Performance Evaluation of PV Panel Configurations Considering PSC’s for PV Standalone Applications

Performance Evaluation of PV Panel Configurations Considering PSC’s for PV Standalone Applications

Asadi Suresh Kumar* Vyza Usha Reddy

Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, SVU College of Engineering, Tirupati 517507, India

Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, G Pullaiah College of Engineering and Technology, Kurnool 518002, India

Corresponding Author Email: 
asureshkumareee@gpcet.ac.in
Page: 
847-852
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.18280/jesa.540606
Received: 
27 July 2021
|
Accepted: 
25 September 2021
|
Published: 
29 December 2021
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

One of the major concerns for continuous solar photovoltaic (PV) generation is partial shading. The movement of clouds, shadow of buildings, trees, birds, litter and dust, etc., can lead to partial shadow conditions (PSCs). The PSCs have caused inconsistent power losses in the PV modules. This leads to a shortage of electricity production and the presence in the PV curve of several peaks. One of the simplest solutions to PSC’s is the PV configurations. The objective of this paper is modelling and simulation of solar PV system in various shading scenarios for KC200GT 200 W, 5 x 5 configurations that includes Series/Parallel (SP), Total-Cross-Tied (TCT), Triple-Tied (TT), Bridge-Link (BL) configurations. Real time PSC’s such as corner, center, frame, random, diagonal, right side end shading conditions are evaluated under all PV array configurations. A comparative analysis is carried out for the parameters such as open circuit voltage, short circuit current, maximum power point, panel mismatch losses, fill factor, efficiency under all PV configurations considering PSC’s. From the comparison analysis best configuration will be presented.

Keywords: 

SP, TCT, TT, BL, PV, PSC

1. Introduction

The need for electricity demand is increasing all over the world [1]. The best solution for ever-increasing electricity demand is through renewable energy sources (RES). Solar, wind, geothermal and biomass sources are some of the RES. Among the RES solar energy is popular. However, cost associated with installation and poor energy harnessing capabilities impact negatively. The uncertain non-linear power-voltage (P-V) and current-voltage (I-V) characteristic of PV panel are the key components of solar energy. The series and parallel connections of PV cells build a module. The performance and the reliability of the PV panel usually depends primarily on the occurrence of solar irradiance (G) and temperature (T) [2] insulation. Maximum power of PV module can be tracked using various techniques [3]. The major factors that affect maximum power point are partial shading conditions (PSC). PSC’s not only come from passing clouds, but also from shades of birds, dust, surrounding buildings, and snow covering etc., [4]. All PV modules receive different insolation levels under PSC which lead to voltage and current differences between modules, thus creating hot spots in shaded PV modules. The diode is annexed as bypass diode [5] in order to avoid hot spot issues. Due to PSC’s multiple maximum power point’s will be created in P-V curve also called as local maximum power point. The best of local maximum power point’s is called as global maximum power point. Due to the multiple maximum power points power losses increases, degrades the energy conversion efficiency etc.

Many researchers have recommended several methodologies to overcome PSC’s, such as MPPT tracking methodologies, PV converter control strategies, PV panel reconfiguration strategies etc. Several MPPT techniques are discussed by Bollipo et al. [3] under PSC’s. Conventional MPPT methods like P&O, IC and HC are not capable to track global maximum power point [6]. Intelligent based MPPT techniques shows the better performance than the conventional methods to track the global maximum power point [7-9]. Nevertheless, intelligent methods are complex in hardware implementation. Ali et al. [10] addressed the drawbacks of intelligent MPPT methods. Bingöl and Özkaya [11] reviewed and compared several PV panel configurations S, S-P, T-C-T, B-L, H-C, T-T. In this paper is modelling and simulation of solar PV system in various shading scenarios for KC200GT 200 W, 5 x 5 configurations that includes SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations. Real time PSC’s such as corner, center, frame, random, diagonal, right side end shading conditions are evaluated under all PV array configurations. A comparative analysis is carried out for the parameters such as Maximum Voltage Vmp (V), Maximum Current Imp (A), Maximum Power Pmp (W), Open Circuit Voc (V), Short Circuit Current Isc (A), Fill Factor FF (%), PV Mismatch losses Pml (%), Efficiency η (%) under all PV configurations considering PSC’s. From the comparison analysis best configuration will be presented.

2. Case System

In this paper a 200 W, 5 X 5 KC200GT PV system is considered as test case. The specifications of KC200GT PV panel are tabulated in Table 1. The test case is implemented for SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations shown in Figure 1. PSC’s such as corner, center, frame, random, diagonal, right side end shading conditions are evaluated under all PV panel configurations shown in Figure 2.

Table 1. PV panel specifications

Name

Specification

Maximum Power Pmp

200.14 W

Maximum Voltage Vmp

26.3 V

Maximum Current Imp

7.6 A

O. C. Voltage Voc

32.9 V

S. C. Current Isc

8.2 A

No.of Cells

54

(a) SP PV panel configurations

(b) TCT PV panel configurations

(c) BL PV panel configurations

(d) TT PV panel configurations

Figure 1. PV panel configurations

Figure 2. Partial Shading Conditions (PSC’s)

3. Results and Discussions

In this paper 200 W, 5 X 5 KC200GT PV system is implemented under several PSC’s considering SP, TCT, BL, TT configurations. The PSC’s considered are shown below (Figure 3).

•   Uniform (without PSC);

•   Corner PSC;

•   Center PSC;

•   Frame PSC;

•   Random PSC;

•   Diagonal PSC;

•   Right Side End PSC.

Figure 3. 5 X 5 PV configuration

3.1 Performance evaluation considering uniform (without PSC) condition

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Uniform (without PSC) condition. In Uniform (without PSC) condition solar irradiance is considered uniformly as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃ for all 5 X 5 panels. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 2.

In the Uniform (without PSC) Condition for all configurations the Efficiency η (%) is same i.e. 14.155.

3.2 Performance evaluation considering corner PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Corner PSC. In Corner PSC, for 1 X 1, 1 X 2, 2 X 1, 2 X 2 panels, solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 800 W/m2 respectively, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 3.

In the Corner PSC Condition TCT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 12.255%.

3.3 Performance evaluation considering center PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Center PSC. In Center PSC, for 2 X 1, 2 X 2, 2 X 3 panels, solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, respectively, similarly for 3 X 1, 3 X 2, 3 X 3 and 4 X 1, 4 X 2, 4 X 3 panels, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 4.

Table 2. Performance evaluation considering uniform (without PSC) condition

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

131.505

38.051

5003.846

164.490

41.108

74.002

0.000

14.155

TCT

131.505

38.051

5003.846

164.490

41.108

74.002

0.000

14.155

BL

131.505

38.051

5003.846

164.490

41.108

74.002

0.000

14.155

TT

131.505

38.051

5003.846

164.490

41.108

74.002

0.000

14.155

Table 3. Performance evaluation considering corner PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

127.563

32.522

4148.526

162.685

41.095

62.053

20.618

11.735

TCT

141.665

30.583

4332.486

162.845

41.077

64.769

15.496

12.255

BL

125.960

31.744

3998.476

162.770

41.088

59.787

25.144

11.311

TT

140.235

30.014

4209.001

162.800

41.080

62.936

18.884

11.906

Table 4. Performance evaluation considering center PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

127.938

32.032

4098.083

162.285

41.083

61.467

22.102

11.592

TCT

143.440

30.534

4379.842

162.455

41.049

65.679

14.247

12.389

BL

139.050

29.814

4145.639

162.365

41.069

62.171

20.702

11.727

TT

142.125

30.053

4271.299

162.350

41.066

64.066

17.151

12.082

In the Center PSC Condition TCT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 12.389%.

3.4 Performance evaluation considering frame PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Frame PSC. In Frame PSC, for 1 X 1, 1 X 2, 1 X 3, 1 X 4, 1 X 5 panels, solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 800 W/m2, 1000 W/m2 respectively, similarly for 1 X 1, 1 X 2, 1 X 3, 1 X 4, 1 X 5, 2 X 5, 3 X 5, 4 X 5, 5 X 5, 5 X 1, 5 X 2, 5 X 3, 5 X 4, 5 X 5 panels, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 5.

In the Frame PSC Condition TCT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 11.648%.

3.5 Performance evaluation considering random PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Random PSC. In Random PSC, solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 800 W/m2, 1000 W/m2 for random panels, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 6.

In the Random PSC Condition TT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 12.703%.

3.6 Performance evaluation considering diagonal PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Diagonal PSC. In Diagonal PSC, for all diagonal panels solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 800 W/m2, 1000 W/m2 respectively, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 7.

In the Diagonal PSC Condition TT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 13.407%.

3.7 Performance evaluation considering right side end PSC

In this case performance of proposed PV system is evaluated considering SP, TCT, TT, BL configurations under Right Side End PSC. In Right Side End PSC, for 5 X 1, 5 X 2, 5 X 3, 5 X 4, 5 X 5 panels solar irradiance is considered as 200 W/m2 400 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 800 W/m2, 1000 W/m2 respectively, for remaining panels solar irradiance is considered as 1000 W/m2 and temperature as 25℃. Performance parameters such as Vmp (V), Imp (A), Pmp (W), Voc (V), Isc (A), (%), Pml (%), η (%) are evaluated and tabulated in Table 8.

In the Right Side End PSC Condition TCT configuration recorded the maximum Efficiency η (%) i.e. 13.098%.

Table 5. Performance evaluation considering frame PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

120.425

25.883

3116.914

158.072

32.808

60.103

60.539

8.817

TCT

143.918

28.612

4117.726

159.071

28.712

90.159

21.520

11.648

BL

143.577

22.325

3205.287

158.840

32.849

61.431

56.112

9.067

TT

141.885

26.808

3803.669

158.915

31.118

76.918

31.553

10.760

Table 6. Performance evaluation considering random PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

111.000

35.308

3919.167

161.947

41.097

58.886

27.676

11.086

TCT

142.775

30.367

4335.593

162.470

37.684

70.814

15.413

12.264

BL

142.815

27.707

3957.034

162.320

41.075

59.350

26.455

11.193

TT

143.205

31.358

4490.610

162.305

41.014

67.460

11.429

12.703

Table 7. Performance evaluation considering diagonal PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

110.550

38.017

4202.770

162.510

41.100

62.924

19.061

11.889

TCT

145.905

32.484

4739.624

162.875

36.864

78.939

5.575

13.407

BL

116.290

36.784

4277.566

162.665

38.561

68.196

16.979

12.100

TT

135.960

34.066

4631.656

162.860

36.925

77.020

8.036

13.102

Table 8. Performance evaluation considering right side end PSC

Configuration Type

Vmp (V)

Imp (A)

Pmp (W)

Voc (V)

Isc (A)

FF (%)

∆Pml (%)

η (%)

SP

124.000

34.156

4235.358

161.822

36.124

72.454

18.145

11.981

TCT

140.675

32.915

4630.376

161.900

36.043

79.351

8.066

13.098

BL

137.754

31.518

4341.705

161.873

36.142

74.212

15.251

12.282

TT

138.765

32.116

4456.509

161.885

36.105

76.247

12.282

12.606

4. Comparison Analysis

Figure 4. Fill Factor comparison

Figure 5. PV Mismatch losses comparison

Performance evaluation parameters Fill Factor FF (%), PV Mismatch losses Pml (%), Efficiency η (%), Maximum Power Pmp (W) are compared for all configurations under proposed PSC’s and shown in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 respectively.

In all the configurations TCT configuration exhibits best performance under all PSC’s shown in Table 9.

Figure 6. Efficiency comparison

Figure 7. PV Maximum power

Table 9. Performance of TCT Configuration

Confg.\PSC

Uniform

Corner

Centre

Frame

Random

Diagonal

Right side End

Fill Factor (%)

74.00

64.77

65.68

90.16

70.81

78.94

79.35

PV Mismatch Losses (%)

0.00

15.50

14.25

21.52

15.41

5.57

8.07

Efficiency (%)

14.15

12.26

12.39

11.65

12.26

13.41

13.10

Maximum Power (%)

5003.85

4332.49

4379.84

4117.73

4335.59

4739.62

4630.38

5. Conclusions

In this paper modelling and simulation of solar PV system in various shading scenarios for KC200GT 200 W, 5 x 5 configurations that includes Series-Parallel (SP), Total Cross-Tied (TCT), Triple-Tied (TT), Bridge-Link (BL) configurations are presented and implemented in MATLAB/Simulink environment. Real time PSC’s such as corner, center, frame, random, diagonal, right side end shading conditions are evaluated under all PV array configurations. A comparative analysis is carried out for the parameters such as open circuit voltage, short circuit current, maximum power point, panel mismatch losses, fill factor, efficiency under all PV configurations considering PSC’s. It is observed from the comparison analysis, TCT configuration exhibits best performance under all PSC’s. Hence this paper proposes TCT configuration for grid connected and standalone applications.

  References

[1] Kshatri, S.S., Dhillon, J., Mishra, S. (2021). Impact of solar irradiance and ambient temperature on PV inverter reliability considering geographical locations. International Journal of Heat and Technology, 39(1): 292-298. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.390132

[2] Manganiello, P., Balato, M., Vitelli, M. (2015). A survey on mismatching and aging of PV modules: The closed loop. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 62(11): 7276-7286. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2418731

[3] Bollipo, R.B., Mikkili, S., Bonthagorla, P.K. (2020). Hybrid, optimal, intelligent and classical PV MPPT techniques: A review. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 7(1): 9-33. https://doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2019.02720

[4] Rana, A.S., Nasir, M., Khan, H.A. (2018). String level optimisation on grid‐tied solar PV systems to reduce partial shading loss. IET Renewable Power Generation, 12(2): 143-148. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2017.0229

[5] Zhang, Y., Yu, Y., Meng, F., Liu, Z. (2019). Experimental investigation of the shading and mismatch effects on the performance of bifacial photovoltaic modules. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 10(1): 296-305. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2949766

[6] Dadkhah, J., Niroomand, M. (2021). Optimization methods of MPPT parameters for PV systems: Review, classification, and comparison. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 9(2): 225-236. https://doi.org/10.35833/MPCE.2019.000379

[7] Hanzaei, S.H., Gorji, S.A., Ektesabi, M. (2020). A scheme-based review of MPPT techniques with respect to input variables including solar irradiance and PV arrays’ temperature. IEEE Access, 8: 182229-182239. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028580

[8] Ramli, M.A., Twaha, S., Ishaque, K., Al-Turki, Y.A. (2017). A review on maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic systems with and without shading conditions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67: 144-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.013

[9] Dhimish, M. (2019). Assessing MPPT techniques on hot-spotted and partially shaded photovoltaic modules: Comprehensive review based on experimental data. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 66(3): 1132-1144. https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2019.2894009

[10] Ali, A., Almutairi, K., Padmanaban, S., Tirth, V., Algarni, S., Irshad, K., Malik, M.Z. (2020). Investigation of MPPT techniques under uniform and non-uniform solar irradiation condition–a retrospection. IEEE Access, 8: 127368-127392. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007710

[11] Bingöl, O., Özkaya, B. (2018). Analysis and comparison of different PV array configurations under partial shading conditions. Solar Energy, 160: 336-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.12.004