Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A method to estimate the energy production of photovoltaic trackers under MARK

shading conditions
⁎
Eloy Díaz-Dorado, José Cidrás, Camilo Carrillo
University of Vigo, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy produced by a photovoltaic park mainly depends on solar irradiance. However in order to estimate the
Photovoltaic systems energy production, it must be taken into account the technology of PV-modules, their layout and the electrical
Photovoltaic cells connection between them. Furthermore, the energy losses, especially those related to non-uniform distribution
Partial shading of irradiance must be considered. In this context, in a PV-park it is specially important losses related to shadows
Ground cover ratio
between trackers. These must be properly estimated to propose different configurations or to evaluate the ef-
Planning
ficiency of the installation.
In this context, this article presents a methodology to evaluate the energy production of a PV-park where PV-
trackers are modeled from their simplest elements to the PV-array. The energy calculation includes losses;
therefore, shadows are analyzed and included as irregular distributions of irradiance along the tracker plane. The
presented method allows for the analysis of different design criteria: PV-cells and PV-modules arrangement, PV-
cell electrical connections inside a module and electrical connections between PV-modules, tracker layout on the
ground and tracker dimensions.
Furthermore, the proposed method allows evaluation of the annual energy generation and the losses due to
the trackers’ shadows, accounting for the irradiance and the temperature.

1. Introduction array with an arbitrary configuration. Usually, the PV-array analysis is

One usual matter of concern in the analysis of photovoltaic (PV) in-
stallations is the estimation of the energy produced under different working
conditions, e.g. those far from the rated ones. In this context, one of the
most complex situations that is usually found is the estimation of the en-
ergy produced when a PV park has no uniform irradiance on its elements.
This is a typical situation, and the matter of this paper, in parks formed by
sun trackers where partial shading between trackers is quite common.
To accurately analyze the effects of partial shading in PV installa-
tions, a detailed model is necessary that takes into account their sim-
plest elements, cells and diodes, and the different electrical connections
between them forming panels, strings and, finally, arrays [1,2]. This
kind of modeling is usually referred as “cell to array” approach [1] and
it is typically implemented in commercially available circuit simula-
tions packages [3–5] or even in specific software for PV systems [6,7].
However, the use of commercial software could limit its use, e.g., for
planning purposes and energy assessment.
Shading effects of partial shading on the electrical behavior of PV
systems have been analyzed by several authors [1,8–12]. Nevertheless,
most of them cannot be used to accurately obtain the energy yield for a PV
done by using different kinds of simplifications. For example, in [13]
several simplifications on PV-cell and PV-module models, e.g. the reverse
biasing of PV-cells is not considered, have been used to obtain the P-V
curve for a partially shaded PV-array. Another kind of simplification
consists in restricting the type of shadow to be analyzed [10,11,14–17].
For example, in [15] the MPP values are obtained for long strings and
parallel-connected short strings under partial shading conditions. Never-
theless, only complete series of cells with a bypass diode are considered to
be shaded. Finally, several authors propose empirical expression to obtain
power losses without modeling the PV-array in detail, e.g. in [18].
Regarding field layout of trackers, Refs. [7,19] present the first works
dedicated to the minimization of energy losses in PV-tracker parks con-
sidering the layout as an input for the optimizations process. In those
papers, two examples are used to compare the results of square and hex-
agonal ground layouts although several simplifications on radiation [19]
or granularity of analysis [7] are applied. Most papers related to these
ones, [10,16,20–23], put their efforts in modeling shadow geometry for
different kind of trackers or field geometries but uses simplifications to
obtain the energy losses without considering, for example, the different
electrical configurations of PV elements. In [10], a metaheuristic method

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ediaz@uvigo.es (E. Díaz-Dorado), jcidras@uvigo.es (J. Cidrás), carrillo@uvigo.es (C. Carrillo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.022
Received 7 February 2017; Received in revised form 15 July 2017; Accepted 7 August 2017
0196-8904/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Nomenclature s surface area of a PV-cell

T temperature
a fraction of ohmic current in avalanche breakdown Tm annual mean temperature
d distance between two trackers Tn nominal temperature
D width of the module Varray,xy array MPP voltage with shaded area (x, y)
Esunny,αγ annual energy production of a PV-tracker under sunny Vbr junction breakdown voltage
weather conditions for sun position (α, γ) Voc0 open circuit voltage
Ecloudy,αγ annual energy production of a PV-tracker under cloudy v0 ordinate of the projection of the center of one tracker on
weather conditions for sun position (α, γ) another
Eannual annual electrical energy produced by a PV-tracker w width of the tracker
G global irradiance x horizontal size of the shaded area
Gb beam irradiance y vertical size of the shaded area
Gd diffuse irradiance
Gr reflected irradiance Greek letters
h height of the tracker
Hsunny,αγ irradiation on a tracker under sunny weather conditions α azimuth angle of the sun position
for each sun azimuth α and elevation γ when no shading is α0 relative azimuth between two trackers
considered ϕ azimuth angle of normal vector of a plane
Hcloudy,αγ irradiation on a tracker under cloudy weather conditions θ elevation angle of normal vector of a plane
for each sun azimuth α and elevation γ when no shading is θ0 fixed elevation angle of normal vector of a single-axis
considered tracker
I current γ elevation angle of the sun position
Isc0 short circuit current δ height of the shaded area
Kb Boltzmann constant Δtsunny,αγ annual period of time under sunny weather conditions
KI temperature coefficient of short circuit current with sun azimuth α and elevation γ
KP temperature coefficient of MPP power Δtcloudy,αγ annual period of time under cloudy weather conditions
KV temperature coefficient of open circuit voltage with sun azimuth α and elevation γ
l width of the shaded area ξ rectangular shaded area ratio for a PV-module
L width of the module ηxy efficiency coefficients of the tracker with shaded area (x,
Lannual annual energy losses y)
m avalanche breakdown exponent ηαγ efficiency coefficients of the tracker for sun position (α, γ)
n ideality factor of cell ρg albedo or ground reflectance
ns number of PV-modules in each PV-string σi shading coefficient
np number of PV-strings in each PV-array
nf number of rows in a PV-string Subscripts
nc number of columns in a PV-string
MPP
Pcell ,G cell MPP power with irradiance G b beam or normal
MPP cloudy under cloudy weather conditions
Parray,G array MPP power with irradiance G
MPP
Parray ,xy array MPP power with shaded area (x, y) d diffuse
q elementary charge h on horizontal plane
rG relationship between indirect and global irradiance n on normal plane
Rs series resistance of PV-cell r reflected
Rsh shunt resistance of PV-cell sunny under sunny weather conditions
u0 abscissa of the projection of the center of one tracker on xy of sizes x and y
another αγ azimuth angle α and elevation angle γ of sun position
V voltage γθ azimuth angle γ and elevation angle θ of tracker
S complete area of the cast shadow on a PV-tracker

is presented based on evolutionary strategies that are used to obtain the
best location of each tracker on a terrain of irregular shape; where it has
been taken into account the energy losses caused by shadows from nearby
obstacles and between PV-trackers. In [21], results are presented for si-
mulations of the energy yield of flat panels for different locations and
tracking strategies as a function of the ground cover ratio, but certain
limitations on shadows are applied. In any case, some interesting results
for design purposes are shown, such as the optimal position of solar
trackers on the ground depending on land availability or the energy gains
of each tracking strategy. Similarly, in [22], the energy production for
different tracking strategies in a PV park is analyzed, although the layout
of PV-modules on the tracker and their electrical connections are not taken
into account in the optimization process.
One of the aspects to be analyzed in PV-parks is the geometry of the
shadows cast between trackers. Although there are several software
packages [6,24] that help to obtain those shadows, in order to easily
integrate the results in the energy yield calculation, a trigonometric
approach that considers one-axis and two-axis trackers has been used in
the proposed method [16,20,25]. After analyzing the equations related
to shadow geometry, it has been demonstrated in this paper that its
shape is rectangular which makes easier the shadows modeling.
As a resume, the proposed method allows an accurate estimation of the
production of a PV-park by considering the following aspects, which are
only partially taken into account by the different methods previously
commented: PV technology, a high order model for PV-cell including re-
verse biasing, cell-to-array modeling, shadow geometry, tracker layout
(module layout and electrical connections), field layout and annual irra-
diance. The proposed method allows the calculation the complete P-V
curve in a PV system with rectangular shadows. These values, along with a
solar energy chart, allow the energy assessment of a PV-park (see Fig. 1).
Finally, it must be considered that the cell to array modeling re-
quires the developing of the entire electric circuit of a PV-tracker so, it

434
E. Díaz-Dorado et al.
is quite complex and susceptible to numerical issues [1]. In order to
overcome numerical problems, the model has been simulating using the
method proposed in [26] where a discrete model is presented to obtain
the I-V curve of partially shaded PV-arrays, which is an improvement,
generalization and systematization of that introduced in [27].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the irradiance and
irradiation on PV-trackers are analyzed. Then, in Section 3, a model of
the irradiance under shadowed conditions and a study of the shadows
between trackers are presented. In Section 4, a complete model is
presented for a shadowed PV-tracker; furthermore, the method to es-
timate the energy production is introduced. Next, in Section 5, the
application of the proposed method for analyzing different PV-tracker
configurations, ground layout and to optimise the annual energy pro-
duction. In Section 6, the results of the proposed method are compared
with results obtained using well-known simplifications. Finally, in
Section 7, the main conclusions of the paper are presented.
2. Irradiance and irradiation on PV-trackers
The irradiance on a plane depends on its position and the sun azi-
muth angle α and elevation angle γ. Thus, the global irradiance G in
that plane is composed of beam or direct irradiance Gb, diffuse irra-
diance Gd and reflected irradiance Gr:
Gϕθ,αγ = Gb,ϕθ,αγ + Gd,ϕθ,αγ + Gr ,ϕθ,αγ W / m2 (1)
where the azimuth and elevation angles, ϕ and θ, of the plane are de-
fined with respect to a normal vector to that plane.
In this paper two types of trackers are considered: dual-axis trackers
which are always facing the sun position (therefore ϕ = α and θ = γ)
and single-axis trackers which are oriented with the same azimuth that
the sun (therefore ϕ = α and θ = θ0 constant).
Firstly, the irradiance on a dual-axis tracker, where the beam irra-
diance is normal to the tracker plane, so ϕ = α and θ = γ, can be cal-
culated from solar models [29] (see Appendix A) and measurements of
diffuse, reflected and beam irradiance at a weather station. The re-
sulting values depend on azimuth angle α and elevation angle γ of the
sun position which can be obtained from horizontal values (ϕ = 0° and
θ = 90°) that are typical measurement values in weather stations [30]:
Gb (ϕ = 0,θ = 90°,α,γ)
Gb,αγ,αγ = Gb (ϕ = α,θ = γ,α,γ) =
sinγ (2)
435
Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450
1 + sinγ
Gd,αγ,αγ = Gd (ϕ = α,θ = γ,α,γ) = Gd (ϕ = 0°,θ = 90°,α,γ)
2 (3)
Gr ,αγ,αγ = Gr (ϕ = α,θ = γ,α,γ) = (Gb (ϕ = 0°,θ = 90°,α,γ) + Gd (ϕ = 0°,θ
1−sinγ
= 90°,α,γ)) ρg
2 (4)
Similar values can be obtained for single-axis trackers with fixed
elevation angle ϕ0, for each azimuth angle α and elevation angle γ of
the sun using:
Gb,αθ0,γα = Gb (ϕ = α,θ0,α,γ) = Gb (ϕ = α,θ = γ,α,γ)cos(γ−θ0)
Gb (ϕ = 0°,θ = 90°,α,γ)cos(γ−θ0)
=
sin(γ) (5)
1 + sinθ0
Gd,αθ0,αγ = Gd (ϕ = α,θ0,α,γ) = Gd (ϕ = 0°,θ = 90°,α,γ)
2 (6)
Gr ,αθ0,αγ = Gr (ϕ = α,θ0,α,γ) = (Gb (ϕ = 0°,θ = 90°,α,γ) + Gd (ϕ = 0°,θ
1−sinθ0
= 90°,α,γ)) ρg
2 (7)
Given that shadows occur only in sunny weather, and for the sake of
simplicity, only two weather situations have been taken into account,
and, consequently, only two solar charts have been obtained (Fig. 2):
sunny weather, where the solar energy is due to beam, diffuse and re-
flected irradiation, and cloudy weather, where solar energy comes from
diffuse and reflected irradiations. As a result, for each sun position,
defined by its azimuth angle α and elevation angle γ, the following
equations for irradiation on a plane with azimuth ϕ and elevation θ can
be obtained:
Hsunny,ϕθ,αγ = (Gb,ϕθ,αγ + Gd,ϕθ,αγ + Gr ,ϕθ,αγ )Δtsunny .αγ
Hcloudy,ϕθ,αγ = (Gd,ϕθ,αγ + Gr ,ϕθ,αγ )Δt cloudy,αγ (8)
In this paper, solar charts represent the irradiation incident on the
plane of the tracker, and not in the horizontal plane, as is usual.
Consequently, the values of Gb, Gd and Gr will be determined depending
on the type of tracker, on the relative sun position and on data mea-
sured at the meteorological station.
In Fig. 2, the irradiation charts calculated using (8) are presented for
sunny weather and cloudy weather based on measurements from the
weather station at Vigo-Campus [30] (latitude 42°, Spain) for a two-axis
Fig. 1. Diagram of the proposed process for the evaluation of the energy
produced by a PV-park when mutual shadows are considered.
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Fig. 2. Irradiation charts under sunny weather (top) and cloudy

weather (bottom) at Vigo (Spain) for a dual-axis PV-tracker.

Fig. 3. Geometry analysis of the mutual shadows between dual-axis PV-

trackers.

Fig. 4. Geometry analysis of the mutual shadows between single-axis PV-

trackers.

436
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Fig. 5. Configuration of a PV-array starting from PV-cells and bypass

diodes for thin film modules (top) and for crystalline Si modules
(bottom).

Fig. 6. Forward and reverse bias I-V curves of CIS and m-Si cells.

Table 1
Parameters of CIS and m-Si PV-cells.

CIS m-Si
Fig. 7. PV curves of a CIS cell at different irradiance (G) and temperature (T) values.
−10
2
I0 (A/cm ) 9.3 · 10 5.5 · 10−9
IL0 (A/cm2) 26.8 · 10−3 32.7 · 10−3
As discussed above, the energy received by a tracker under sunny
Rs (Ω cm2) 3.5 0.5
Rsh (Ω cm2) 1200 1000 weather conditions depends on many variables: the solar elevation, the
n 1.25 1.5 precipitable water vapor (PWV), altitude, suspended particles, pollu-
Vbr (V) −4 −15 tion, etc. There are many theoretical models that attempt to approx-
m 3.8 3.8
imate the values of the direct, diffuse and reflected irradiances as a
α 0.35 0.35
s (cm2) 125 × 0.8 10 × 10
function of these and other parameters [29,31–35]. From these models,
KI (A/cm2 K) 35 · 10−7 17 · 10−8 it is possible to determine the relationship between the global irra-
KV (V/K) 2.38 · 10−3 2.22 · 10−3 diance and the direct, diffuse and reflected irradiances on a plane for
V0c0 (V) 0.555 0.654 sunny days (Appendix A). Direct irradiance depends mainly on solar
KP (%/K) −0.6 −0.45
elevation, the orientation of the plane, altitude and PWV. The diffuse
irradiance is related to the direct irradiance, elevation plane and PWV.
tracker (grayscale is proportional to the solar energy). The data needed Finally, the reflected irradiance depends on global irradiance, elevation
to obtain these charts can either be obtained from weather station plane and albedo. In Appendix A, PWV values are presented for 20
measurements or be estimated using celestial mechanics equations in cities in Spain and Portugal [34]. The indirect irradiance coefficient rG
which the weather conditions must be considered [29]. (relationship between indirect irradiance Gd + Gr and global irradiance

437
E. Díaz-Dorado et al.
Fig. 8. I-V curves (left) and P-V curves (right) for a CIS module at shading coefficient values from σ = 0 (fully shaded) to σ = 1 (no shaded).
Fig. 9. MPP values versus the shaded area ratio ξ on a PV-module with dimensions L × D.
Fig. 10. Simulation of the shadowed area on a PV tracker.
G) is considered to be approximately 10% for dual-axis and single-axis
trackers (see details in Appendix A):
(Gd + Gr )
rG = ≈ 0.1
G (9)
Thus, for the sake of simplicity, when numerical results are given,
the irradiance for shaded areas is considered to be equal to 10% of that
received by sunny areas. In addition, it is assumed that the maximum
solar irradiance under sunny conditions is G0 = 1000 W/m2.
3. Analysis of the mutual shadows between PV-trackers
In a solar park, the shadows casted between nearby trackers are the
main cause of energy losses. In this section, the irradiance values for
shadowed areas are depicted. Furthermore, the geometric character-
istics of the shadowed area are presented.
438
Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450
y=h
MPP power in W
x=w
Shaded area ratio (x×y)/(w×h) for a PV-array
Fig. 11. MPP values versus the shaded area ratio on a PV-array.
3.1. Modeling irradiance conditions under partial shading
The partial shading on a PV-array is modeled as a non-uniform
distribution of the irradiance on it. In this paper, for modeling purposes,
a shadowed model has been considered that relates the shadow area
dimensions to the solar irradiance. From (1), the shadow effect over a
PV-cell can be modeled by means of the equation:
Gσ = σ·Gb + Gd + Gr (10)
where σ is the shading coefficient (σ = 0 when the shadowed area covers
all of the cell and σ = 1 when there is no shadow casted on the cell)
which only affects beam irradiance.
The shading coefficient σ can be obtained from:
S∩s
σ = 1−
s (11)
where s is the area of the PV-cell, S is the complete area of the casted
shadow on the PV-tracker (S = x · y) and, finally, S∩s represents the
intersection between S and s (see Fig. 5).
3.2. Geometry of the shadow casted by nearby PV-trackers
The geometry of the mutual shadows in a PV-park formed by single-
axis and dual-axis trackers is analyzed in this section.
Dual-axis trackers are characterized by having two rotation axes to
allow the tracker to face the sun at any position. The relative position
between two trackers can be defined using the distance between them (see
d in Fig. 3) and the relative azimuth of the shading tracker with respect to
the shaded one (see α0 in Fig. 3). As an initial step to obtain the geometry
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Fig. 12. Efficiency coefficient ηαγ for a PV-tracker in cylindrical co-

ordinates.
Elevation (º)

Azimuth (º)

u 0 = d·sin(α−α 0)
proj (O′) ≡ (u 0,v0) → ⎧
⎩ v0 = −d·cos(α−α 0)·sin(γ)
⎨ (12)

Considering that the tracker size is WxH, the dimensions of the cast
Energy coefficient ȘĮȖ

shadow are non-zero when −W ⩽ u 0′ ⩽ W and −H ⩽ v 0′ ⩽ 0 . Those

dimensions (see x and y in Fig. 3) can be easily obtained as the inter-
section of the rectangles of equal dimensions (W × H) whose centers
are O and the projected point proj(O′), so:

x = W −abs (u 0)
y = H −abs (v0) (13)

Shaded area ratio for a PV-tracker
Fig. 13. Efficiency coefficients for different irradiances and temperatures of a tracker
with m-Si modules.
and dimensions of the shadowed area on a tracker, the projection, along
the sun direction, of the shading tracker center O′ on the plane defined by
the shaded tracker must be calculated. The resulting projection direction is
normal to the plane defined by the tracker because it faces the sun.
Therefore, the coordinates of the projected point proj(O′) with respect to
the center O of the shaded tracker are (see Fig. 3):
This result implies that the shadow has a rectangular shape whose
dimensions are defined by x and y.
A similar analysis can be made for single-axis trackers. The single-axis
tracker considered in this paper is supposed to have a fixed elevation angle
θ0 and a variable azimuth angle ϕ equal to the sun azimuth ϕ = γ. In this
case, the projection of the center O′ of the shading tracker on the plane
defined by the shaded tracker (Fig. 4) can be calculated using:
u 0 = d·sin(α−α 0)
−d·cos(α − α 0)·sin(γ)
v0 = cos(γ − θ0) (14)
In these conditions, the projection direction is not normal to the
plane of the trackers, although, similar to the case in the previous
paragraph, the shaded area is a rectangle whose dimensions (see x and y

mean temperature (ºC) Fig. 14. Annual mean temperature chart from Vigo (Spain).
90 25

80

70 20

60
Elevation (º)

15
50
ºC
40
10
30

20 5

10

0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Azimuth (º)

439
E. Díaz-Dorado et al.
in Fig. 4) can be obtained using (13) and (14).
4. Electrical model for a shadowed PV-tracker
In this section, it is presented as the electrical model for a shaded
PV-tracker, the geometry of the shaded area and the irradiance model
have been analyzed in previous sections. The model starts from a PV-
cell model under shadowed conditions, and ends with an electrical
model for the entire tracker. The efficiency coefficient and the annual
energy production have also been obtained, and the impact of tem-
perature and irradiance on these values have been analyzed.
The I-V curves of partially shaded PV-cells, sets of N PV-cells, PV-
groups, PV-modules, PV-strings and the PV-array of a tracker have been
obtained using the discrete method proposed in [26].
4.1. PV-tracker configuration
Usually, a PV tracker has only one PV-array installed on it (see
Fig. 5). For analysis purposes, this PV-array is assumed to be composed
of PV-strings connected in parallel, with each PV-string formed by PV-
modules connected in series. Internally, each PV-module is composed of
one or more PV-groups connected in series. Finally, a PV-group is
formed by PV-cells connected in series and, typically, one parallel by-
pass diode [39]. As an example, thin film solar modules (CIS, a-Si,
CdTe, etc.) are typically formed of one PV-group (Fig. 5, top), while
crystalline silicon modules (m-Si and p-Si) are usually formed of two or
three PV-groups (Fig. 5, bottom).
4.2. Partially shaded PV-cell modeling
Generally, the PV-cell behavior is modeled by means of a non-linear
relationship between four variables: current I, voltage V, irradiance G
and temperature T. In this paper, a non-linear implicit function is used,
where T and G are assumed to be known, and V and I are the variables
of the I-V model. The PV-cell model that allows for analysis of forward
and reverse biasing is [26,27,12]:
⎛ ⎞
q (V + IR s )
⎞− V + IRs a
I = IL−I0 ⎛⎜e nkB T −1⎟ ⎜1 + m⎟
⎝ ⎠ Rsh ⎜
⎝ (
V + IR
1− V s
br ) ⎟
⎠ (15)
The dependence on G and T can be expressed [36–38] by:
G Isc 0 + KI ΔT
IL = (IL0 + KI (T −Tn )),I0 = q (Voc 0 + KV ΔT )
G0
e nkB T −1
PV-cells have two working zones: the forward bias region (PV-cell
voltage V > 0), as generator, and the reverse bias region (V < 0), as
load. As an example, the complete I-V curves, including forward and
reverse biasing, of a CIS and an m-Si PV-cell (G0 = 1000 W/m2 and
T0 = 25 °C) are shown Fig. 6. The parameters of these cells are given in
Table 1. In addition, the P-V curves of the CIS cell under different G and
T values are presented in Fig. 7.
MPP
Finally, the maximum power point (MPP) power Pcell ,G,T of a cell at
irradiance G and temperature T can be approximated by:
MPP MPP G where
Pcell ,G,T ≈ Pcell,G0,T0 (1−KP (T −T0))
G0
MPP
where Pcell ,G0,T0 is the MPP power of the cell under irradiance G0 and
temperature T0.
Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450
4.3. Partially shaded PV-module characterization
Partial shading of a PV-module means that some PV-cells may be
totally or partially shaded. In this section, the behavior of a PV-module
with rectangular shadows is described.
For PV-modules it is defined a rectangular shaded area ratio ξ as:
l×δ
ξ=
L×D (18)
where L × D and l × δ, with 0 ≤ l ≤ L and 0 ≤ δ ≤ D, are the di-
mensions of the PV-module and its shaded area, respectively.
As an example, a shaded CIS module composed of 42 PV-cells is
analyzed. Firstly, in Fig. 8, it is shown the I-V and P-V curves that result
when an arbitrary number of PV-cells are fully shaded, i.e. ξ restricted
to l = L. MPP power values are indicated in Fig. 8 with black points.
However, for a given rectangular shaded area ratio ξ different MPP
values can be achieved, as shown in Fig. 9. The solution space is de-
limited by the extreme situations that occur when l = L (lowest MPP
values) and δ = D (highest MPP values). For example, in Fig. 9, it can
be seen that for ξ = 0.2 the values of MPP range from 5 W to 35 W (see
examples in Appendix C). Therefore, it can be concluded that the im-
pact of a shadowed area in the behavior of a PV-module strongly de-
pends on its size and proportions.
4.4. Partially shaded PV-array characterization
To explain the proposed methodology, an example is used of a PV
dual-axis tracker formed by 54 CIS PV-modules, whose width (w) is
7.2 m and height (h) is 3.6 m. From an electrical point of view, the PV-
tracker is formed by one PV-array composed of six parallel PV-strings,
each one formed by nine PV-modules connected in series. Finally, the
PV-modules are installed horizontally, i.e., with their longest sides
parallel to the ground; and the PV-strings are arranged in columns, i.e.,
parallel to the shortest sides of the tracker (see Fig. 10).
As discussed in Section 3.1, the shadows between trackers are al-
ways rectangular, similar to those shown in Fig. 10. Taking into account
that the MPP value depends on the size of the shadow and how the PV-
cells are affected, Fig. 11 shows the MPP power values that can be
obtained for rectangular shadows with x and y dimensions. These va-
lues have been obtained by means of the expression:
MPP
Parray ,xy = max{Varray,xy Iarray,xy } (19)
In this figure, it can be seen that, for a given shaded ratio
(x × y )/(w × h) , several MPP values are obtained, similarly to the re-
sults obtained for PV-modules.
(16)
4.5. Efficiency coefficient of a PV-tracker
MPP
Taking into account the MPP power values Parray ,xy , the efficiency
coefficients for a shaded tracker ηxy can be defined as a function of the
shadow dimensions (x, y) with respect to the tracker in sunny condi-
tions:
MPP
Parray ,xy
ηxy = MPP
Parray ,G0 (20)
MPP
Parray is the power at the MPP under sunny conditions (i.e.,
,G0
x = y = 0) and G0 = 1000 W/m2.
(17)
Similarly, efficiency coefficient values ηαγ for a dual-axis PV-tracker
in a PV-park can be obtained from (12) and (13) for each azimuth angle
α and elevation angle γ as:
440
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

3.5
Table 2
Different PV-tracker configurations.
3

Horizontal Vertical

Annual energy losses (%)

2.5

2
18s3p-1x18-v
18s3p-3x6-h
1.5 18s3p-3x6-v
18s3p-9x2-h
27s2p_9x3_h 27s2p_3x9_v 1
27s2p-3x9-v
27s2p-9x3-h
9s6p-1x9-v
0.5 9s6p-3x3-h
9s6p-3x3-v
9s6p-9x1-h
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Azimuth (º)
18s3p_9x2_h 18s3p_3x6_v 2

1.8

1.6

Annual energy losses (%)

1.4

18s3p_3x6_h 18s3p_1x18_v 1.2

1 18s3p-1x18-v
18s3p-3x6-h
0.8 18s3p-3x6-v
18s3p-9x2-h
0.6 27s2p-3x9-v
27s2p-9x3-h
9s6p_9x1_h 9s6p_3x3_v
0.4 9s6p-1x9-v
9s6p-3x3-h
0.2 9s6p-3x3-v
9s6p-9x1-h
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Azimuth (º)
9s6p_3x3_h 9s6p_1x9_v Fig. 16. Annual energy losses caused by a tracker located at 10 m as a function of the
configuration and relative azimuth α0 for dual-axis (top) and single-axis (bottom) with an
elevation of 35°.
5
9
4.5 9.5 ⎧ x = W −|d·sin(α−α 0)| ⎧ (α−α 0) ⩽ Δα
10 ⎪ ηxy ⎧ d·cos(α − α 0)·sin(γ) if: &
4 10.5 ηαγ = ⎨ y = H −| cos(γ − θ ) | ⎨
11
⎨ ⎩ 0
⎩ γ ⩽ Δγ
Annual energy losses (%)

3.5 ⎪
11.5 ⎩1 otherwise (22)
12
3
12.5 where Δα = asin(W / d),Δγ = asin(H . cos(θ0)/r ) with: r=
13
2.5
13.5
d 2·cos(α−α 0)2 + H 2 + d·H ·cos(α−α 0)·sin(θ0) .
2 14 In Fig. 12, the efficiency coefficients ηαγ are shown in cylindrical
coordinates, for shadows casted by a tracker located at 10 m to the
1.5
south of the shaded tracker (d = 10 m; α0 = 180°).
1

0.5
4.6. Effects of global irradiance and temperature in energy production

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 The efficiency coefficients ηxy were calculated in (20) considering a
Azimuth (º) global irradiance G0 = 1000 W/m2, a fixed indirect irradiance coeffi-
Fig. 15. Annual energy losses of configuration “9s6p_1 × 9_v” as a function of the dis-
cient rG = 0.1 (9) and T0 = 25 °C. However, depending on the solar
tance d (m) between trackers and relative azimuth α0. elevation, the global radiation varies between 0 and G0, and the am-
bient temperature varies throughout the day and year; therefore, the
delivered power also changes. However, if efficiency coefficients ηxy are
calculated keeping rG at a constant value but varying the global irra-
⎧ ⎧ (α−α 0) ⩽ Δα
⎪ ηxy ⎧ x = W − d
| ·sin(α−α 0)|
if: & diance G or temperature T, the results are similar to those obtained with
ηαγ = ⎩ y = H −|d·cos(α−α 0)·sin(γ)|
⎨ ⎨
⎨ ⎩ γ ⩽ Δγ G0 and T0. In Fig. 13, they are shown the efficiency coefficients for the
⎪ example in Fig. 9 (m-Si modules) with irradiance values equal to
⎩1 otherwise (21)
1000 W/m2 and 500 W/m2 (rG = 0.1 and T = 25 °C) and with tem-
where Δα = asin(W / d),Δγ = asin(H /d·cos(α−α 0)) . perature values equal to 25° and 50 °C (G = 1000 W/m2 and rG = 0.1).
For single-axis PV-trackers, the corresponding equations, from (13) The resulting values are very close because the MPP power values of
and (14), are: PV-cells vary almost linearly with irradiance and temperature (17).
That is, the power a given shadowed area varies with T and G and,
therefore, its efficiency coefficient does not change. Accordingly, the

441
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Table 3
Rank of configurations in terms of energy losses.

1st – Best 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

9s6p_1 × 9_v 18s3p_1 × 18_v 27s2p_3 × 9_v 27s2p_9 × 3_h 9s6p_9 × 1_h
6° 7° 8° 9° 10° – Worst
18s3p_3 × 6_v 9s6p_3 × 3_h 9s6p_3 × 3_v 18s3p_9 × 2_h 18s3p_3 × 6_h

100

99

98

97 18s3p-1x18-v
18s3p-3x6-h

Efficiency (%)
18s3p-3x6-v
96
18s3p-9x2-h
27s2p-3x9-v
95 27s2p-9x3-h
9s6p-1x9-v
94 9s6p-3x3-h
9s6p-3x3-v
93 9s6p-9x1-h
shaded area
92 shaded module h
shaded module v
91 shaded tracker
Fig. 17. Top view of PV-tracker farm for different field geometries.
90
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1/GCR

Fig. 19. Efficiency versus Ground Cover Ratio for Hexagonal E-W layout, 42° latitude and
multiple configurations Fig. A.1. Relations of Gd and Gr with G for different solar alti-
tudes, for dual-axis tracker (left) and single-axis tracker of elevation = 35° (right).

The annual energy production of a PV-tracker shaded by other

nearby PV-trackers depends on the PV-cell technology, the module
layout and the connections between arrays, modules and cells.
According to (1), (8) and (20), the energy produced by a PV tracker in
sunny (Esunny,αγ) and cloudy (Ecloudy,αγ) weather for any sun position
given by α and γ can be obtained using:
MPP
Parray ,G0
Esunny,αγ = (1−KP (Tm,αγ−T0))ηαγ Hsunny,αγ
G0 (25)
MPP
Parray ,G0
Ecloudy,αγ = (1−KP (Tm,αγ−T0)) Hcloudy,αγ
Fig. 18. Efficiency versus Ground Cover Ratio for multiple layouts and latitudes for the G0 (26)
configuration “9s6p_1 × 9_v”.
where the use of the annual mean temperature Tm,αγ of each sun po-
sition (Fig. 14) is possible due the linearity between power and tem-
MPP
power Parray ,xy of a shaded tracker can be calculated from the sunny perature shown in (24).
MPP
power Parray ,G , without having to know the irradiance G or the tem- The efficiency coefficient ηxy is not taken into account when cal-
perature T: culating the annual energy in cloudy weather conditions Eαγ,cloudy be-
MPP MPP cause no shadows are produced; therefore, the irradiance is uniform
Parray ,xy = η xy Parray,G (23)
over the tracker.
This result is important when using energy values from solar charts Finally, the annual electrical energy Eannual produced by a PV-
because the energy values are not associated with irradiance values. So, tracker is:
taking into account the linearity of power with temperature (17), the
power value can be calculated as a function of temperature T as:
Eannual = ∑ (Esunny,αγ + Ecloudy,αγ )
α,γ (27)
MPP MPP
Parray ,xy = η xy (1−KP (T −T0 )) Parray,G (24) The annual energy losses Lannual, in p.u., can be written as:

∑ (ηαγ Hsunny,αγ + Hcloudy,αγ )

4.7. Evaluation of annual energy production α,γ
Lannual = 1−
MPP
The efficiency of the tracker is defined by Parray
∑ (Hsunny,αγ + Hcloudy,αγ )
,G0 / G0 and from (17) α,γ (28)
MPP
is also Parray,G / G , and can be approximated using the PV-module effi-
ciency given by the manufacturer multiplied by the number of PV-
modules in the tracker. Therefore, the energy generated by a PV-tracker 5. Application of the proposed method for planning purposes
can be obtained from the efficiency of the tracker, the solar energy
values (8) and the annual mean temperature. Now that the simulation methodology has been presented, it can be used

442
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

to plan PV-tracker parks, i.e., to evaluate annual energy productions for
different PV-tracker configurations. For example, the energy output of a PV-
park can be obtained for different installation conditions: electrical config-
urations, relative position between trackers, arrangement of trackers on the
ground, dimension of the trackers, etc. In the following paragraphs, the
influence of each of the main relevant installation conditions is presented.
For the shake of simplicity, in this section the PV-technology is as-
sumed to be CIS.
5.1. PV-tracker configurations
To test the proposed methodology, it has been applied to 10 configura-
tions for a tracker with 54 CIS modules (see Table 2, where the red lines in
the figure have been used to show the modules that form each string). The
configurations are defined by the horizontal or vertical module layout, the
electrical connection—in six, three and two strings of 9, 18 and 27 modules,
respectively—and the different distributions of modules in each string in the
tracker. The notation used for the different configurations is (see Table 2):
ns s np pnf x nc o
where
• n number of PV-modules of each PV-string
s
• n number of PV-strings in each PV-array
p
• n number of rows of a PV-string
f
• n number of columns of a PV-string
c
5.3. Field geometry of PV-tracker park
The effect of the geometry of PV-tracker layouts is analyzed in this
section. The geometries analyzed are as follows (see Fig. 17):
• Squared
• Diagonal
• Hexagonal E-W
• Hexagonal N-S
To compare the efficiency (1 – annual energy losses) of the above-
mentioned layouts, the Ground Cover Ratio (GCR) has been chosen. GCR
is defined as the ratio of tracker area to total ground area [7,21].
As a result, Fig. 18 shows the efficiency of the configuration
“9s6p_1 × 9_v” (the highest efficiency) with CIS PV-modules for the
four arrangements and three latitudes, versus the GCR. As seen, the
efficiency of hexagonal configurations is greater than the efficiency of
squared and diagonal configurations.
The latitude of the solar park is another key parameter to determine
the energy losses in a PV-tracker park. In Fig. 19, the resulting effi-
ciencies are presented for all configurations in Table 2 with the hex-
agonal E-W arrangement and a latitude of 42°. As an example, for a
value of 1/GCR = 4 (103.68 m2 of ground area for each tracker), the
efficiency varies from 93.5% to 95.5%. Similarly, for an efficiency of
95%, the value of 1/GCR varies from 3.8 to 4.8. This is equivalent to a
ground area of 98.5 m2 to 124.5 m2 per tracker.

• orientation of PV-modules (h: horizontal, v: vertical) 5.4. Planning a solar park

The resulting MPP power values for different tracker configurations
and different PV technologies can be seen in Appendix B, using the
configurations shown in Table 2.
5.2. Effect of the relative position between trackers
In this section, the performance of PV-trackers based on their re-
lative position is studied. The first case analyzed (Fig. 15) represents the
annual energy losses for different distance d values and different re-
lative azimuth α 0 values for PV-trackers with configuration
“9s6p_1 × 9_v”. By means of these results, the best configuration and
distance between PV-trackers can be selected to minimize losses.
The second case presents the annual energy losses for PV-trackers
with CIS PV-modules separated by a distance d equal to 10 m with
different values of their relative azimuth α 0, for the 10 configurations
presented in Table 2 (Fig. 16). In Table 3, the configurations are pre-
sented in order from best to worst in terms of energy losses.
Table 4
Best and worst configurations for each layout in terms of energy.
The results of planning a solar park in Vigo (Spain) with dual-axis
trackers (Fig. 10) of CIS PV-modules are presented, assuming 2450 sunny
hours per year, Gh = 1510 kWh/year m2 and a mean daily temperature
between 5° and 26 °C. The irradiance on the trackers is 1918 kWh/year m2
(1727 kWh/year m2 for sunny weather and 191 kWh/year m2 for cloudy
weather), and the energy generated by each tracker, if there are no shadows,
is E = 4297 kWh/year. If 1/GCR = 3 (78 m2 of land per 26 m2tracker) is
considered, shadow losses represent between 8.5% and 15% of the energy
generated, depending on the layout and configuration selected (Table 4).
Accordingly, with the proposed method the best configuration and
layout can be selected for a given PV-technology and location.
6. Comparison with simplified models for tracker shadowing
In studying the impact of shading in PV systems, it is usual to make
certain simplifications [21]. They can be summarized as:
• Shaded area: the power generated is proportional to the shaded area

Layout Configuration rank Configuration Eannual (kWh/y) Eannual/E (%) Lannual (kWh/y)

Squared Worst 18s3p_3 × 6_h 3683.8 85.73 613.2

Best 9s6p_1 × 9_v 3831.6 89.17 465.4

Diagonal Overall Worst 18s3p_3 × 6_h 3655.5 85.07 641.5

Best 9s6p_1 × 9_v 3813.6 88.75 483.4

Hexagonal E-W Worst 18s3p_3 × 6_h 3812.2 88.72 484.8

Overall Best 9s6p_1 × 9_v 3933.4 91.54 363.6

Hexagonal N-S Worst 18s3p_3 × 6_h 3777.6 87.91 519.4

Best 9s6p_1 × 9_v 3902.9 90.83 394.1

The overall worst and best values are marked in bold letters.

443
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

of the tracker.
• Shaded module h: modules in horizontal arrangement and partially
shaded modules are considered to be fully shaded.
• Shaded module v: modules in vertical arrangement and partially
shaded modules are considered fully shaded.
• Shaded tracker: the tracker is considered fully shaded when any
module is shaded.
The proposed method is compared with the above-mentioned simpli-
fications; the results of that comparison can be seen in Fig. 19. The
“Shaded area” simplification gives the highest efficiency values; therefore,
it is the most optimistic method when losses are evaluated. On the other
hand, the “Shaded tracker” simplification overestimates the losses; there-
fore, the efficiency obtained is much lower than those obtained with the
proposed method. The “Shaded module h” simplification gives higher ef-
ficiency values than those found with the proposed method. The “Shaded
module v” simplification behavior is similar to the “Shaded module h”
simplification, although it gives values that are not always higher than
those given with the proposed method. In conclusion, the simplifications
tend to overestimate efficiency, except for the “Shaded tracker” case, whose
results are not realistic. This make necessary to use an accurate method,
like the one proposed in this paper, in order to obtain “realistic” values.
trackers is taken into account. The model presented considers the fol-
lowing aspects: shadow modeling, modeling of entire PV installations
that are partially shaded, determination of the energy and temperature
charts and the associated losses due to shading.
The proposed model allows results to be obtained that can be used
in optimization models for planning of parks and to study different
scenarios considering the impact of shading.
Some crucial aspects have been identified for obtaining the maximum
energy: the layout of the PV modules, the electrical configuration, the
distribution of the modules of each circuit, the layout of trackers in the
field, the size of trackers and the number of axes of the trackers.
The results show that energy losses of a shaded tracker can be re-
duced by more than 40% with an appropriate selection of the config-
uration of the electrical connection, the arrangement of the modules in
each series and the orientation of the modules. Similarly, the layout of
the trackers on the ground and the distance between them is crucial to
the efficiency of a PV park. For example, the energy losses of the hex-
agonal layouts of trackers are 10–20% lower than those for the squared
or diagonal layout with the same GCR. By addressing these aspects, an
increase of approximately 7% in the electric annual energy can be
achieved, without major changes to the elements of the PV park.

7. Conclusions Acknowledgments

In this paper, a new methodology is presented for a complete energy This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and
evaluation of photovoltaic-tracker parks where the shading between Innovation (Spain) under contract ENE 2009-13074.

Appendix A. Estimation of irradiance

The direct normal irradiance Gbn at the earth’s surface on a clear day applying the The Beer-Bouguer-Lambert law is:
Gbn = ae−b/sinγ (A.1)
where a is the apparent extraterrestrial irradiance, and b the atmospheric extinction coefficient (a function of the PWV), and they can be estimated
using [32] or its revised values [31].
The diffuse irradiance for clear days can be expressed using the dimensionless parameter c [33] or its revised values [31]:
Gdh = cGbn (A.2)
where Gdh is the diffuse irradiance falling on a horizontal plane under a cloudless sky.
In Fig. A.1, the values of Gd and Gr with respect to G are shown as functions of γ, with ρ = 0.2 and c = 0.136. The value of (Gd + Gr) represents a
reduction of 12% of the global irradiance G.
In [33], c values are between 0.57 and 0.136 with PWV values between 8 and 28 mm. Revised values for c between 0.103 and 0.138 are
presented in [31] with the same PWV values. In this paper, the c value selected is 0.136 because the daily mean value of PWV from 20 Iberian
meteorological stations is between 7 and 32 mm [34] (Fig. A.2).

0.14 0.14

0.12 0.12

0.1 0.1

0.08 Gd / G 0.08 Gd / G

Gr / G Gr / G
0.06 0.06
(Gd + Gr) / G (Gd + Gr) / G

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Solar altitude (º) Solar altitude (º)

Fig. A.1. Relations of Gd and Gr with G for different solar altitudes, for dual-axis tracker (left) and single-axis tracker of elevation = 35° (right).

444
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

35

30

Precipitable Water Vapor (mm)

25

20

15

10

5
2 4 6 8 10 12
month

Fig. A.2. Daily mean value of PWV for 20 Iberian weather stations [34] Fig. C.1. I-V curves of shaded m-Si cells.

Appendix B. MPP power values for different tracker configurations

(See Tables B.1 and B.2).

Table B.1
MPP power values for configurations with horizontal and vertical arrangement of a tracker with 54 CIS PV-modules.

445
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Table B.2
MPP power values for configurations with horizontal and vertical arrangement of a tracker with 54 m-Si PV-modules.

446
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Appendix C. Behavior of the tracker components

In Fig. C.1, they are shown the I-V curves for an m-Si cell for the following xc and yc pairs: (0, 0), (wc, hc), (xc, yc), (xc, hc) and (wc, yc), where
xc = 0.6 · wc and yc = 0.3 · hc.
Furthermore, MPP power values can also be calculated from the number of shaded cells, equivalent to δ/D, and the length of shadow on the cell
defined by l/L, as seen in Fig. C.2.
The same analysis performed on an m-Si module gives a very different power result (Fig. C.3). This is because the cells are connected along a
zigzag path, with three bypass diodes.
MPP
In Fig. C.4, the MPP power values Parray ,xy are shown for different dimensions of the shadow (x and y). The resulting plots for several PV-tracker
MPP
configurations are shown in Appendix B. When m-Si PV-modules (Table 1) are considered, the resulting MPP power values Parray ,xy for different
shadow dimensions can be seen in Fig. C.5.
The differences between Figs. C.4 and C.5 are due to the internal configuration of each module: power, number, size and geometry of the cells,
and the connectivity and the number of bypass diodes. In this case, the tracker is 7.9 m width and 5.9 m height.

Fig. C.1. I-V curves of shaded m-Si cells.

447
E. Díaz-Dorado et al. Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450

Fig. C.2. MPP power values for rectangular shadowed areas on a CIS module formed by 42 cells Fig. C.3. Power values of MPP’s for rectangular shadows of a m-Si module of 6 × 12 cells.

4
(0,0)
3.5 (w ,h )
c c
(x ,yc )
c
3 (xc ,hc )
(w ,y )
c c
2.5
Current (A)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Voltage (V)

Fig. C.3. Power values of MPP’s for rectangular shadows of a m-Si module of 6 × 12 cells.

448
E. Díaz-Dorado et al.
References
[1] Batzelis EI, Georgilakis PS, Papathanassiou SA. Energy models for photovoltaic
systems under partial shading conditions: a comprehensive review. IET Renew
Power Gener 2015;9:340–9.
[2] Quaschning V, Hanitsch R. Numerical simulation of current-voltage characteristics
of photovoltaic systems with shaded solar cells. Sol Energy 1996;56(6).
[3] Alessandro V, Napoli FD, Guerriero P, Daliento S. An automated high-granularity
tool for a fast evaluation of the yield of PV plants accounting for shading effects.
Renewable Energy 2015;83:294–304.
[4] Vincenzo MC, Infield D. Detailed PV array model for non-uniform irradiance and its
validation against experimental data. Sol Energy 2013;97:314–31.
[5] Patel H, Agarwal V. MATLAB-based modeling to study the effects of partial shading
on PV array characteristics. EEE Trans Energy Convers 2008;23:302–10.
[6] Mermoud A. Optimization of row-arrangement in PV systems, shading loss eva-
luations according to module positioning and connexion. 27th European photo-
voltaic solar energy conference and exhibition. Frankfurt; 2012.
[7] Gordon JM, Wenger HJ. Central-station solar photovoltaic systems: field layout,
tracker, and array geometry sensitivity studies. Sol Energy 1991;46:211–7.
[8] Woyte A, Nijs J, Belmans R. Partial shadowing of photovoltaic arrays with different
system configurations: literature review and field test results. Sol Energy
2003;74:217–33.
[9] Díaz-Dorado E, Suárez-García A, Carrillo C, Cidrás J. Influence of the PV modules
layout in the power losses of a PV array with shadows. EPE-PEMC 2010. 14th
International power electronics and motion control conference. Ohrid, Rep. of
449
Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450
Fig. C.4. Power values at the MPP point for different shadow dimensions of
tracker with CIS modules Fig. C.5. Power values at the MPP point for dif-
ferent shadow dimensions of tracker with m-Si modules.
Fig. C.5. Power values at the MPP point for different shadow dimensions of
tracker with m-Si modules.
Macedonia; 2010.
[10] Díaz-Dorado E, Suárez-García A, Carrillo C, Cidrás J. Optimal distribution for
photovoltaic solar trackers to minimize power losses caused by shadows.
Renewable Energy 2011;36:1826–35.
[11] Díaz-Dorado E, Suárez-García A, Carrillo C, Cidrás J. Influence of the shadows in
photovoltaic Systems with different configurations of bypass diodes. 20th
International symposium on power electronics, electric drives, automation and
motion. Ischia; 2010.
[12] Jena D, Ramana VV. Modeling of photovoltaic system for uniform and non-uniform
irradiance: a critical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:400–17.
[13] Bai J, Cao Y, Hao Y, Zhang Z, Liu S, Cao F. Characteristic output of PV systems
under partial shading or mismatch conditions. Sol Energy 2015;112:41–54.
[14] Malathy S, Ramaprabha R. Comprehensive analysis on the role of array size and
configuration on energy yield of photovoltaic systems under shaded conditions.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:672–9.
[15] Mäki A, Valkealahti S. Power losses in long string and parallel-connected short
strings of series-connected silicon-based photovoltaic modules due to partial
shading conditions. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2012;27:173–83.
[16] Lorenzo E, Navarte L, Muñoz J. Tracking and back-tracking. Prog Photovoltaics Res
Appl 2011;19:747–53.
[17] Deline C, Dobos A, Janzou S, Meydbray J, Donovan M. A simplified model of
uniform shading in large photovoltaic arrays. Sol Energy 2013;96:1632–40.
[18] Martínez-Moreno F, Muñoz J, Lorenzo E. Experimental model to estimate shading
losses on PV arrays. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2010;94(12):2298–303.
[19] Monedero J, Dobon F, et al. Minimizing energy shadow losses for large PV plants.
3rd world conference on photovoltaic energy conversion, Osaka, Japan, May 11–18;
E. Díaz-Dorado et al.
2003.
[20] Perpiñán O. Cost of energy and mutual shadows in a two-axis tracking PV system.
Renewable Energy 2012;43:331–42.
[21] Narvarte L, Lorenzo E. Tracking and ground cover ratio. Prog Photovoltaics Res
Appl 2008;16:703–14.
[22] Hu Y, Yao Y. A methodology for calculating photovoltaic field output and effect of
solar tracking strategy. Energy Convers Manage 2016;126:278–89.
[23] Belhachat F, Larbes C. Modeling, analysis and comparison of solar photovoltaic
array configurations under partial shading conditions. Sol Energy
2015;120:399–418.
[24] Oliveira T, Collares M. Simulation and computation of shadow losses of direct
normal, diffuse solar radiation and albedo in a photovoltaic field with multiple 2-
axis trackers using ray tracing methods. Sol Energy 2013;91:93–101.
[25] Alonso-García MC, Ruíz JM, Herrmann W. Computer simulation of shading effects
in photovoltaic arrays. Renewable Energy 2006;31(12):1986–93.
[26] Díaz-Dorado E, Carrillo C, Cidrás J. Discrete I-V model for partially shaded PV-
arrays. Sol Energy 2014;103:96–107.
[27] Bishop JW. Computer simulation of the effects of electrical mismatches in photo-
voltaic cell interconnection circuits. Sol Cells 1988;25:73–89.
[29] ASHRAE handbook – HVAC applications. Chapter 35: Solar energy use; 2011.
[30] Estacións meteorolóxicas (Weather stations) in Meteogalicia. Available: < http://
www2.meteogalicia.es/galego/observacion/estacions/estacions.asp > [accessed
450
Energy Conversion and Management 150 (2017) 433–450
Feb. 1, 2017].
[31] Iqbal M. An introduction to solar radiation. New York: Academic Press; 1983.
[32] Stephenson DG. Tables of solar altitude and azimuth; Intensity and solar heat gain
tables. Technical Paper 243, Division of Building Research, National Research
Council of Canada, Ottawa; 1967.
[33] Threlkeld JL. Solar irradiation of surfaces on clear days. ASHRAE Trans
1963;69:24–36.
[34] Ortiz JP. Analysis of total column atmospheric water vapor over the Iberian
Peninsula measured with different techniques: soundings, sun photometers and GPS
system. Ph.D. Thesis; 2011. < http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/888 > [in
Spanish].
[35] Wong LT, Chow WK. Solar radiation model. Appl Energy 2001;69:191–224.
[36] Villalva MG, Gazoli JR, Ruppert E. Comprehensive approach to modeling and si-
mulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2009;24:1198–208.
[37] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: a survey of
pertinent correlations. Renewable Energy 2009;34:23–9.
[38] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations. Sol Energy
2009;83:614–24.
[39] Silvestre S, Bornat A, Chouder A. Study of bypass diodes configuration on PV
modules. Appl Energy 2009;86:1632–40.