International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)
Performance Comparison of Zig-Zag and Su Do Ku
Schemes in a Partially Shaded Photo Voltaic Array
under Static Shadow Conditions
Vijayalekshmy S G. R. Bindu
Dept. of Electrical Engg Department of Electrical Engg
Muthoot Institute of Technology & College of Engineering
Science, Ernakulam, Kerala, India Trivandrum, Kerala
AbstractDue to shade dispersal, relocation of photovoltaic
panels according to Su Do Ku scheme boosted power output of
Photovoltaic generator subjected to partial shadowing. Su Do Ku
scheme of arrangement is not proper for arrays which has
uneven rows and columns. We suggested ZIG ZAG scheme of
arrangement and this structure of pre placement can be executed
on photovoltaic schemes with any unequal number of columns
and rows. In this paper, ZIG ZAG structure of placement of
panels is compared with standard TCT scheme and Su Do Ku
order of placement of panels. These rearrangement schemes are
explored for five dissimilar static shading patterns. Circuit
connection between modules is not changed in pre placement
pattern. The outcomes show that relocated ZIG-ZAG assembly
showed better characteristics under shading conditions. This
lessens total number of local maxima in power-voltage (P-V)
curve and also improved normal voltage of Photovoltaic
generator. Thus the maximum power point can be tracked easily
in this method of placement of panels.
Keywordsbypass diode, total cross tied configuration,
power enhancement, shade dispersion
I. INTRODUCTION
The quick exhaustion of fossil fuels and the growing
apprehension of environmental pollution have increased the
significance of renewable energy sources to total power
demand. Solar energy has been achieving popular acceptance
due to rapid falling price of photovoltaic (PV) panels and
massive technological improvements in the field of power
converters. In the present scenario, power generation by PV
arrays face numerous challenges. Output power of PV
generators is observed to be greatly affected by the working
conditions such as the environmental temperature, suns
irradiation levels, its geographical location and field issues.
Due to inherent environmental and technical factors, there
is wide fluctuation in short circuit (SC) current in each solar
cell. Aging effects, dirt on the panels, droppings of birds,
shades enforced on PV generator due to fleeting clouds,
adjacent buildings, neighboring trees increases growing
concern in this area as it causes irregular short circuit current in
PV panels. Employing an actual solar PV module, to study the
consequences of partial shading is a tedious process as field
testing is expensive, required testing time is more and depends
enormously on prevalent weather condition. Hence simulation
978-1-5090-5682-8/17/$31.00 2017 IEEE
S Rama Iyer
Dean (Retd.)
College of Engineering
Trivandrum, Kerala
procedures are habitually employed to analyse the partial
shading effects on the array.
Widespread investigations due to partial shading advanced
after 1995, as massive loss in power has been estimated due to
the shadows imposed on the array. A suitable scheme for
calculating insolation of PV cells of a shaded PV generator was
proposed in [1]. The same authors have conveyed on impact of
panel shading on operation of the array in 1996 in [2]. Various
array configurations were reported in previous works to lessen
mismatch losses in array under different shading instants. In
[3], three appropriate interconnection of panels viz., Series-
Parallel (SP), Total Cross Tied (TCT) and Bridge Linked (BL)
had been investigated on the basis of their maximum output,
losses, utilization factor and shading loss. Generated output
also deviated from the maximum power output due to
mismatch loss triggered by partial shading and manufacturers
tolerances in its operational characteristics. Investigations
showed that altering arrangements of modules from to TCT
from SP, raises the power output of the array by an additional
6%. TCT scheme is deliberated as finest key to minimize the
mismatch losses under shaded conditions. SP, Simple Series
(SS), BL, Honey Comb (HC) and TCT schemes have been
explored for maximum power and fill factor in [4]. It is
reported that TCT configuration exhibited better output power
when compared to all other schemes of interconnection under
majority cases of partial shading.
One of the major areas of research lately in this field is the
execution of revised classical Maximum Power Point Tracking
(MPPT) schemes. As bypass diodes conduct throughout
shading condition, Power-Voltage (P-V) characteristics of solar
generator exhibits multiple maxima. Hence conventional
MPPT methods that identify single MPP in array electrical
characteristics under uniform irradiance conditions cannot be
applied under this condition. Improvement of various MPPT
techniques to determine Global MPP (GMPP) containing
improved heuristic techniques is an added current region of
research work. Methodologies to track the GMPP have been
documented in [5] - [11], but they are likely to remain
complex. Most of the algorithms are incapable to identify
GMPP under varying illumination conditions.
Various reconfiguration structures are underlined in
literature, so as to enable scattering of shade and thus boost the
power production of PV array configuration under partial
1
 International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)
shading surroundings. A new mathematical design of PV array
with the aim to reconfigure optimally to curtail partial shading
losses was established in [12].The connections of panels are
dynamically altered in the order set by a switching technique so
that maximum current from the single string is achieved during
different events of shading. In adaptive placement technique
[13], a matrix for switching fixes a PV supporting bank to a
stable part of solar generator so that some panels of adaptive
part are such that they are parallel with further shaded rows of
fixed part. To enhance the performance of solar fed volumetric
pump under various insolation levels, an Electrical Array
Reconfiguration (EAR) regulator is suggested in [14]. A
technique to change the actual location of modules based on Su
Do Ku problem form on a TCT coupled PV array was
projected to augment PV power generation during partial
shadowing conditions [15]. Overall improvement of system
was studied for dissimilar shading sequences and it has been
proved that projected method of placement of panels exhibited
enriched power production. Su Do Ku puzzle pattern is not
proper for PV arrays with non-equal number of rows and
columns. In [16], a different optimal reconfiguration structure
had been suggested which alters the location of the panels in
different columns but this method of rearrangement
complicates the interconnection scheme.
In view the above issues, a new ZIG-ZAG scheme of
relocation of modules has been proposed by us in [17]. This
reorganization structure can be applied on arrays of any
dimension. ZIG-ZAG structure of rearrangement indicated
improved power output than normal TCT arrangement and
optimal relocation scheme. In this paper, the proposed ZIG
ZAG scheme of arrangement is compared with conventional
TCT arrangement and Su Do Ku scheme of rearrangement on
their performance characteristics. Three schemes of
arrangement are analysed for five different static shading
patterns. Simulation results indicated that, rearranged ZIG-
ZAG structure showed better performance than Su-Do-Ku and
normal TCT schemes for all considered shading patterns. This
lessens several local maxima of P-V operational characteristics
and increases normal voltage of PV array. Thus, tracking of
global maximum power point (GMPP) in current technique is
easier.
This paper is structured into seven segments. In Section II,
a brief summary on simulation model of solar panel with
bypass diodes is presented. Organization of panels in the
normal TCT, Su- Do-Ku scheme and Zig-Zag scheme are
emphasized in section III. In section IV the considered shading
patterns and the dispersion of shade over the array due to the
rearrangement is clarified. Section V interprets a rough
analytical explanation for power enhancement of the
rearrangement structures. The comparison of (P-V)
characteristics on the three structures of arrangement is
presented in Section VI and the decisions from the study are
clarified in section VII.
II. MODELLING OF PV PANEL
A few parametric models of PV cell are presented in
literature. Of the various equivalent circuits models available
in literature, diode model is the most simpler and accurate
model which has been established so far. Villalva et al [17, 18]
has suggested a closed solution for finding different factors of
the single-diode model equation for a suitable PV array. In a
PV panel, fixed number of cells is attached in series to achieve
desired voltage From [17] expression for current in a module is
as in (1).
(1)
In (1), Imodule and Vmodule are the PV cell output current and
voltage respectively, Iph is photo current due to solar
insolation, Ns is number of PV cells which are connected in
series to form PV panel , RsM is series resistance of panel due
to manufacturing defects and RshM is module shunt resistance,
I0 inverse saturation current, A is panel material factor, K
Boltzmanns constant (1.38 10-23 J/K), T temperature in
Kelvin and q charge of electron (1.6 10-23 C) respectively.
Photo current Iph can be stated by relation (2),
Each panel is coupled with a bypass in antiparallel as in figure
1 so as to circumvent panel current under conditions of partial
shadowing. The action of bypass diode can be modeled by
equation (3)
(3)
Hereafter, the relation for module current in the presence of
bypass diode is as in (4).
(4)
In (4), the saturation current of bypass diode is represented as
Io bypass and Abypass is material factor of bypass diode.
Computation has been implemented for standards obtainable
from the specification sheet of 60Wp GENERIC POLY
panel. OC voltage and short circuit (SC) current of a single
panel under standard test conditions (STC) are 21.1V and
3.8A under rated voltage and current of 17.1V and 3.5A
respectively.
III. ARRAY CONFIGURATIONS
Panels in one parallel circuit are organized in same row in
classical TCT configuration. Under partial shading, panels in
same row are linked into different parallel circuits. This helps
in maintaining consistency between arrays MPP and modules
MPP and improving rated voltage of the array. Moreover,
possibility of turning ON of bypass diodes could be reduced. In
this paper three schemes of interconnection of TCT
configuration has been compared namely conventional TCT
scheme, Su Do Ku
Fig 1 PV panel with bypass diode (Equivalent circuit)
2
 International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)
scheme (STCT) and ZIG ZAG structure of arrangement
(NTCT). The Su Do Ku structure of placement for a 6 6 TCT
array has been explicitly discussed by us in [19]. The same
system of arrangement is implemented here also.
The array considered here consists of 36 panels. The
panels are arranged such that equal number of panels are
placed in rows and columns. Physical allocation of panels as
per Su Do Ku structure and ZIG ZAG scheme for 6 6 array (a) Case I (b) Case II (c) Case III
is shown in figure 2. The three schemes of arrangement are
represented in figure 3. The SIMULINK model is utilised to
investigate different characteristics of TCT, STCT and NTCT
schemes for considered static shadowing pattern.
IV. STATIC SHADING PATTERNS
In order to compare the performance improvement of
considered schemes, five commonly occurring short-term (c) Case IV (d) Case V
temporary events of static partial shadowing situations are
taken into consideration in this paper. Shading patterns that can Fig. 4 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) Row shading, Column shading, Corner Shading,
Extended Corner Shading and Oblique shading respectively.
routinely occur to a 6 6 PV array are taken into
consideration. The PV array having four separate sets is
considered. Set one receives an insolation of 900 W/m2 while
set two 600W/m2, set three 400W/m2, and set four receives
200W/m2 and the shading pattern is distinctly shown in figure
4. When array is reordered as in STCT and NTCT, the
localized partial shading will appear as shade scattering and
consequently the changes in current between the parallel
circuits will be minimised. The shade dispersal perceived in
STCT and NTCT configurations are as illustrated in figures 5 (a) Case I (b) Case II (c) Case III
and 6 respectively.

(c) Case IV (d) Case V

Fig. 5. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) Shade dispersal on STCT array

(a) (b)
Fig 2(a) and (b) Su Do Ku and Zig-Zag system of panel location

(a) Case I (b) Case II (c) Case III

(a) (b) (c)

(c) Case IV (d) Case V
Figure 3 (a), (b) and (c) Conventional TCT, STCT and NTCT arrangement
Fig. 6 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) Shade dispersal on NTCT array

3
 International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)
V. APPROXIMATE THEORETICAL SOLUTION The panel voltages and currents under considered five cases
of partial shadowing for TCT, STCT and NTCT systems of
The estimated values of Global Maximum Power Point placement are illustrated in Table 1. Panel voltages and
(GMPP) in TCT, STCT and NTCT systems are found out currents are givenin the order in which the panels are bypassed
theoretically. The order in which the rows are bypassed due to
the shading effects are hence evaluated . Analytical results are VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
confirmed through simulations in MATLAB/Simulink
environment. The theoretical justification for the estimated A Power Voltage characteristics
solution of GMPP is as follows. P-V array performance for cited three schemes of
Approximate value of GMPP can be acknowledged by placement of panels for five shading patterns that have been
calculating current of each row in the PV generator. Thus the considered are shown in figure. 7.
panel current can be given by Normal TCT structure has less maximum power output
= (5)
than STCT and NTCT array configurations for all selected
( ) , ,
conditions of partial shading. The deviation from the nominal
where Kx,y is the solar insolation of module numbered (x, y). voltage of the array for TCT for the first and second shading
,
patterns is 37% and 40% respectively. The TCT
, = (6) interconnection has been found to contribute more partial
shading losses due to lack of consistency between panels
G x,y is solar insolation of panel which is numbered x,y and Ix,y MPPs and arrays GMPP. From the simulation result, for case I
is current produced by the (x,y)th panel. Current in all modules condition of partial shading, TCT scheme showed a GMPP of
under STC is assumed to be In. Thus, current in each row in 1074W. It is observed that this GMPP is not coincident with
TCT configuration for shading pattern under Case I are the sum of individual MPP. The GMPP for NTCT and STCT
Ir1 = Ir2 = Ir3 = 6 0.9 In = 5.4 In (7) configurations occur at 1375W. The MPP for 900 W/m2, 600
W/m2, 400 W/m2 and 200 W/m2 modules are 50.14W, 33.27W,
Ir4 = 3 (0.9 In ) + 3 (0.6 In ) = 4.5In (8) 21.86W and 10.5W respectively. In STCT scheme, the arrays
Ir5=Ir6=2(0.6In)+2(0.4In )+2(0.2In)=2.4In (9) GMPP (1375W) has more consistency with the modules
MPPs. The arrays GMPP for NTCT connection is also 1375W.
From the above equations it can be seen that the currents Figure 7 (a) displays that the P-V characteristics of NTCT and
in various rows are unequal. This proves that there are multiple STCT schemes, overlap with one another and also has a
peaks on PV characteristics. To detect the values of GMPP, the smoother characteristics than that of TCT, which reduces the
row currents are noted in Table 1 in accordance with the order unforeseen false tracing of GMPP.
in which panels will be bypassed.
The minor deviations of voltage along different rows are
neglected here. Array voltage is Varray = 6Vn, if one of
considered panels are circumvented and Varray = 5Vn + Vd. Vd
is voltage across diode if any one row is bypassed. Vd is far
smaller to Vn and so it is ignored. Equation 10 shows the power
that is produced by the array if none of the rows are bypassed
and all the modules are receiving uniform solar insolation.
(a) Case I (b) Case II
= 6 (10)
For case I condition of partial shading, for STCT
configuration the current in each row is determined as follows
((11) (14)),
Ir1=Ir4=3 (0.9 In )+0.6 In+0.4In+0.2In = 3.9In (11)
Ir2=Ir5 = 4 (0.9 In ) + 0.6 In +0.4In = 4.6In (12)
Ir3 =3(0.9 In )+2 (0.6 In ) + 0.2 In = 4.1In (13) (a) Case III (b) Case IV
Ir6 =4(0.9 In )+ 0.6 In + 0.2 In = 4.4In (14)
Similarly, equations (15) - (18).shows the current in each
row, under same condition of partial shading, for NTCT
configuration.
Ir1=Ir2= 3 (0.9 In )+0.6 In+0.4In+0.2In 3.9In (15)
Ir3 = 4 (0.9 In ) + 0.6 In + 0.2 In = 4.4In (16)
Ir4 = 3 (0.9 In ) 2 (0.6 In ) + 0.2 In = 4.1In (17) (c)Case V

Ir5 = Ir6 = 4 (0.9 In ) + 0.6 In +0.4In = 4.6In (18) Fig. 7 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Power Voltage characteristics for five
considered static shading patterns of TCT, STCT and NTCT structures .

4
 International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)

TABLE 8.1
POSITION OF GMPP IN TCT, OTCT AND NTCT CONFIGURATIONS UNDER FIVE STATIC PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS

TCT STCT NTCT

Row Row Row

Time current in Voltag current in the current in the
Power in Voltage Power in Voltage Power
instant the order in e order order
which the Parray which the Varrray Parray which the Varrray Parray
panels are Varrray panels are panels are
bypassed bypassed bypassed
Ir5 2.4 In 6 Vn 14.4 Vn In Ir1 3.9 In 6 Vn 23.4 Vn In Ir1 3.9 In 6 Vn 23.4 Vn In
Ir6 2.4 In 5 Vn 12 Vn In Ir4 3.9 In 5 Vn 19.5 Vn In Ir2 3.9 In 5 Vn 19.5 Vn In
Ir4 4.5 In 4Vn 18 Vn In Ir3 4.1 In 4 Vn 16.4 Vn In Ir4 4.1 In 4 Vn 16.4 Vn In
Case I
Ir3 5.4 In 3Vn 16.2 Vn In Ir6 4.4 In 3Vn 13.2 Vn In Ir3 4.4 In 3Vn 13.2 Vn In
Ir2 5.4 In 2Vn 10.8 Vn In Ir5 4.6 In 2 Vn 9.2 Vn In Ir5 4.6 In 2 Vn 9.2 Vn In
Ir1 5.4 In 1 Vn 5.4 Vn In Ir2 4.6 In 1 Vn 4.6 Vn In Ir6 4.6 In 1 Vn 4.6 Vn In
Ir5 2.4 In 6 Vn 14.4 Vn In Ir2 3.6 In 6 Vn 21.6 Vn In Ir5 3.6 In 6 Vn 21.6 Vn In
Ir6 2.4 In 5 Vn 12.0 Vn In Ir5 3.6 In 5 Vn 18 Vn In Ir6 3.6 In 5 Vn 18 Vn In
Ir4 4.4 In 4 Vn 17.6 Vn In Ir1 3.7 In 4 Vn 14.8Vn In Ir1 3.7 In 4 Vn 14.8Vn In
Case II
Ir3 4.4 In 3 Vn 13.2 Vn In Ir4 3.7 In 3 Vn 11.1 Vn In Ir2 3.7 In 3 Vn 11.1 Vn In
Ir2 4.4 In 2 Vn 8.8 Vn In Ir3 3.9 In 2 Vn 7.8 Vn In Ir3 3.9 In 2 Vn 7.8 Vn In
Ir1 4.4 In 1 Vn 4.4 Vn In Ir6 3.9 In 1 Vn 3.9 Vn In Ir4 3.9 In 1 Vn 3.9 Vn In
Ir4 4.1 In 6 Vn 24.6 Vn In Ir4 4.6 In 6 Vn 27.6 Vn In Ir1 4.6 In 6 Vn 27.6 Vn In
Ir5 4.1 In 5 Vn 20.5 Vn In Ir5 4.6 In 5 Vn 23 Vn In Ir3 4.6 In 5 Vn 23 Vn In
Ir6 4.1 In 4 Vn 16.4 Vn In Ir6 4.6 In 4 Vn 18.4Vn In Ir5 4.6 In 4 Vn 18.4Vn In
Case III
Ir1 5.4 In 3 Vn 16.2 Vn In Ir1 4.9 In 3 Vn 14.7 Vn In Ir2 4.9 In 3 Vn 14.7 Vn In
Ir2 5.4 In 2 Vn 10.8 Vn In Ir2 4.9 In 2 Vn 9.8 Vn In Ir4 4.9 In 2 Vn 9.8 Vn In
Ir3 5.4 In 1 Vn 5.4 Vn In Ir3 4.9 In 1 Vn 4.9 Vn In Ir6 4.9 In 1 Vn 4.9 Vn In
Ir5 3.4 In 6 Vn 20.4 Vn In Ir1 4.1 In 6 Vn 24.6 Vn In Ir2 4.1 In 6 Vn 24.6 Vn In
Ir6 3.4 In 5 Vn 17 Vn In Ir4 4.1 In 5 Vn 20.5 Vn In Ir1 4.4 In 5 Vn 22 Vn In
Ir3 4.8 In 4 Vn 19.2 Vn In Ir3 4.7 In 4 Vn 18.8Vn In Ir3 4.4 In 4 Vn 17.6Vn In
Case IV
Ir4 4.8 In 3 Vn 14.4 Vn In Ir6 4.7 In 3 Vn 14.1 Vn In Ir4 4.7 In 3 Vn 14.1 Vn In
Ir1 5.4 In 2 Vn 10.8 Vn In Ir2 4.8 In 2 Vn 9.6 Vn In Ir5 4.8 In 2 Vn 9.6 Vn In
Ir2 5.4 In 1 Vn 5.4 Vn In Ir5 4.8 In 1 Vn 4.8 Vn In Ir6 4.8 In 1 Vn 4.8 Vn In
Ir6 2.9 In 6 Vn 17.4 Vn In Ir2 4.1 In 6 Vn 24.6 Vn In Ir2 3.8 In 6 Vn 22.8 Vn In
Ir5 3.6 In 5 Vn 18 Vn In Ir3 4.1 In 5 Vn 20.5 Vn In Ir1 4.3 In 5 Vn 21.5 Vn In
Ir4 4.3 In 4 Vn 17.2 Vn In Ir5 4.1 In 4 Vn 16.4Vn In Ir3 4.4 In 4 Vn 17.6Vn In
Case V
Ir3 4.8 In 3 Vn 14.4 Vn In Ir4 4.3In 3 Vn 12.9 Vn In Ir4 4.4 In 3 Vn 13.2Vn In
Ir2 5.1 In 2 Vn 10.2 Vn In Ir6 4.7 In 2 Vn 9.4Vn In Ir5 4.4 In 2 Vn 8.8 Vn In
Ir1 5.4 In 1 Vn 5.4 Vn In Ir1 4.8 In 1 Vn 4.8 Vn In Ir6 4.8 In 1 Vn 4.8 Vn In

5
 International Conference on Innovations in Power and Advanced Computing Technologies(i-PACT 2017)
Arrays GMPP for STCT and NTCT configurations have
been increased under all shading patterns when compared to
normal TCT. The arrays GMPP for NTCT configuration under
case IV condition of shading is more than STCT configuration.
In case V the array GMPP for NTCT configuration and STCT
configurations were 1395W and 1420 W respectively.
B Power Enhancement
Increase in power generated in the rearranged scheme due
to shade dispersal is power enhancement and is expressed by
equation (19).
(19)
Table 2 illustrates the PE of STCT and NTCT
configurations for considered shading patterns. .
Configuration/
STCT NTCT
Shading Patterns
21.89 21.89
22.51 22.51
6.67 6.67
12.7 13.47
19.79 18.35
VII. CONCLUSION
The significance of ZIG-ZAG scheme of rearrangement in
PV arrays for performance enhancement under static shadow
conditions are examined in this paper. ZIG-ZAG scheme of
arrangement is compared with conventional and Su Do Ku
scheme of arrangement for TCT configuration. GMPP for ZIG-
ZAG scheme is enhanced when compared Su Do Ku
rearranged scheme. STCT scheme of connection becomes
difficult as the array size increases. Zig-Zag scheme of
arrangement is more suited in the placement of panels of PV
arrays of any dimension, and is particularly useful for huge PV
farms. Moreover, ZIG-ZAG scheme has smoother P-V
characteristics with reduced number of local maxima, thus
simplifying the task of Maximum Power Point Tracker
(MPPT).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are grateful to the IT Department, Ministry of Kerala
for extending services under the SPEED IT Programme for
taking up investigation.
REFERENCES
[1] Volker Quaschning and Rolf Hanitsch, Shade calculations in
photovoltaic systems, ISES Solar World Conference - Harare /
Zimbabwe - September 11-15, 1995
[2] Volker Quaschning and Rolf Hanitsch, Numerical simulation of
current-voltage characteristics of photovoltaic systems with shaded
solar cells, Solar Energy Vol. 56, 1996, No. 6, pp. 513-520
[3] N. D. Kaushika, R. Gera, and K. Kaushika, Hot spot protection in solar
PV modules and arrays, in Proceedings of National Conference on
Solar Energy Systems, 1988, pp. 113117.
[4] N. K. Gautamand N. D. Kaushika, Reliability evaluation of solar
photovoltaic arrays, Solar Energy, Vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 129
141.
[5] Y.-J. Wang and P.-C. Hsu, An investigation on partial shading of PV
modules with different connection configurations of PV cells, Energy,
Vol. 36, no. 5, May 2011, pp. 306978.
[6] Patel, H.; Agarwal, V., "MATLAB-Based Modeling to Study the Effects
of Partial Shading on PV Array Characteristics," IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, Vol.23, no.1, March 2008, pp.302-310
[7] T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, Comparison of photovoltaic array
maximum power point tracking techniques,IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion, Vol. 22, no.2, July. 2007, pp. 439-449.
[8] Safari and S. Mekhilef, Simulation and hardware implementation of
incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method using Cuk
converter, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 58, no. 4,
April 2011, pp.1154-1161.
[9] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, Maximum power point tracking scheme for
PV systems operating under partially shaded conditions, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 55, no. 4, Apr. 2008, pp.
16891698,
[10] J. Young-Hyok, J. Doo-Yong, W. Chung-Yuen, L. Byoung-Kuk, and K.
Jin-Wook, A real maximum power point tracking method for
mismatching compensation in PV array under partially shaded
conditions, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics., Vol. 26, no. 4,
Apr. 2011, pp. 10011009.
[11] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, A new technique for tracking the global
maximum power point of PV arrays operating under partial-shading
conditions, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, Vol. 2, no. 2, Apr. 2012 pp.
184190.
[12] G. Velasco-Quesada, F. Guinjoan-Gispert, R. Pique-Lopez, M. Roman-
Lumbreras, and A. Conesa-Roca, Electrical PV array reconfiguration
strategy for energy extraction improvement in grid-connected PV
systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 56, no. 11,
pp. 43194331, Nov. 2009
[13] D. Nguyen and B. Lehman, An adaptive solar photovoltaic array using
model-based reconfiguration algorithm, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics., Vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 26442654, Jul. 2008.
[14] Z. M. Salameh and F. Dagher, The effect of electrical array
reconfiguration on the performance of a PV-powered volumetric water
pump, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
653658, Dec. 1990.
[15] B InduRani, G Sarava Ilango and Chlilakapati Nagamani, Enhanced
power generation from PV array under partial shading conditions by
Shade dispersion using Su Do Ku configuration, IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, Vol 4, 2013,pp 594-601
[16] M. Z. Shams El-Dein, M. Kazerani and M M A Salama, Optimal Total
Cross Tied Interconnection for Photovoltaic Arrays to Reduce Partial
Shading Losses, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, Vol. 4, no.
1, January 2013, pp 145-153.
[17] M Villalva, J R Gazoli and E R Filho, 2009,Comprehensive approach
to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays, IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol24, no.5, pp. 1198-1208.
[18] M Villalva, J R Gazoli and E R Filho, 2009, Modeling and circuit
based simulation of photovoltaic arrays. Brazilian Journal on Power
Electronics, 2009, Vol 14, no.1, pp. 35-45.
[19] Vijayalekshmy S, Bindu G R, S RamaIyer, Performance of Partially
Shaded Photovoltaic Array Configurations under Shade Dispersion,
IEEE Conference- International Conference on Advances in Green
Energy , ICAGE- 2014, December 2014, Trivandrum