Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Mismatch losses minimization in photovoltaic arrays by arranging

modules applying a genetic algorithm
Samad Shirzadi ⇑, H. Hizam, Noor Izzri Abdul Wahab
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Malaysia
Centre of Advanced Power and Energy Research, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Malaysia

Received 10 May 2014; received in revised form 20 July 2014; accepted 2 August 2014

Communicated by: Associate Editor Takhir Razykov

Abstract

Photovoltaic (PV) arrays consist of series and parallel connections of PV modules. Difference in current–voltage (I–V) characteristics
among a batch of modules form an array causes power losses in PV systems referred to as mismatch losses. These power losses are
conventionally reduced by module sorting techniques which sort modules based on an I–V parameter such as short circuit current,
current at maximum power or maximum power. This work introduces a new method that employs genetic algorithm (GA) to find an
arrangement of modules in an array which minimizes mismatch losses more effectively than conventional methods do. Extensive
simulations are applied to adapt a GA to the problem of mismatch losses, find the arrangement and demonstrate its superiority over
module sorting techniques in terms of mismatch losses decrement and energy yield increment. Instructions for practical application
of the suggested method are also provided.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mismatch losses; Genetic algorithm; Module sorting techniques; Photovoltaic

1. Introduction of the first silicon PV cell at American Bell Laboratories in

Based on statistical information acquired from Interna-
tional Energy Agency (IEA) Key World Energy Statistics
in 2006, yearly energy consumption of the world counts
for around 140,000 TW h and it is predicted to increase up
to 60% more than this amount till 2030 (Freris and Infield,
2008). The growing energy demands, finitude of fossil fuels,
and environmental issues have motivated human beings to
seek for other energy resources. A while after the invention
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Malaysia.
Tel.: +60 129761733.
E-mail addresses: shirzadi1983@gmail.com (S. Shirzadi), Hashim@
eng.upm.edu.my (H. Hizam), izzri@eng.upm.edu.my (N.I.A. Wahab).
1954 (Quaschning, 2009), solar PV energy found its position
as a reliable and sustainable energy resource. An outstand-
ing increase in global installed capacity, from 5 GW in 2005
to 40 GW in 2010, stands behind the commercial prosperity
of PV industry (Bortnikov et al., 1981). One issue among
several issues toward well utilization of PV systems is power
losses due to a phenomenon called mismatch which is the
subject of this study. As depicted in Fig. 1, statistics avail-
able on ISI web of science show that mismatch power losses
in PV systems is still a hot topic in academic researches due
to considerable number of publication and increasing
number of citations it has gotten since 2003.
In PV generators, PV arrays convert photo-energy of
sun irradiation to electrical energy in DC form. A PV array
consists of series and parallel combination of PV modules.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.08.005
0038-092X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
468 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
Publication
No
Year
Fig. 1. Publications on mismatch power losses (left) and citations of mismatch power losses (right).
The same way PV modules are composed of PV cells. This
modular nature of PV systems, is advantageous when it
helps to wire the system up to desirable level of current,
voltage and power. But the fact that PV modules with
the same brand and same ratings are not exactly identical,
turns the modularity of PV systems to be disadvantageous
when it causes sort of power losses known as mismatch
losses which are recognized by several research works
(Bucciarelli, 1979; Chouder and Silvestre, 2009; Picault
et al., 2010). Since PV modules are fabricated in the
factory, further investigation and modification in cell level
requires damaging the module encapsulation. So investi-
gating mismatch losses mitigation techniques among cells
inside modules is of PV module manufacturers’ interest
whereas such investigation among modules in arrays is of
system operators and installers interest. This paper deals
with mismatch losses among modules at array level.
Module sorting techniques are regular methods for mini-
mizing mismatch losses in PV arrays in which modules are
sorted in arrays by one of their characteristic parameters. This
paper elaborates these techniques and reviews the mechanism
of mismatch losses to propose a more effective solution. The
proposed solution applies a GA to find the optimal arrange-
ment of modules in an array, considering array output power
as an objective function to be maximized. The arrangement of
modules obtained by the GA is then compared to the
arrangements obtained by the sorting techniques in terms of
mismatch losses and energy yield.
Understanding electrical configuration of PV arrays,
difference in PV modules characteristics and mismatch
losses mechanism are inevitable steps toward comprehend-
ing the problem of mismatch losses in PV arrays and
subsequently devising solutions to this problem. Second
and third sections elaborate these steps. Section four
reviews the conventional treatments for mismatch losses.
Section five explains the hypothesis of this study. Sixth
section is devoted to the methodology of the work. Sections
seven and eight provide results and conclusions respectively.
2. PV array configurations
There are different possible configurations of PV mod-
ules in a PV array such as series parallel (SP), bridge link
Citation
No
Year
(BL) and total cross tied (TCT) Ramaprabha and
Mathur, 2012. SP configuration which is the most practi-
cally used configuration is considered in this study. In this
configuration connected modules in series form strings
and connected strings in parallel form an array. Obviously
all modules per each string work at the same amount of cur-
rent and all strings in an array work at the same amount of
voltage at a time. So it is simply concluded from Kirchhoff
laws that the string voltage equals the summation of mod-
ules voltage in strings, the array current equals the summa-
tion of strings current and array’s voltage equals the voltage
of every string. An array of 40 modules and 4 strings with
SP configuration is depicted in Fig. 2 as an example.
3. Mismatch losses
As previously mentioned, differences in PV modules
characteristics together with modularity of PV arrays cause
mismatch losses in PV arrays. These differences are dis-
cussed in first subsection and second subsection explains
how these differences cause mismatch losses.
3.1. Differences in PV modules characteristics
A group of modules of the same brand and same nominal
ratings are not exactly identical. Their differences are under-
stood by comparing and contrasting their characteristic
parameters such as fill factor (FF), maximum power
(PMPP), current at maximum power (IMPP), voltage at max-
imum power (VMPP), short circuit current (ISC) and open
circuit voltage (VOC). Difference in module characteristic
parameters is called I–V mismatch, since it results in differ-
ent electrical performance. I–V mismatch comes from either
temporary or permanent sources as classified in Fig. 3.
Shading or non-uniform illumination might happen by
fallen leaves of trees, scattered clouds moving over the PV
Fig. 2. SP configuration of an array of 40 modules in 4 strings.
 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
Permanent Factors
Sources of I-V mismatch
Temporary
Factors
Fig. 3. Classification of factors that cause mismatch losses.
array, shadow of an object situated around the PV array or
another reason (Sonnenenergie, 2008). This factor can
temporarily result in mismatch losses in an array of mod-
ules, whereas there are other factors which permanently
cause mismatch losses such as manufacturing tolerance,
light-induced degradation, discoloration, soiling, delamina-
tion and cracking. Referring to datasheet of PV modules are
currently available in the market, it is found that despite all
advancements of PV modules production technology, there
still exist a manufacturing tolerance of ±3% to ±5% in their
rating PMPP, IMPP and VMPP. Light-induced degradation,
discoloration, soiling and delamination are all matters of
aging (Smith et al., 2012). Cracking in cells is a module
defect that can happen during shipment, installation or
further happen due to hail (Ton et al., 2007) so it also can
be considered as a matter of aging. All these permanent
factors cause dispersion in PV module characteristic
parameters. This variation in module characteristic param-
eters is the root of mismatch losses (Zilles and Lorenzo,
1992; Reis et al., 2002). This paper focuses on finding a
solution for mismatch losses occurs due to all permanent
factors. Thus, hereinafter term mismatch losses addresses
the mismatch power losses coming from permanent factors
and term mismatch refers to permanent I–V mismatch in PV
modules.
It should be pointed out that aforementioned permanent
factors (excluding manufacturing tolerance) have another
impact on the PV array performance that is always studied
separately entitled “performance degradation” (Smith
et al., 2012; Coello, 2011). Performance degradation is
not subject of this study. Performance degradation is mea-
surable by comparing the performance parameters of an
aged PV system to its fresh condition whereas mismatch
losses is measurable by comparing array output power to
the summation of individual modules output power.
3.2. Mismatch losses mechanism
In practical PV generators, a central Maximum Power
Point Tracker (MPPT) system is applied to lead the system
to work at its’ possible maximum power. In the presence of
such a system all modules are led to work at their IMPP and
VMPP which are not exactly identical for all modules as
469
Manufacturing Tolerance
Light-induced Degradation
Soiling
Discoloration
Delaminataion
Cracking
Shading or non-uniform illumination
previously explained. Simply put, under central MPPT,
two modules with different IMPP that are connected in ser-
ies, compromise to work at the lower IMPP and similarly
two modules with different VMPP that are connected in par-
allel work at the lower VMPP. Generalization of these con-
ditions to a large array of PV modules connected in series
and parallel, results in the following equation (Chamberlin
et al., 1995):
!
P mod;i arr
P
iX MPP  P MPP
MML% ¼ 100 mod;i
ð1Þ
i
P MPP
where MML% is the percent of mismatch losses, P mod;i
MPP is
the maximum power produced by ith module if it works
independently, and P arr
MPP is the output power of the whole
array.
4. Conventional solutions
According to the mechanism of mismatch losses
explained in Section 4, the more variation exists in charac-
teristic parameters of modules forming an array the
greater the resulting MML% of that array will be. This
fact is the basis of some conventional mismatch mitigation
techniques called module sorting techniques which stand
for sorting modules in arrays based on one of the modules
characteristic parameters such as IMPP, ISC or PMPP
(Sonnenenergie, 2008; Webber and Riley, 2013; Bakas
et al., 2012) for arrays with SP configuration. Variation
of maximum power current of modules ðI mod MPP Þ in strings
and variation of maximum power voltage of strings
ðV str
MPP Þ in the array are in fact sources of mismatch losses
(Bucciarelli, 1979; Kaushika and Rai, 2007). Sorting mod-
ules by ISC and IMPP reduces mismatch losses by greedily
minimizing the variation of I modMPP in strings (Webber and
Riley, 2013; Bakas et al., 2012) but it is further demon-
strated that it neglects the variation of V str
MPP if it is com-
pared to sorting by PMPP. It is also demonstrated that
sorting modules by PMPP returns a balancing outcome
in terms of minimizing the variation of I mod str
MPP and V MPP ,
but it does not result in lower mismatch losses in compar-
ison with sorting by ISC or IMPP.
470 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478

5. Proposed solution and mismatch losses and energy yield must be calculated
for each one respectively. Following subsections cover the
The number of overall possible arrangements of methodology of the work step by step.
modules in an array is calculated as follows:
      6.1. PV module modeling
m m  ð1  lÞ m  ð2  lÞ
X¼  
l l l This is a common practice in electrical engineering to
  ð2Þ
m  ððn  2Þ  lÞ model an electrical element with some mathematical equa-
 ...  8m; n; l 2 N & n > 1
l tions and their equivalent circuit. Without such a model,
participation of that element in any credible calculation
where X is the number of possible arrangements, l is the or simulation would be impossible. One-diode model
number of modules in series per each string, n is the num- (Chan and Phang, 1987) is chosen to represent PV modules
ber of parallel strings, and m is the total number of mod- in different simulations which are carried out in this study.
ules in the array. Table 1 shows how dramatically Respective equations are as follows and its equivalent
number of overall possible arrangements for an array circuit is shown in Fig. 4.
increases by increasing the number of modules. For exam-    
ple, the second array in Table 1 with 40 modules organised V þ Rs  I V þ Rs  I
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp 1  ð3Þ
in 4 parallel strings of 10 modules, has 4.7054  1021 pos- ns  V t Rp
sible arrangements and sorting modules by IMPP, ISC and akT
PMPP are only three of them. Since module sorting tech- Vt ¼ ð4Þ
q
niques reduce mismatch losses through minimizing the var-
iation of I mod str
MPP and V MPP by simply sorting modules and
where I and V are the module current and voltage, Rs and
performances of other possible arrangements are unknown, Rp are series and parallel resistances, Iph is the photo-
the idea that there might be an arrangement with lower generated current, I0 is the diode saturation current, ns is
resulting mismatch losses than what is obtained by those the number of cells in series per each module, a is the diode
few arrangements of module sorting techniques seems wor- ideality factor, k represents the Boltzmann constant
thy of investigation. Finding such an arrangement is the (1.381  1023J/K), T is the module temperature and q is
hypothesis of this study. Instead of trying all the possible the electron charge (1.602  1019 C).
arrangements to find the best one which is apparently inap-
plicable due to magnitude of the search space (all possible 6.2. Data sets of modules
arrangements), GA which is highly qualified among prob-
abilistic search algorithms is applied to find it. The stochastic process introduced in Bakas et al. (2012) is
used to generate 4 data sets of 18, 40, 65 and 90 PV modules.
6. Methodology Studies on the statistical distribution of PV modules charac-
teristic parameters shows that Gaussian distribution
In order to examine the suggested mismatch mitigation explains the distribution of VOC, ISC and PMPP (Reis
technique and compare it to conventional ones in terms et al., 2002; Damm et al., 1995). This stochastic process
of its capability of mismatch losses reduction and energy assumes Gaussian distribution for VOC, ISC and PMPP and
yield improvement, some simulations are applied in MAT- generalizes it to IMPP and VMPP as well by considering their
LAB environment. The arrays listed in Table 1 require datasheet values as mean values and 10% of datasheet values
datasets of modules with dispersed characteristic parame- as their standard deviations. Datasheet values of CSUN
ters to represent arrays with mismatch losses. Each module 095-36M mono-crystalline solar module which are listed in
needs to be modeled to be implemented in simulations. A Table 2 are used in this study. Next step of the stochastic
GA must be adapted to the problem of mismatch losses process is to randomly choose values within the range of
to find the new arrangement of modules in the arrays. ±10% of mean value for I MPP , V MPP , I SC and V OC , and within
Finally the GA based arrangement and three other the range of ±3% of mean value for P MPP . These two allow-
arrangements need to be applied to each of the arrays able selection ranges are in accordance with the manufactur-
ing tolerance reported in the datasheet and standard
Table 1
4 Different arrays and respective number of overall possible arrangements. Rs I
Array/dataset Array Number of Number of all possible +
number dimension modules arrangements (size of
search space)
Iph D Rp V
1 36 18 1.7153  107
2 4  10 40 4.7054  1021
3 5  13 65 8.8090  1041 -
4 5  18 90 1.3811  1059
Fig. 4. PV module equivalent circuit based on one-diode model.
 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478 471

Table 2 Sera et al. (2007), Can and Ickilli (2014). Stochastic process
Datasheet values of CSUN 095-36M mono-crystalline solar module. that is applied in this study is summarized in Fig. 6.
Parameter Value Unit Fig. 7 shows the current voltage curves (I–V curves) at
PMPP 95 (W) STC for 40 modules that comprise the array with 40 mod-
VOC 22.5 (V) ules. I–V curves show more dispersion in I SC and VOC than
ISC 5.56 (A) what they do at the knee point of the curves. This condition
VMPP 18.3 (V)
IMPP 5.21 (A)
caused by applying the restriction of ±3% of mean value for
Performance deviation of PMPP ±3 % PMPP which equals the multiplication of IMPP and VMPP.
Performance deviation of VOC, ISC, VMPP and IMPP ±10 % The absolute error between generated characteristic
Voltage temperature coefficients 0.307 %/K parameters and those acquired from respective module
Current temperature coefficients +0.039 %/K model are calculated by Eq. (5) and their maximum amounts
Power temperature coefficients 0.423 %/K
Number of cells in series per module 36 Pieces
among all the modules are demonstrated for each of the
arrays in Table 3 to verify the accuracy of modeling process.
E x ¼ jxmodeled  xgenerated j ð5Þ
0.8
where E_x is the absolute error, xgenerated is the generated
Probability Density

0.6 characteristic parameter through stochastic process, and

xmodeled is the analogous characteristic parameter acquired
0.4
±10% of the through one-diode model. The solution to inaccurate mod-
Mean Value
0.2 eling problem is to regenerate the values and recalculate the
equivalent circuit parameters regarding the new values.
0
2.78 3.336 3.892 4.448 5.004 5.56 6.116 6.672 7.228 7.784 8.34 The final outcomes of the stochastic process which is
Isc Values (A) explained above are 4 datasets of modules for 4 mentioned
arrays in Table 1. Format of the produced datasets which
Fig. 5. Gaussian distribution for I SC and allowable range for selecting are called dataset matrixes hereinafter is shown in Table 4.
random values which are shown with dashed lines.
In this format, each row of the dataset matrix includes the
characteristic parameters and equivalent circuit parameters
deviation of 10% of mean value is chosen by try and error to of one module. Modules are uniquely labeled by their row
generate a distinguishable amount of MML% close to what numbers and unable to be removed from the array, dupli-
is reported by Picault et al. (2010) which include practical cated or replaced by other modules out of the dataset.
investigations of mismatch losses due to the permanent fac-
tors. For instance, the assumed Gaussian distribution for 6.3. Sorting modules in arrays
ISC and its relative allowable selection area is shown in
Fig. 5. Then desirable number (regarding the number of As previously stated, sorting modules by ISC, IMPP and
modules for each array) of meaningful groups of these cho- PMPP are the conventional ways of mismatch losses mitiga-
sen values (ISC, VOC, IMPP, VMPP and PMPP) are selected to tion for SP configured arrays. In order to investigate mis-
represent the characteristic parameters of PV modules. match losses reduction by these techniques MML%
Finally equivalent circuit parameters (Rs, Rp, Iph, I0 and a) should be calculated for each of the arrangements coming
are extracted out of the characteristic parameters for from sorting by ISC, IMPP and PMPP respectively. The
each module based on the modeling approach explained in organization of modules dataset, conveniently allows for

Assuming Gaussian distribution for , , , and with a mean value equals to their datasheet values and a standard deviation equals to
10% of their datasheet values

Choosing random values within the range of ±10% of datasheet value for , , , and

The extra condition for choosing and is that the multiplication of each selected pairs of VMPP and IMPP must be in the range of ±3% of
datasheet value of

Selecting meaningful groups of these generated values ( , , , and )

Extracting equivalent circuits parameters ( ℎ , 0, R s , R p , and a) for each group of selected values

Using one-diode model for each module and finding , , , and and comparing them with the generated values to verify the
accuracy of PV module modelling

Fig. 6. Different steps of the stochastic process applied in this study.

472 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478

7 calculate the array power voltage (P–V) curve out of the

6 array I–V curve. Now finding the array maximum power
5
P MPP is restricted to finding the maximum of array P–V
Current (A)

curve (Bishop, 1988). Resulting P–V curves of the second

4
array of 40 modules are drawn in Fig. 8 for 4 different
3 arrangements.
2

1 6.5. Adapting a GA to the problem of mismatch losses

0
5 10 15 20
Voltage (V)
Fig. 7. I–V curves of 40 modules drawn based on one-diode model.
sorting modules by ISC, IMPP and PMPP as well as any
other arrangement.
6.4. Calculating I MPP , V MPP and P MPP of the array for
different arrangements
In order to score the answers by fitness function, calcu-
lation of array output power is frequently needed during
the algorithm operation. When the dataset of Table 4 is
on hand, I–V curve of each module is easy to calculate
through Eq. (3). Since Series connection of modules in each
string forces them to work at the same amount of current,
adding the voltages of modules in each string at the com-
mon current intervals provides the strings voltages. Find-
ing voltages of different modules of each string for
common current intervals is done by interpolation. So far
I–V curves for each string is calculated. As parallel connec-
tion of strings in the array forces them to work at the same
amount of voltage, adding the strings currents at the com-
mon voltage intervals provides the array current. Again
strings currents for common voltage intervals are acquired
through interpolation. In this way array I–V curve is calcu-
lated for every arrangement of modules in the array. Mul-
tiplication of current and voltage of the array leads to
25
GAs are inspired by natural genetic evolution of life spe-
cies. The basic idea of GAs is very simple. Thinking of a
herd of prey as population of life species, those that are
superior in some important characteristics such as smart-
ness and agility have the chance of survival and breeding.
So future generations will inherit better specifications and
by passage of time the population will improve and evolve
naturally. The same way, it is possible to generate a popu-
lation of random answers for a specific optimization prob-
lem (initialization). Using the optimization criteria (fitness
function) as a tool to score these generated answers (eval-
uation), applying a probabilistic mechanism to select supe-
rior pairs of answers (parent selection) and making new
pairs of answers out of the selected pairs (crossover) will
result in a new population of answers which is averagely
better than the previous one. Continuation of this process
can provide even better answers and this is how the basic
idea of a GA is applied in optimization problems. GAs
are useful especially when regular mathematical techniques
are not applicable. Applying GAs in a practical problem
concerns more details such as determining chromosomes,
genes and the dynamic of mutation. Each answer is consid-
ered as a chromosome that is a chain of gens. Each gene
represents a specification of an answer. Mutation that
stands for changing one or more genes within every chro-
mosome of a population of answers, motivates the stabi-
lized population to improve again (Iglesias et al., 2006).
Specifications of the problem of finding an optimal
arrangement of PV modules in an array is similar to a

Table 3
Maximum absolute error for generated characteristic parameters relative to those acquired from one-diode model among all modules of 4 datasets.
Array/dataset number Array dimension Number of modules E_ISC (A) E_VOC (V) E_IMPP (A) E_VMPP (V) E_PMPP (W)
1 36 18 2.94E05 5.51E06 4.99E04 1.75E03 3.00E04
2 4  10 40 1.99E05 4.44E06 5.08E04 1.92E03 2.54E04
3 5  13 65 2.94E05 5.51E06 5.08E04 1.92E03 3.00E04
4 5  18 90 2.69E05 6.15E06 5.08E04 1.93E03 3.32E04

Table 4
Format of dataset matrixes for each array.
Module number Characteristic parameters Equivalent circuit parameters
ISC VOC IMPP VMPP PMPP Rs Rp a I0 Iph
1 5.85 22.13 5.35 17.35 92.75 2.35E01 4.16E+02 1.49 7.04E07 5.85
2 5.35 23.26 4.92 18.77 92.36 1.49E01 4.91E+02 1.55 5.12E07 5.35
3. 6.08
.. 21.08
.. 5.63
.. 16.90
.. 95.13
.. 1.70E01
.. 7.17E+02
.. 1.30
.. 1.71E07
.. 6.08
..
.. . . . . . . . . . .
m 5.94 23.38 4.91 19.71 96.84 1.78E05 2.59E+01 1.33 3.30E08 5.94
 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
Fig. 8. P–V curves for 4 different arrangements of 40 modules of the second array.
well-known problem called Traveling Salesman Problem
(TSP) that has been solved by GA Liu (1402), Ahmed
(2014), Changdar et al. (2014), Wang (2014). Imagining a
group of cities with specified distances between them,
TSP is to find the shortest path that passes all the cities
and returns back to the starting point. Main similarity
between finding optimal arrangement of PV modules in
arrays and TSP is that both problems deal with searching
and finding one specific arrangement of large number of
objects with some specific qualities among numerous possi-
ble arrangements. Other promising similarity is that PV
modules in arrays are as unique as the cities in TSP are.
According to Eq. (1) rearranging the PV array affects
P mod
P arr
MPP with i P MPP being constant. In other words minimi-
zation of MML% equals the maximization of array output
power. Therefore, in order to adapt a GA to the problem
of mismatch losses, fitness function is defined as the array
output power to be maximized as formulated in Eq. (6).
FF ðAk;i Þ ¼ P arr
MPP
k;i
ð6Þ
where FF is the fitness function, Ak,i is a 1  m vector that
shows the arrangement of m modules in the array, P arrMPP
k;i
is
the array output power for k th arrangement at ith gener-
ation, k indicates an answer among the population of
answers and i indicates one generation of all generations
produced during the algorithm operation. In order to con-
sider positions of modules as genes, different arrangements
of modules in the array as chromosomes and apply par-
tially mapped crossover (PMX) Naveen Kumar and
Rajiv Kumar, 2012, it is needed to assimilate the matrix
shape of the PV array to a vector shape of chromosome.
To remedy this strings of each PV array are lined up
sequentially to form a chain of modules as depicted in
Fig. 9 for the array of 40 modules and 4 strings as an exam-
ple. Positions of modules in the array are kept unchanged
before and after this transformation to prevent miscalcula-
tion of array output power which is further explained.
Since modules are labeled by unique numbers, every ran-
dom permutation of numbers from 1 to m in Ak,i gives a
random arrangement of modules in the array which is
473
considered a random answer for FF. Mutation concerns
swapping the position of two modules in the array. For
each of the arrangements that are created at the initializa-
tion, during the GA process as random answers or as the
final optimal answer P arr k;i
MPP is calculated by the method that
is explained in Section 6.4.
Flowchart of the GA is demonstrated in Fig. 10. Where i
counts the GA procedure rounds and indicates one gener-
ation among all generations, FF A ðiÞ is the average fitness
score of all answers of ith generation, j indicates rounds
of GA operation process at which the population of
answers stabilizes and stops anymore improvement and
FFS(j) is the respective value of fitness function. The
FF(Ak,i) in Eq. (6) that calculates the fitness score of answer
k of the generation i should not be confused with FFA(i) as
the average fitness score of generation i, or FFS(j) as fitness
score of the stabilized generation. Maximum fitness score
of each generation that is plotted in Fig. 10 is not a neces-
sity to the algorithm flow but an important part of the
results. The GA starts with generating random answers
to form the initial population. Evaluation of these answers
is applied by calculation of fitness function for each of
them (FF(Ak,i)). Then parents’ selection is performed by
means of a probabilistic procedure called casino roulette
wheel which is explained in Iglesias et al. (2006). After that
PMX crossover is applied to the selected parents and
resulting offsprings are replaced by the current generation.
Evaluation, parents selection, crossover and generation
replacement are applied sequentially and continuously
until stabilization in FF among population of current gen-
eration is achieved which means all answers are converged
to one answer and stop anymore improvement. At this
stage, mutation is applied to all the population of current
answers. This mutated population goes through the evalu-
ation, parent selection, crossover, and generation replace-
ment to reach the stability again. This process continues
whilst average fitness (FFA), fitness of stabilized genera-
tions (FFS) and maximum fitness per each generation are
preserved. Finally procedure stops whenever several stabi-
lized populations of answers with same fitness score are
observed consecutively and at least one mutation has been
474 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478

Fig. 9. Transformation applied to make vector shape of chromosomes out of matrix shape of PV array.

Initialization:
Generating 30 Random Answers

= 1, = 1 and (1) = 0

= +1 Evaluation by Fitness Function

No

Parents Selection Is Stabilization achieved?

Crossover Yes

( )= ()
Replacing Offspring with Previous
Generation (Selected Parents) No

Has Mutation Been

=2
Applied so Far?

Mutation Yes
No

Is
= +1 ( )= ( − 1)?

Yes

End

Fig. 10. Flowchart for the GA algorithm.

applied since the beginning of GA process. Fig. 11 shows
the evolution of the GA. Dropping points in the left curve
of Fig. 11 are the average fitness score breakdowns after
every mutation.
The introduced GA process that takes a data set of PV
modules with determined SP configuration as input and
returns an optimal arrangement of the modules in the array
as output, is applied to the 4 different datasets that are
generated through stochastic process regarding 4 arrays
specified in Table 1. Choosing the right size for initial popu-
lation is important because the bigger the initial population
is the more time consuming the simulation program would
be. In order to appropriately size the initial population for
each simulation, at first an initial population between 100
and 500 (almost in accordance with what has been experi-
enced for solving TSP by GA (Julstrom, 1996) was selected
for each simulation and valid and stable answer (which
shows crossing the knee point in the GA evolution curves
e.g. Fig. 10 and does not vary for multiple times of simula-
tion repetition) was achieved. Then the initial population
was decreased step by step to see if we could get the answer
with smaller initial population. Table 5 lists all simulations
that are performed for the 4 arrays in this work. Respective
results are discussed in the next section.
 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478 475

Fig. 11. Evolution of GA for the 4  10 array (a) average fitness of each generation and (b) maximum fitness of each generation.

Table 5
Format of data set matrixes for each array.
Array number Number of modules Array dimension (strings  modules per string) Initial population Mutation percentage Crossover method
1 18 36 20 2 PMX
2 40 4  10 30 2 PMX
3 65 5  13 50 2 PMX
4 90 5  18 70 2 PMX

Table 6 In order to have an idea about the advantage of using

Mismatch losses for each of the arrays. the new GA based arrangement, the recoverable energy
Arrangement MML% which could be gained by using this arrangement relative
Array #1 Array #2 Array #3 Array #4
to applying the best sorting technique for the presumed
arrays is calculated as the differentiation of energy yield
Sorted by I SC 1.38 1.18 1.27 1.07
Sorted by I MPP 1.17 1.13 1.08 1.02
under GA based arrangement and under the best sorting
Sorted by P MPP 1.57 1.26 1.27 1.20 technique which is sorting by IMPP. Recoverable energies
Arranged by the GA 1.02 0.74 0.74 0.63 and recoverable energies percentages for the selected day
and also selected month are calculated by Eqs. (7) and
(8) respectively.
7. Results and discussion EGA  Es
DEr ¼ ð7Þ
Es
In order to have a judgment about effectiveness of
 
suggested arrangement versus those coming from the EGA  Es
sorting techniques detailed comparisons in terms of DEr % ¼ 100 ð8Þ
Es
resulting mismatch losses, output power and energy yield
of the PV array in the presence of both GA based arrange- where DEr is the recoverable energy, %DEr is the percent-
ment and sorting ones are presented hereby. Table 6 shows age of recoverable energy, EGA is the energy yield under
that the GA based arrangement however decreases the mis- GA based arrangement, and Es is the energy yield under
match losses for all arrays but this decrement is sensitive to the best sorting technique which is sorting by IMPP. Recov-
the size of array. Considering the 4 different arrangements erable energies and percentage of recoverable energies for
of modules in presumed arrays, energy yield is calculated the 4 arrays are reported in Table 9.
for June of 2012 and also for 12 of Jun separately based One interesting comparison is made about variation of
on irradiation and temperature profiles measured at solar I mod str
MPP within each string and variation of V MPP within the
site of University Putra Malaysia (UPM) during June of array. Standard Deviation (SD) is chosen as an index of
2012. Measurement time intervals are 1 min and 15 min variation of these two factors. Table 10 depicts the out-
for the day and the month respectively. These two time come of different arrangements of the second array at
periods are chosen due to their relatively short sampling STC. As previously mentioned, the more variation exists
intervals comparing to other available metrological data- in series blocks maximum currents and parallel blocks
sets from UPM solar site. Specifications of UPM solar site maximum voltages the higher the resulting mismatch losses
are brought out in Table 7, and energy yield calculation will be. Variation of I mod
MPP in strings that achieved through
results are demonstrated in Table 8. sorting by I MPP is lower than that of sorting by I SC , but it
476 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478

Table 7
Specifications of UPM solar site.
Location Longitude Latitude Daily average Average monthly Daily maximum
radiance level (W/m2) ambient temperature (°C) ambient temperature (°C)
UPM, Selangor, Malaysia 2.99 101.72 253–512 29.60 30.2–36.6

Table 8
Energy yield for each of the arrays during one day and one month.
Arrangement Energy yield (kW h)
Array #1 Array #2 Array #3 Array #4
Day Month Day Month Day Month Day Month
Sorted by I SC 14.02 277.12 31.47 622.08 51.02 1008.40 70.87 1400.78
Sorted by I MPP 14.05 277.72 31.49 622.43 51.12 1010.31 70.91 1401.42
Sorted by P MPP 13.99 276.59 31.45 621.57 51.02 1008.37 70.78 1398.88
Arranged by the GA 14.07 278.13 31.62 624.87 51.29 1013.79 71.19 1407.02

Table 9
Recoverable energy for each of the arrays during one day and one month.
Arrangement Recoverable energy
Array #1 Array #2 Array #3 Array #4
Wh % Wh % Wh % Wh %
Day 50 0.36 141 0.45 270 0.53 320 0.45
Month 1010 0.36 2792 0.45 5390 0.53 6240 0.45

Table 10
Comparison of different arrangements in terms of MML%, variation of I mod str
MPP and V MPP at STC for the second array of 40 modules.

Arrangement MML% SD of I mod

MPP (A) SD of V str
MPP (V)

1st String 2nd String 3rd String 4th String

Sorted by ISC 1.18 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.13 7.72
Sorted by IMPP 1.13 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.11 9.50
Sorted by PMPP 1.26 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.23 3.30
Arranged by the GA 0.74 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.20 3.74

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 12. Different arrangements of 40 PV modules in the 4  10 array (a) Sorted by ISC, (b) sorted by IMPP, (c) sorted by PMPP and (d) arranged by the GA.

is vice versa for Vstr

MPP variation in the array. It means that a balance it shows in terms of current voltage variations, it
greedier decrement of I mod
MPP variation in strings decreases the does not result in lower mismatch losses than those of other
mismatch losses even for increasing the V str MPP variation. sorting techniques. GA based arrangement also exhibits a
Sorting by P MPP , exhibits an outstanding decrement in balancing results in terms of variations of I mod str
MPP and V MPP .
V str mod
MPP and an increment in I MPP , but despite the relative
mod
This arrangement returns slightly lower I MPP variation
 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
and higher V str
MPP variation than the one of sorting by PMPP
and also higher I mod
MPP variation relative to arrangements of
sorting by ISC and IMPP. The average variations of I mod MPP
among 4 strings equals 0.22 A and 0.18 A for sorting by
P MPP and GA based arrangement respectively. It seems that
GA helps the array to negotiate mismatch losses more
effectively by swapping modules among strings during the
GA evolution.
Ultimate outcome of the GA for an array of m modules
is the answer with best fitness score which in fact is a 1  m
vector including a permutation of numbers between 1 and
m. Since each module is uniquely labeled in the dataset
matrixes and regarding the aforementioned reciprocal
chromosome to array transformation, this vector equals
an arrangement of modules in the array that returns the
highest array output power and lowest MML% among
all possible arrangements. This arrangement is presented
in Fig. 11 along with 3 other arrangements that are resulted
from sorting techniques for the second array. Since array
has SP configuration, displacement of modules within
one string is allowed as well as displacement of strings
within the array. This fact helps to see the similarities
and differences between the 4 arrangements in Fig. 12.
For example, it is noticed that modules number 1, 4, 13,
18, 22, 26 and 40 are all in one string in both sorting by
IMPP (Fig. 12.b) which is the best among the sorting
techniques and the GA based arrangement (Fig. 12d).
This work suggests a new technique for arranging PV
modules in arrays. This technique is applicable through
some practical steps. First one is to perform I–V measure-
ments for all the modules of the target array to acquire
appropriate data which is required for the precise PV
modules modeling. These I–V measurements are suggested
to be performed under STC, otherwise measured I–V
curves have to be translated to STC. Second step is to
model the PV modules to come up with a structurally same
modules dataset as the one depicted in Table 5. Third step
is to apply the GA algorithm explained here to the acquired
dataset considering desirable array structure e.g. 4  10 in
SP. Forth step is to arrange the modules in the array based
on the resulting arrangement of the GA algorithm
considering the modules labeling number in the dataset.
Mentioned steps form the instructions regarding the new
module arrangement technique. Applying and validating
this new technique can contribute the future work regard-
ing this study.
8. Conclusion
A new method of arranging modules in an array based
on GA was demonstrated in this work. This method was
compared to conventional techniques of mismatch losses
reduction in terms of MML% and energy yield. It seems
that a smart arrangement of modules reduces mismatch
losses more effectively than what is gained by an objective
minimization of I mod str
MPP which neglects the V MPP or a
477
combined minimization of both I mod str
MPP and V MPP through
sorting by P MPP .
Results show an energy saving potential for this
arrangement technique. Energy yield calculation supports
the idea that the suggested arrangement is superior to sort-
ing techniques not only at STC but also under verity of
irradiations and temperatures.
References
Ahmed, Z.H., 2014. Improved genetic algorithms for the travelling
salesman problem. Int. J. Process Manage. Benchmark. 4, 109–124.
Bakas, P., Marinopoulos, A., Stridh, B., 2012. Impact of PV module
mismatch on the PV array energy yield and comparison of module,
string and central MPPT, In: Photovoltaic Specialists Conference
(PVSC), 2012 38th IEEE, 2012, pp. 001393–001398.
Bishop, J., 1988. Computer simulation of the effects of electrical
mismatches in photovoltaic cell interconnection circuits. Solar Cells
25, 73–89.
Bortnikov, I.S., Lidorenko, N., Muchnik, G., Riabikov, S., Strebkov, D.,
1981. Solar-energy perspectives. Akademiia Nauk SSSR Izvestiia
Mekhanika Zhidkosti i Gaza 17, 3–12.
Bucciarelli Jr., L.L., 1979. Power loss in photovoltaic arrays due to
mismatch in cell characteristics. Sol. Energy 23, 277–288.
Can, H., Ickilli, D., 2014. Parameter estimation in modeling of photovol-
taic panels based on datasheet values. J. Sol.Energy Eng. 136, 021002.
Chamberlin, C.E., Lehman, P., Zoellick, J., Pauletto, G., 1995. Effects of
mismatch losses in photovoltaic arrays. Sol. Energy 54, 165–171.
Chan, D.S., Phang, J.C., 1987. Analytical methods for the extraction of
solar-cell single-and double-diode model parameters from IV charac-
teristics. IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 34, 286–293.
Changdar, C., Mahapatra, G., Kumar Pal, R., 2014. An efficient genetic
algorithm for multi-objective solid travelling salesman problem under
fuzziness”. Swarm Evol. Comput. 15, 27–37.
Chouder, A., Silvestre, S., 2009. Analysis model of mismatch power losses
in PV systems. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 131, 024504.
Coello, J., 2011. Degradation of crystalline silicon modules: a case study
on 785 samples after two years under operation, Presented at the in
Proceedings of the 26th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Confer-
ence and Exhibition (PVSEC ‘11), Hamburg, Germany.
Damm, W., Heinemann, D., Pukrop, D., 1995. Power losses in PV arrays
due to variations in the IV characteristics of PV modules. Energieme-
teorologie 6, 165–171.
Freris, L., Infield, D., 2008. Renewable energy in power systems. John
Wiley & Sons.
Iglesias, M., Lowen, R., Verschoren, A., 2006. Foundations of generic
optimization. In: A Combinatorial Approach to Epistasis, vol. 1.
Springer.
Julstrom, B.A., 1996. Population size in GAs for TSP”, In: Proceedings of
the Second Nordic Workshop on Genetic Algorithms and their
Applications (2NWGA), Vaasa, Finland.
Kaushika, N., Rai, A.K., 2007. An investigation of mismatch losses in
solar photovoltaic cell networks. Energy 32, 755–759.
Liu, S., 2014. A Powerful Genetic Algorithm for Traveling Salesman
Problem”, arXiv preprint arXiv, 1402.4699.
Naveen Kumar, K., Rajiv Kumar, 2012. A comparative analysis of PMX
CX and OX crossover operators for solving Travelling Salesman
problem. Int. J. Latest Res. Sci. Technol. 1, 98–101.
Picault, D., Raison, B., Bacha, S., De La Casa, J., Aguilera, J., 2010.
Forecasting photovoltaic array power production subject to mismatch
losses. Sol. Energy 84, 1301–1309.
Quaschning, V., 2009. Renewable energy and climate change. John Wiley
& Sons.
Ramaprabha, R., Mathur, B., 2012. A comprehensive review and analysis
of solar photovoltaic array configurations under partial shaded
conditions, Int. J. Photoenergy, vol. 2012.
478 S. Shirzadi et al. / Solar Energy 108 (2014) 467–478
Reis, A.M., Coleman, N.T., Marshall, M.W., Lehman, P.A., Chamberlin,
C.E., 2002. Comparison of PV module performance before and after
11-years of field exposure, in Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.
Conference Record of the Twenty-Ninth IEEE, 1432–1435.
Sera, D., Teodorescu, R., Rodriguez, P., 2007. PV panel model based on
datasheet values, In: IEEE International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics. ISIE, 2007, pp. 2392–2396.
Smith, R.M., Jordan, D.C., Kurtz, S.R., 2012. Outdoor PV module
degradation of current-voltage parameters, in World Renewable
Energy Forum. Denver, CO, USA.
Sonnenenergie, D.G.f., 2008. Planning and Installing Photovoltaic
Systems: A Guide for Installers, Architects and Engineers, Earthscan.
Ton, D., Tillerson, J., McMahon, T., Quintana, M., Zweibel, K., 2007.
Accelerated Aging Tests in Photovoltaics Summary Report, US
Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Wang, Y., 2014. The hybrid genetic algorithm with two local optimization
strategies for traveling salesman problem. Comput. Ind. Eng. 70, 124–
133.
Webber, J., Riley, E., 2013. Mismatch loss reduction in photovoltaic
arrays as a result of sorting photovoltaic modules by max-power
parameters. ISRN Renew. Energy.
Zilles, R., Lorenzo, E., 1992. An analytical model for mismatch losses in
PV arrays. Int. J. Sol. Energy 13, 121–133.