 C, the MPP is tracked at 170V. Using
(definitely over 40). (11), the algorithm calculates Voc_array,u as 212.5 V. Note that
the original Voc_array,u is 211 V. Thus the error for this
approximation is 0.7%. If G drops from 1000 to 700 W/m2,
X=Voltage
Y=Current
the MPPT triggers the partial shading detection scheme
because it senses a large power deviation. So, it scans the
0.8Voc_array and 0.8Voc voltage and calculate G2 and G1
Current (A)

respectively. Afterwards, using the value of G1 at 0.8Voc

(695.79 W/m2), the Voc_array can be calculated using (12)
 695.8 
Voc _ array  212.5  1.2  0.8 10  ln    209 V
Curve 1

 1000 
Curve 2

Voltage (V)
Fig. 4: The I-V curve for partial shading

B. Updating the Voc_array

Another advantage of the proposed detection scheme is the
ability to update the value of the open circuit voltage Voc (or
Voc_array for an S-P array) without any sensor. Most of the
voltage-based MPPT techniques [3, 4, 25, 31, 34] use either
temperature or irradiance sensors (or both) to continuously
calculate Voc. This parameter is needed to initialize the
sampling points, to determine the perturbation size and to
predict the local peak position under partial shading. Its value Fig. 5: The I-V curve to clarify Voc_array updating process
can be calculated as [35]
 G 
Voc  Voc _ STC  Kv T  TSTC   aVt ln 
TABLE III


Calculation of Voc_array using (12) for Fig.5

 GSTC 
(10) Change in G1 using Voc_array using Actual Prediction
G (W/m2) Eq. (7) Eq. (12) Voc_array error
Since Voc is G and T dependent, and vary throughout the 1000 to 700 695.79 209.00 207 0.96%
1000 to 400 396.57 203.61 201 1.29%
day, it is necessary to measure the instantaneous values of G 1000 to 100 97.11 190.10 186 2.15%
and T. Usually, the G sensor is ignored because T is a more 1000 to PS 798.94 210.4 204 3.1%
dominant parameter in (10). In the proposed scheme, however, In Fig. 5, the actual value of Voc_array is 207 V. Thus the
the computational of Voc is done by utilizing the information error in the prediction is less than 1%, which can be
from G1 and G2. The process is performed in two steps. considered negligible. The predicted values of Voc_array for all
Step 1: Prior to the occurrence of large irradiance change or three cases are summarized in TABLE III. It is clear from the
partial shading, it is assumed that the MPP is already tracked.

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
table that, the calculated Voc_array is very close the actual
Voc_array. It is noticeable that under lower irradiance levels or
under partial shading deviation has increased. Nevertheless,
error margin is around 1~3%, which is considerably low. The
open circuit voltage for a single module (Voc) can also be
calculated by dividing Voc_array with number of modules in one
string (Ns), as given in (13).
III. FLOW CHART OF THE DETECTION SCHEME
The flowchart of the detection scheme is presented in Fig. 6.
It can be readily integrated into the conventional and soft
computing MPPT by incorporating several lines of codes into
the respective algorithm. After the initialization stage, the
MPPT detects the MPP (Vmpp, Impp) and updates the value of
Voc_array1. Whenever a normalized power change over the
threshold is detected, the proposed partial shading checking
mechanism will be initiated. Then the MPPT scans two
specific voltages, i.e. V1=0.8Voc_array and V2=0.8Voc to record
current I0.8Voc_array and I0.8Voc, respectively. Afterwards, using
(7) and (8) G1 and G2 are calculated. In addition to that
Voc_array and Voc will be calculated by using (12) and (13).
Then the mismatch (which is the absolute difference between
G1 and G2 is calculated. If the mismatch is greater than 40
W/m2 MPPT decides that partial shading has taken place and
initiate global peak search. Otherwise it reverts to track the
MPP under uniform irradiance condition, i.e. at 0.8Voc_array
On another note, I0.8Voc and I0.8Voc_array are located at the
beginning and at the end sections of the I‒V curve,
respectively. As a result, for a large S-P array, the voltage
difference between these points can be very large. If the
MPPT algorithm attempts to jump from 0.8Voc_array to 0.8Voc,
the PI controller does not have sufficient time to reach at the
desired voltage level. Thus, another intermediary point (i.e.
0.5Voc_array) can be assigned so that the scanning from these
two points can be done in two steps.
Fig. 6: Flowchart of the proposed scanning mechanism
1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
5
IV. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The detection scheme is incorporated into the P&O [32] and
particle swarm optimization (PSO) MPPT [21]. The former is
the improved version of the adaptive P&O which is capable of
handling partial shading condition. The latter is based on the
soft computing technique, which effectively scans the P-V
curve in search for the global peak. The algorithm is simulated
using the Matlab/Simulink PV system model, proposed in
[37]. For experimental validation, MPPT algorithm is
implemented on a 120 W buck-boost converter. The converter
is designed to operate in the continuous inductor current
mode, with the following specifications: switching frequency
(f) = 50 kHz, inductor (L) = 0.3 mH and capacitor C1 = 470 μF
and C2 = 220 μF (details in [38]). The codes are programmed
using the dSpace 1104 digital signal processing board in
conjunction with PV array Simulator (PVAS). The PVAS is a
linear dc power supply that provides real time simulation of
any time series of G and T, for any arbitrary I–V curves. Thus
it can be used to emulate the behavior of PV modules in
controlled conditions.
Since the PVAS utilizes linear MOSFET at the power stages
(as opposed to switched mode MOSFET that is used is most
simulators) the MPPT algorithm can track the MPP very
precisely, due to the absence of the voltage ripple.
Furthermore, it is equipped with digital control that allows
high precision dynamic MPPT measurements. The overall set-
up of the hardware implementation is shown in Fig. 7.
A. Integration with the P&O MPPT
The P&O MPPT in [32] is the adaptive type that has the
ability to locate the global MPP under partial shading. It
achieves this goal by scanning the integer multiples of 0.8Voc
points on the I-V curve. It is further recommended in [31] that
temperature sensors is fitted to update the value of Voc
continuously. To demonstrate the performance under change
in uniform irradiance, a 10 × 2 S-P array is utilized. The value
of G is varied uniformly in four steps, i.e. 500, 1000, 700 and
400 W/m2. The step change is applied at every 1 second
interval. The computed STC values are: Voc_array = 210 V, Isc =
7.6 A, Impp= 7 A and Vmpp = 171 V. Throughout the
temperature is assumed to be constant at 250 C.
Fig. 8 demonstrates the tracking action of the P&O without
the inclusion of the proposed detection scheme. When G
changes from 500 to 1000 W/m2, the algorithm sense a sudden
change in power (ΔP). It assumes a partial shading has
occurred and starts to scan the entire P–V curve. However, it is
known (from the set-up) that the power change is due to
uniform change in irradiance, not partial shading. As a result
of this confusion, erroneously scanning takes place and the
MPPT loses unnecessary power during the search duration.
Similar situation is experienced at 2 s and 3 s. In all these
cases, the energy yield of the system drops significantly
during the transient state.
The tracking behavior of the proposed detection scheme is
shown in Fig. 9. For clarity, VPV and IPV waveforms are
enlarged from 1.02 to 1.09 s. When there is large change in
power, the MPPT jumps to 0.8Voc_array and 0.8Voc. From the
VPV trace, it can be observed that the MPPT locates the
0.8Voc_array and 0.8Voc points at 168 and 16.55 V, respectively.
The corresponding current at these two points are 7.11 and
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
6

1015 W/m2. Since (G1  G2) < 40, the algorithm has
7.57 A. Thus, according to (7) and (8), G1= 995.4 and G2 = Without
proposed

Efficiency (%)
mechanism
acknowledged that the condition is not partial shading. Thus, it ηavg=55%

updates the Voc using (13) as 210 V. Thereafter it correctly

tracks the MPP at 0.8Voc_array (168 V).
With proposed
mechanism
ηavg=85%

Time (s)
Fig. 10: Efficiency improvement through proposed mechanism
Fig. 11 shows the experimental result that replicates the
simulation. When there is a step change in the G, the P&O
unnecessarily triggers the search for global peak; the
oscillogram in this figure is in agreement with simulation
shown in Fig. 8. On the other hand, when the detection
scheme is integrated into the algorithm, the tracking improves
significantly, as presented in Fig. 12. As expected, it
recognizes that this is not a partial shading case. Thus it
Fig. 7: Hardware implementation setup updates the Voc_array and determines the MPP very quickly.

VPV (V)
Transient
scanning on
VPV (V)

whole PV curve

IPV (A)
IPV (A)

Transient
PPV (W)

power loss

Time (s)
PPV (W)

Fig. 11: Performance of [32] in hardware

VPV (V)

Two point
Time (s) scanning

Fig. 8: Performance of [32] in original version

IPV (A)
VPV (V)

Transient
efficiency
PPV (W)

improved

Time (s)
IPV (A)

Fig. 12: Performance of [32] in hardware integrated with proposed

detection mechanism
The next test is to demonstrate the ability of the proposed
PPV (W)

scheme to detect the partial shading condition consistently.

Time (s)
Fig. 9: Performance of [32] integrated with the proposed mechanism
The detection process with the proposed scheme requires
only 3 samples to locate the MPP. Without the scheme, it
takes 10 samples. Since the latter scans the entire curve, the
time taken to search for the global peak causes the transient
efficiency (ηavg) drops to 55%. On the other hand, when the
scheme is implemented, the transient efficiency [39] is kept at
85%. The profile of the efficiency improvement during
transient is presented in the Fig. 10.
Four levels of G [1000, 800, 500, 300 W/m2] are used to
create the shading pattern. As expected, the resulting I-V and
P-V curve is characterized by four peaks, as shown in Fig. 13.
The test sequence is designed for 3 seconds. The partial
shading is set to take place at 1 s (for a duration of one
second); then the uniform condition is restored for 1 s. Fig. 14
shows the results of the test when proposed detection scheme
is used [32]. When partial shading is imposed, the MPPT
scans the 0.8Voc_array and 0.8Voc points and calculate G1 and G2
using (7) and (8). Since the mismatch between G1 and G2 is
more than 40, the MPPT confirms that partial shading has
taken place. Then, it initiates the search and locates the global
peak correctly at 85 V. When uniform irradiance is restored
after 2 s, the scheme again senses a large power change; thus it
trigger the checking mechanism. It calculates the mismatch to
be less than 40; thus, the algorithm knows that the change is

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
7

due to uniform irradiance, not partial shading. It thus locates current (ΔI/I) is 0.03. On the other hand, under shading Pattern
the MPP at 0.8Voc_array (168 V). 1, current decreased from 2.262 to 2.261 A. This is based on
the respective voltages at 168 V and 172 V. Consequently,
ΔI/I = 0.00042. The data from TABLE IV clearly shows that
ΔI/I at STC is greater than ΔI/I at partial shading. Thus, the

Power (W)
Current (A)

condition dictated by [31] is correct. However, for Pattern 2,

the current is reduced from 3.58 to 3.22 A, at 168 V and 172
V, respectively. Since ΔI/I = 0.1, ΔI/I at STC is lower than
ΔI/I at partial shading. That is a clear violation of the proposed
condition in (14). Consequently, for this case, the method fails
Voltage (V)
to detect the occurrence of partial shading.
Fig. 13: Partial shading curve for the experiment
.
Uniform Irradiance Partial Shading Uniform Irradiance

Current (A)
VPV (V)

Tracking the MPP under ISTC

Power (W)
uniform G
Two point Tracking the global peak Two point
scanning
scanning
Partial shading
detected and whole
IPV (A)

PV curve Scanned

IPS
PPV (W)

Voltage (V)
(a)
Time (s)
ISTC
Fig. 14: Performance of [32] integrated with the proposed mechanism

Power (W)
under partial shading
Current (A)

B. Robustness Test
IPS
The robustness of the proposed scheme is compared with
work published in [31]. The latter is chosen because it also
utilizes the adaptive P&O. Unlike other general detection
mechanism (i.e. based on ΔP, ΔP/P or ΔI/I), it has the ability
to distinguish between uniform irradiance and partial shading. Voltage (V)
The working principal is based on measuring normalized (b)
current (ΔI/I) as follows. Fig.15: (a) I-V and P-V curve for pattern 1, (b) I-V and P-V curve for
 I   I   I 
     
pattern 2

 C U  C  STC  I C  PS
(14)
I I
where, Ic is the current at 0.8Voc_array (0.8NsVoc), while ΔI is the 171 V 171 V 167
VPV (V)

current change around the vicinity of 0.8Voc_array.

Despite the effectiveness of [38], it cannot guarantee the 82 V Shading
correct detection for every partial shading situation. To detection failed
illustrate this shortcoming, a specific case is presented here. Scanning for GP
Two shading patterns are generated for a 10×2 (S-P) system,
which result in the characteristic curves in Fig. 15. The I-V Time (s)
curve at STC and two particular partial shading condition is
(a)
shown in Figs. 15 (a) and (b), respectively. For such
configuration, Voc = 21.1 V, Voc_array = 210 V and Isc = 7.8 A. Partial shading occurrence checking
Two current points are marked of the curve at 0.8Voc_array (168
V) and another point as 172 V (due to ΔV=4 V, i.e. 2% of 171 V 171 V
VPV (V)

Voc_array)). Based on current values on these two voltages, 102 V

normalized current change (ΔI/I) is calculated in TABLE IV.
TABLE IV 82 V
CALCULATION OF ΔI/I ON SHADING PATTERN FROM FIG 15
STC condition Pattern 1 Pattern 2
I at 168 V 7.08 2.262 3.58
I at 172 V 6.86 2.261 3.22 Time (s)
(ΔI/I)STC 0.03 - - (b)
(ΔI/I)PS - 0.0004 0.1 Fig. 16: (a) Tracking profile [31] (b) Tracking profile for proposed method
At STC, when voltage moves from 168 to 172 V, the current The voltage (VPV) tracking for method [38] is presented in
decreases from 7.08 to 6.86 A. Thus, the normalized change in Fig. 16(a). When Pattern 2 is imposed (after 1 s), the

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
algorithm successfully detects the shading and initiate the
search for the global peak. When the uniform irradiance is
imposed again (at 2 s), condition (14) is satisfied. The global
peak search is not initiated because it acknowledges the
presence of uniform irradiance. However, when shading
Pattern 3 is imposed (after 3 s), the algorithm fails to detect
the occurrence of partial shading due to the violation of
condition (14). Thus, instead of searching for the global peak,
it traps in a local peak at 167 V. The tracking profile of the
proposed detection scheme (integrated with adaptive P&O) is
presented in the Fig. 16(b). It can be seen that, after the first
partial shading takes place (at 1 s), the checking mechanism is
immediately initiated and the global peak is correctly found at
82 V. After 2 s, the partial shading condition is lifted and
uniform irradiance is restored. Sensing the change in power,
the algorithm scans the two designated points and confirms
that the situation is a uniform irradiance change, not partial
shading. Thus it updates Voc_array using (12) and directly goes
the vicinity of 0.8Voc_array (where the peak is located). When
Pattern 3 is imposed, the scheme triggers the checking
mechanism and detect the occurrence of partial shading. Then
the global peak search takes place. The peak is correctly
detected at 102 V.
This test shows that the proposed scheme guarantees the
correct detection of partial shading, where technique in [31]
fails. Moreover, the open circuit voltage (Voc_array) is
continuously updated without any sensors, whereas [31] a
temperature sensor is needed. Nevertheless, it has to be
acknowledged that, [31] requires only two samples for the
decision to be made, while the proposed technique requires
three. However, this drawback is not a serious issue because
of time requirement for one additional sample is negligible.
C. Dynamic Shading Profile
The dynamic shading is mainly caused by a passing cloud
phenomena. To emulate the moving cloud condition, a 5×4 S-
P array are subjected eight different phases of shading, as
illustrated in Fig. 17. Initially, all modules are exposed to a
uniform irradiance of 600 W/m2. When a fragment of the
cloud moves upwards, some part of the array is covered with a
shade of 200 W/m2. As the cloud keeps on moving upwards,
different shading patterns are generated in Phase 3 through 8.
Interestingly, in Phase 2 the global peak is at 53 V; it moves to
Fig. 17: Dynamic shading condition due to passing cloud (Phase 1-phase 8)
1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8
33 V and 90 V in Phases 3 and 4, respectively. As a result, a
continuous varying global peak is created. In Phase 5, entire
array is shaded; thus a uniform irradiance is restored, albeit at
200 W/m2. In subsequent phases, i.e. 6 and 7, two more
shading patterns are created; they shift the global peak to 88 V
and 65 V, respectively. Finally, in Phase 8, the cloud totally
moves away from the array and the 600 W/m2 uniform
irradiance is reestablished.
The voltage profile of the emulated passing cloud is shown
in Fig. 17. In Phase 2, 3 and 4, as the condition changes from
uniform to partial shading (or from one shading pattern to
another), the checking mechanism is triggered. By scanning
two points and calculating the value of G1 and G2, the
occurrence of partial shading is confirmed. Subsequently, the
global peak search tracks the maximum peak at 53, 33 and 90
V, respectively. In Phase 5, uniform irradiance is restored at
200 W/m2. Here, it can be seen that the uniform irradiance
condition is successfully identified and the unique peak is
detected at 84 V. Thus, the search on the entire P-V curve is
avoided. In Phase 6 and 7, the partial shading occurs again.
The checking mechanism confirms these and it successfully
locates the global peak at 88 V and 65 V. In Phase 8, when
uniform irradiance is restored, uniform irradiance is identified
by and algorithm goes to track the MPP directly.
D. Integration with PSO
The proposed scheme can also be integrated into a soft
computing algorithm, for example the PSO. There are several
variation of PSO-based MPPT [10, 21, 29, 40], but in this
work, the algorithm in [21] is chosen. All the tuning
parameters are kept as in the original version [21] and partial
shading check is done based on ΔP/P. Fig. 18 shows the
experimental performance of PSO when a sudden change in G
takes place. As can be observed from the power oscillogram,
the algorithm initiates the global peak search because ΔP/P
has crossed the threshold. It generates the particles (samples)
on the P-V curve, performs the search and locates the peak
after 12 sampling instants. However, as noted, such searching
is unnecessary as there is no partial shading.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
9

VPV (V)
partial shading, the mismatch between G1 and G2 is
Transient
scanning on
approximately one order of magnitude higher than the case of
whole PV curve uniform change in irradiance. Thus, MPPT is able to take
conclusive decision to precisely determine the occurrence of
IPV (A)

partial shading. To perform this check, only 3 samples are

required; but by doing so, it avoids the MPPT from
Transient unnecessary scanning the entire P-V curve (which may take
PPV (W)

efficiency
dropped 10-25 samples). The scheme has been integrated with the
ηavg=50%
adaptive P&O and PSO MPPT, with an improvement of the
transient efficiency of 30-35%. It is expected that, similar
Time (s)
integration can be done with other conventional (IC, HC) and
Fig. 18: Performance of [21] in original PSO version metaheuristic (DE, ACO, FF, CS, GA) MPPT techniques. For
the dynamic test, the MPPT is subjected to moving cloud
VPV (V)

Two point conditions; the detection scheme has demonstrated its ability
scanning
to correctly determine the occurrence of partial shading
consistently. Besides, the proposed method offers the
IPV (A)

opportunity to update open circuit voltage using the

information obtained from these two scanned points. Thus,
Transient
efficiency
temperature and irradiance sensors are no longer needed,
PPV (W)

improved which leads to the reduction in implementation cost and

ηavg=85% complexity.
Time (s)
VI. REFERENCES
Fig. 19: Performance of [21] integrated with the proposed mechanism
Uniform Irradiance Partial Shading Uniform Irradiance
[1] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, "A critical evaluation on maximum power
point tracking methods for partial shading in PV systems,"
VPV (V)

Tracking the MPP under Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 47, pp. 933-953,
uniform G
Two point 2015.
scanning Tracking the global peak Two point
Partial shading scanning [2] Z. Lin, C. Yan, G. Ke, and J. Fangcheng, "New Approach for
detected and whole MPPT Control of Photovoltaic System With Mutative-Scale Dual-
IPV (A)

PV curve Scanned
Carrier Chaotic Search," Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 26, pp. 1038-1048, 2011.
[3] L. Peng, L. Yaoyu, and J. E. Seem, "Sequential ESC-Based Global
MPPT Control for Photovoltaic Array With Variable Shading,"
PPV (W)

Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 2, pp. 348-358,

Time (s)
Fig. 20: Performance of [21] integrated with the proposed mechanism
under partial shading
Fig. 19, shows the results when the proposed detection
mechanism is incorporated with the original PSO. It can be
seen, the MPPT confirms the absence of partial shading
because the mismatch is less than 40 W/m2. Accordingly, it
searches for the MPP without scanning the entire P-V curve.
Fig. 20 illustrates the performance of PSO under partial
shading when proposed mechanism is integrated. Since the
mismatch is higher than 40 W/m2, the algorithm recognizes
that partial shading has occurred and it initiates the PSO for
global peak searching. It is presented in [22], that the most
effective way to initiate three particles of PSO is 0.9Voc_array
(near the end section of the P-V curve), 0.5Voc_array (middle of
the P-V curve) and 0.8Voc (at the beginning of the P-V curve).
Proposed mechanism calculate the Voc_array directly and
successfully re-initialize the particles. Afterwards it detects the
global peak within 15 samples.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, an accurate detection scheme to determine the
occurrence of partial shading is proposed. The technique scans
two designated points on I-V curve and the recorded currents
are used to calculate irradiance levels, i.e. G1 and G2. During
2011.
[4] K. Lian, J. Jhang, and I. Tian, "A maximum power point tracking
method based on perturb-and-observe combined with particle
swarm optimization," Photovoltaics, IEEE Journal of, vol. 4, pp.
626-633, 2014.
[5] S. Mohanty, B. Subudhi, and P. K. Ray, "A new MPPT design
using grey wolf optimization technique for photovoltaic system
under partial shading conditions," IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, vol. 7, pp. 181-188, 2016.
[6] D. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian, "A Modified
Firefly Algorithm for Photovoltaic Maximum Power Point
Tracking Control Under Partial Shading," IEEE Journal of
Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. PP, pp.
1-1, 2016.
[7] K. Sundareswaran, S. Peddapati, and S. Palani, "MPPT of PV
systems under partial shaded conditions through a colony of
flashing fireflies," Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on, vol.
29, pp. 463-472, 2014.
[8] R. Kotti and W. Shireen, "Efficient MPPT control for PV systems
adaptive to fast changing irradiation and partial shading
conditions," Solar Energy, vol. 114, pp. 397-407, 2015.
[9] K. Sundareswaran, V. Vigneshkumar, P. Sankar, S. P. Simon, P. S.
R. Nayak, and S. Palani, "Development of an Improved P&amp;O
Algorithm Assisted Through a Colony of Foraging Ants for MPPT
in PV System," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.
12, pp. 187-200, 2016.
[10] L. Yi-Hwa, H. Shyh-Ching, H. Jia-Wei, and L. Wen-Cheng, "A
Particle Swarm Optimization-Based Maximum Power Point
Tracking Algorithm for PV Systems Operating Under Partially
Shaded Conditions," Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 27, pp. 1027-1035, 2012.
[11] K. Sundareswaran and S. Palani, "Application of a combined
particle swarm optimization and perturb and observe method for

1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TII.2017.2703079, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
MPPT in PV systems under partial shading conditions," Renewable
Energy, vol. 75, pp. 308-317, 2015.
[12] M. Seyedmahmoudian, R. Rahmani, S. Mekhilef, A. Maung Than
Oo, A. Stojcevski, S. Tey Kok, et al., "Simulation and Hardware
Implementation of New Maximum Power Point Tracking
Technique for Partially Shaded PV System Using Hybrid DEPSO
Method," Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 6, pp.
850-862, 2015.
[13] A. soufyane Benyoucef, A. Chouder, K. Kara, and S. Silvestre,
"Artificial bee colony based algorithm for maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded
conditions," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 32, pp. 38-48, 2015.
[14] L. L. Jiang, D. L. Maskell, and J. C. Patra, "A novel ant colony
optimization-based maximum power point tracking for
photovoltaic systems under partially shaded conditions," Energy
and Buildings, vol. 58, pp. 227-236, 3// 2013.
[15] L. Jiang and D. L. Maskell, "A simple hybrid MPPT technique for
photovoltaic systems under rapidly changing partial shading
conditions," in Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), 2014
IEEE 40th, 2014, pp. 0782-0787.
[16] R.-Y. Kim and J.-H. Kim, "An Improved Global Maximum Power
Point Tracking Scheme under Partial Shading Conditions," in
Journal of International Conference on Electrical Machines and
Systems Vol, 2013, pp. 65-68.
[17] L. L. Jiang, D. Nayanasiri, D. L. Maskell, and D. Vilathgamuwa,
"A hybrid maximum power point tracking for partially shaded
photovoltaic systems in the tropics," Renewable Energy, vol. 76,
pp. 53-65, 2015.
[18] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, "An Improved Method to Predict the
Position of Maximum Power Point During Partial Shading for PV
Arrays," Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 11, pp.
1378-1387, 2015.
[19] S. A. Rizzo and G. Scelba, "ANN based MPPT method for rapidly
variable shading conditions," Applied Energy, vol. 145, pp. 124-
132, 2015.
[20] A. Ramyar, H. Iman-Eini, and S. Farhangi, "Global Maximum
Power Point Tracking Method for Photovoltaic Arrays under
Partial Shading Conditions," IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. PP, pp. 1-1, 2016.
[21] M. Miyatake, M. Veerachary, F. Toriumi, N. Fujii, and H. Ko,
"Maximum Power Point Tracking of Multiple Photovoltaic Arrays:
A PSO Approach," Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 47, pp. 367-380, 2011.
[22] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, "A Maximum Power Point Tracking
(MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with partial shading
capability," Applied Energy, vol. 119, pp. 118-130, 2014.
[23] M. F. N. Tajuddin, S. M. Ayob, Z. Salam, and M. S. Saad,
"Evolutionary based maximum power point tracking technique
using differential evolution algorithm," Energy and Buildings, vol.
67, pp. 245-252, 2013.
[24] K. Punitha, D. Devaraj, and S. Sakthivel, "Artificial neural
network based modified incremental conductance algorithm for
maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system under
partial shading conditions," Energy, vol. 62, pp. 330-340, 2013.
[25] J. Young-Hyok, J. Doo-Yong, K. Jun-Gu, K. Jae-Hyung, L. Tae-
Won, and W. Chung-Yuen, "A Real Maximum Power Point
Tracking Method for Mismatching Compensation in PV Array
Under Partially Shaded Conditions," Power Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 26, pp. 1001-1009, 2011.
[26] H. Renaudineau, A. Houari, J. P. Martin, S. Pierfederici, F.
Meibody-Tabar, and B. Gerardin, "A new approach in tracking
maximum power under partially shaded conditions with
consideration of converter losses," Solar Energy, vol. 85, pp. 2580-
2588, 2011.
[27] K. Sundareswaran, P. Sankar, P. S. R. Nayak, S. P. Simon, and S.
Palani, "Enhanced Energy Output From a PV System Under Partial
Shaded Conditions Through Artificial Bee Colony," IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, pp. 198-209, 2015.
[28] N. Tat Luat and L. Kay-Soon, "A Global Maximum Power Point
Tracking Scheme Employing DIRECT Search Algorithm for
Photovoltaic Systems," Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 57, pp. 3456-3467, 2010.
[29] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, "A Deterministic Particle Swarm
Optimization Maximum Power Point Tracker for Photovoltaic
1551-3203 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
System Under Partial Shading Condition," Industrial Electronics,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, pp. 3195-3206, 2013.
[30] C. Kai, T. Shulin, C. Yuhua, and B. Libing, "An Improved MPPT
Controller for Photovoltaic System Under Partial Shading
Condition," Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 5, pp.
978-985, 2014.
[31] A. Kouchaki, H. Iman-Eini, and B. Asaei, "A new maximum
power point tracking strategy for PV arrays under uniform and
non-uniform insolation conditions," Solar Energy, vol. 91, pp. 221-
232, 2013.
[32] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, "Maximum Power Point Tracking
Scheme for PV Systems Operating Under Partially Shaded
Conditions," Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 55,
pp. 1689-1698, 2008.
[33] K. Kobayashi, I. Takano, and Y. Sawada, "A study of a two stage
maximum power point tracking control of a photovoltaic system
under partially shaded insolation conditions," Solar Energy
Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 90, pp. 2975-2988, 2006.
[34] F. Zhang, K. Thanapalan, A. Procter, S. Carr, and J. Maddy,
"Adaptive hybrid maximum power point tracking method for a
photovoltaic system," Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 28, pp. 353-360, 2013.
[35] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, "An improved modeling method to
determine the model parameters of photovoltaic (PV) modules
using differential evolution (DE)," Solar Energy, vol. 85, pp. 2349-
2359, 2011.
[36] M. G. Villalva and J. R. Gazoli, "Comprehensive approach to
modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays," Power
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 24, pp. 1198-1208, 2009.
[37] K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, H. Taheri, and Syafaruddin, "Modeling and
simulation of photovoltaic (PV) system during partial shading
based on a two-diode model," Simulation Modelling Practice and
Theory, vol. 19, pp. 1613-1626, 2011.
[38] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, "A Modified P&O Maximum Power Point
Tracking Method With Reduced Steady-State Oscillation and
Improved Tracking Efficiency," IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, vol. 7, pp. 1506-1515, 2016.
[39] F. Paz and M. Ordonez, "Zero oscillation and irradiance slope
tracking for photovoltaic MPPT," Industrial Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 61, pp. 6138-6147, 2014.
[40] H. Renaudineau, F. Donatantonio, J. Fontchastagner, G. Petrone,
G. Spagnuolo, J. P. Martin, et al., "A PSO-Based Global MPPT
Technique for Distributed PV Power Generation," Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 62, pp. 1047-1058, 2015.
Jubaer Ahmed (M’2016) received the B.Sc.
degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
from Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology (BUET) (2012) and Ph.D. from
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (2016).
Currently he is working as a lecturer in
Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak,
Malaysia. His research interests include
photovoltaic modeling and control, energy
conversion from renewable sources and power
electronics.
Zainal Salam (M’1990) received the B.Sc degree
from University of California, Chico (1985),
M.E.E. from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1989) and Ph.D.
from the University of Birmingham, U.K (1997).
He has been a Lecturer at UTM for 30 years and is
now a Professor of Power Electronics and
Renewable Energy at the Faculty of Electrical
Engineering.
Currently, he is the Director of the Inverter Quality Control Centre at
UTM which is responsible for testing photovoltaic inverters that are to be
connected to the local utility grid. Dr. Salam served the Editor of the IEEE
TRANSACTION SUSTAINABLE ENERGY (2011-2013). His research interests
include all areas of power electronics, renewable energy, power systems
and machine control.