Increased Energy Production of First Solar Horizontal Single-Axis
Tracking PV Systems without Backtracking
Lauren Ngan, Calvin Jepson, Anthony Blekicki and Alex Panchula
First Solar, San Francisco, California, 94105
ABSTRACT — Backtracking (“BT”) is a shade avoidance
algorithm for single-axis horizontal tracker PV systems which
has historically been regarded as superior to all other tracking
algorithms. Because their internal electrical structure does not
create a large shading penalty, First Solar modules have the
option of not backtracking (also termed “Truetracking” or “TT”)
while most c-Si modules do not. Experiments on multiple PV
systems presented in this paper show that TT yields 1.7% - 2.5%
higher annual energy than BT with First Solar modules. First
Solar and independent third parties have shown that PVSyst, the
industry standard PV prediction tool, over-predicts energy for
systems in BT mode due to an incorrect assumption about diffuse
shading. Additionally, other publically available PV prediction
tools have limitations that prevent them from accurately
predicting tracking PV system performance. First Solar has
developed its own PV system energy prediction tool, ISIS, which
appropriately accounts for diffuse shading and other differences
between BT and TT. ISIS predicts more energy for First Solar
systems in TT mode. Consequently, the default tracking
configuration for First Solar utility scale systems is TT.
Index Terms — First Solar, Backtracking, shading, PV system
modeling
I. INTRODUCTION
Backtracking is an algorithm for horizontal single-axis
trackers that has been historically regarded by crystalline
silicon (“c-Si”) PV system developers as superior to all other
tracking algorithms because it optimizes energy yield and
reduces the use of diodes which reduces diode failure [1]. In
backtracking (“BT”) mode, trackers follow the path of the sun
in the middle of the day, aiming to minimize the angle-of-
incidence between the sun and the PV modules. However, in
the morning and the evening, as the sun is rising and setting,
trackers in BT mode no longer directly follow the sun, but
rather move into a shade avoidance tracking algorithm. This
technique requires the modules to track “backwards” toward a
horizontal orientation just enough that no direct beam shading
occurs. In a Truetracking (TT) mode, trackers follow the path
of the sun as it traverses the sky, minimizing the angle-of-
incidence between the sun and the panels as closely as the
single axis of rotation will allow during all hours of the day,
regardless of shade patterns. Trackers behave identically in the
middle of the day for both BT and TT systems.
BT is a necessity for most c-Si PV modules because they
use bypass diodes to protect the cell strings in the module.
Depending on mounting orientation, panels with bypass
diodes have significantly reduced energy output if an entire
row of cells becomes shaded because the bypass diodes will
force entire strings of cells within the module to cease
978-1-4799-3299-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
producing energy. The PV cells in First Solar modules are
oriented in a way such that non-uniform shading of the cells is
very unlikely to occur. When the module is oriented with the
shadow perpendicular to the cells, the power loss is roughly
linear with shading, which allows for the possibility to TT.
This paper presents information regarding energy
advantages of TT with First Solar modules, including
empirical results from small and commercial-scale systems.
Additionally, specifics of predicting energy output of BT and
TT First Solar systems with commercially available
simulation tools such as PVSyst, PV*SOL, and PVWatts is
discussed. Finally, ISIS – First Solar’s internal prediction tool,
is used to predict energy gain of TT over BT.
II. EXPERIMENT ON A 100-KW ARRAY
Two test systems are installed in North America. These
systems are identical by all measures (DC/AC, inverter type,
row spacing, etc.) except for the tracking algorithm that they
employ. Both systems began their life in BT mode in 2011.
Since that time, they have been periodically switched between
BT and TT to test the hypothesis that TT produces more
energy with First Solar PV modules.
Both systems were backtracking until System A was
changed to TT on June 16, 2011. Clear days before and after
this tracking algorithm change are presented in Fig 1. Notice
the relative change in position of the system performance in
the morning of these two days. When both systems are BT,
their performance is nearly identical. However, after System A
is put into TT mode, its performance exceeds that of the BT
System B in the morning. The daily energy difference between
these systems was 3.1% on this day.
Multiple tracking algorithm reversals were conducted
throughout the subsequent year, with Systems A and B
switching between TT and BT. Each time the tracking
algorithms changed, a reversal in the relative power in the
morning and afternoon was observed. The ratio of the daily
energy produced by the TT system to that of the BT system
was calculated for one consecutive year (Fig. 2). Values above
100% represent days where the TT system produced more
energy. This calculation is system-agnostic in that the BT
system was switched between System A and System B
multiple times during this test. The measured annual energy
gain of TT for this experiment was 1.7%.
0792

70 System A
System B
60
50
AC Power (kW)
40
30
June 13, 2011
20 Both Systems BT
10
Fig 1. (left) June 13, 2011, morning energy profiles when both
systems were BT. (right) June 16, 2011 morning energy
profiles after System B was changed to TT.
108%
Backtracking AC Energy
106%
Not Backtracking/
104%
102%
100%
98%
96%
94%
Fig 2. Ratio of TT to BT energy production measured on 100-
kW test systems. Annual gain of TT was 1.7%.
III. MULTI-MW SYSTEM EXPERIMENT
A similar experiment was conducted on a commercial-
scale system in North America with an AC nameplate greater
than 10 MW. All arrays in this system began their life in BT
mode. In the autumn of 2012, two of the arrays were changed
to TT mode (TT arrays subsequently referred to as “System
C” and “System D”). System C was changed to TT mode on
August 30, 2012; System D was changed on September 18,
2012. Daily power profiles of the two TT arrays were then
compared to the median of the BT arrays on this site. Before
the change, these two arrays performed very similarly to the
median array in the morning and afternoon. Improvements in
the morning power profiles compared to the median BT
inverter are immediately noticeable after the change to TT
mode, as is shown in Table I. The ratio of daily AC energy
production of the two TT arrays to that of the median BT array
on site was calculated before the change (Fig. 6). The median
ratios before the algorithm change were compared to those
after the algorithm change to calculate the energy gain due to
TT. On average, the two systems showed a TT energy gain of
2.1% over the median BT array.
On December 3, 2012 all arrays on site except for two
(“System E” and “System F”) were set to TT mode. Systems E
978-1-4799-3299-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
and F remained in BT mode. This change caused the median
system energy output to increase. The ratio of daily energy
production of Systems C and D to the median array decreased
by 2.5% when this change was made, which supports the
June 16, 2011
System A BT
earlier observation of TT gain.
System B TT One additional analysis was performed on this system to
further validate the previous two observations of TT
advantage. Systems E and F were compared to the median
array before and after December 3, 2012 when all arrays
except E and F were changed from BT to TT. A step change in
daily gain ratio is noticeable in Fig 7; the magnitude of this
step change is 2.0%.
In summary, three different analyses of changes to this
multi-MW system showed gains in daily energy production.
The initial gain seen by two systems transitioned from BT to
TT compared to the median array was 2.1%. When the
majority of the site was transitioned to TT, a gain of 2.5% was
observed. Finally, two systems that were left BT experienced
a 2.0% loss when compared to the median system on site. All
analyses of this system suggest that TT provides an energy
gain of 2.0% to 2.5%.
IV. PREDICTED ENERGY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
BACKTRACKING AND TRUETRACKING
Predicting these small energy differences requires
detailed calculations of direct, diffuse and albedo shading for
each timestamp, and the impact of these shading factors on the
energy production. No commercially available PV system
simulation tool appropriately models these factors.
PVSyst (v5.56 and earlier) [3], the industry standard
software for predicting PV system energy predicts that a First
Solar BT system produces more energy than a TT system. The
root cause of the predicted energy being inconsistent with the
measured results presented in this paper is, simply put, that
PVSyst incorrectly sets diffuse and albedo shading losses to
0% (only beam shading should be set to 0%). When
simulating a tracker in TT mode, PVSyst does model a diffuse
shading loss. The combination of these factors means that
predictions run in BT mode will have artificially low shading
losses, thus over-predicting energy. A similar result was
observed by Vanicek and Stein [2]. This error is true
regardless of the module used in the prediction, and thus all
BT systems modeled in PVSyst will result in an overestimate
of energy. Fig 3 depicts a comparison of the same system
predicted in PVSyst, once in TT mode and once in BT mode.
In the middle of the day, despite the two systems operating
identically (as is evidenced by the lack of difference in angle
of incidence), PVSyst predicts 1% - 2% more energy for the
BT system.
0793
 35 1.06
Difference in Angle of Incidence 

Predicted Daily Energy Gain (TT/BT)
30 1.05
1.04
25 1.03
1.02
(deg)

20
1.01
15 1
0.99
10
0.98
5 0.97
0.96
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Hour of Day

5% Fig 4. Daily ratio of TT to BT energy predicted using First

4% Solar’s internal prediction tool, ISIS, with meteorological data
Difference in Power Production (%)

3% measured at the system discussed in Section III.

2%
1% The annual predicted gain for the multi-MW system is
0% 1.1%, which is lower than the measured gains of 2.0% - 2.5%.
‐1% 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 One possible explanation for the measured gain exceeding the
‐2% predicted gain is the increased difficulty of BT compared to
‐3% TT. TT requires less movement of actuators, and therefore less
‐4% precision in tracking than BT. That is, “tracking error” energy
‐5% losses from a theoretically ideal tracker are more likely in BT
Hour of Day
mode than in TT mode. The distributions of energy production
Fig 3. PVSyst prediction outputs. (Top) Difference in observed at the multi-MW site from nominally identical arrays
angle of incidence between BT and TT systems (BT – TT) are tighter in the TT mode (Fig. 5), which supports the theory
(Bottom) Difference in power production between BT and TT of additional tracker losses in BT mode.
systems (BT – TT). Despite the two systems operating
identically in the middle of the day, PVSyst incorrectly
predicts higher power production for the BT than TT.

PV*SOL Pro, another commercially available PV system

energy prediction tool does not allow for parallel rows of
single-axis trackers [4]. Instead, it assumes the entire array is
tracked as a single plane following the sun’s azimuth angle.
Needless to say that diffuse shading is not properly modeled
under these assumptions. PVWatts currently includes the
option to toggle between modeling tracking and fixed tilt
systems, but does not allow for modeling different tracking
algorithms [5].
First Solar has developed its own PV system energy
prediction software, ISIS, which accounts for sub-hourly
diffuse shading in both BT and TT systems. The commercial
system discussed in Section III was modeled using ISIS.
Measured weather data was input into ISIS for the time period
spanning 5/1/2012 through 4/30/2013. The ratio of daily
energy predicted for TT to that for BT is shown in Fig 3.
Consistent with the experimental results presented, ISIS yields
larger predicted energy for TT systems than BT systems. In
addition, the expected gain in winter is lower than in summer,
which is similar to what was observed with the 100kW array Fig. 5. (top) Distribution of BT inverters morning ramp on
test (Fig 2). summer day, (bottom) Reduced distribution of TT inverters
morning ramp on summer day.

978-1-4799-3299-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 0794

Fig 6. Daily energy gain of two arrays transitioned to TT in Fall 2012. System D was transitioned on August 30, 2012 (vertical
red line) while System C was transitioned on September 18, 2012 (vertical blue line). On December 3, 2012 (vertical black
line) all systems on site were transitioned to TT, causing an increase in the median system energy production of 2.5%.
Horizontal black lines show median daily gain values in between transitions.

Fig 7. Daily energy gain of two arrays that remained in BT mode after the rest of the arrays on site were transitioned to TT on
December 3, 2012. Horizontal black lines show median daily gain values before and after the change. The difference between
these two lines represents the energy advantage of TT over BT. In this case, the measured energy advantage of TT is 2.0%.

V. CONCLUSIONS
Experiments run on both kW- and MW-scale PV systems
show that TT with First Solar modules yields 1.7% - 2.5%
higher annual energy than identical BT systems. TT is a viable
option for First Solar systems but not for most c-Si systems
due to intrinsically different electrical structure in First Solar
modules (i.e., PV cell design). No commercially available PV
prediction tool appropriately models the complex phenomena
involved in BT. First Solar has developed its own PV system
energy prediction tool which appropriately accounts for
diffuse shading and predicts 1% - 2% more energy for systems
in TT mode with First Solar modules.
REFERENCES
[1] Pancino, David, et al. “BT: A Novel Strategy for Tracking PV
Systems”. IEEE. 1991.
[2] Vanicek, Philipp and Stein, Sebastian. “Simulation of the Impact
of Diffuse Shading on the Yields of Large Scale Single Axis
Tracked PV-Plants”, 24th European Photovoltaic Solar
Energy Conference, 21-25 September 2009, DOI
10.4229/24thEUPVSEC2009-4BV.1.39
[3] PVSyst 5.56, http://www.pvsyst.com/en/, Feb 4, 2013
[4] PV*SOL Pro 4.0 R2, http://www.solardesign.co.uk/pv.php, Feb 4,
2013
[5] PVWatts, http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts.html, Feb 4,
2013.

978-1-4799-3299-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 0795

 TABLE I
BT TRANSITION AT MULTI-MW PV SYSTEM
 
Power Profile – All Day Power Profile – Morning Only
 
600
500 Median System
System C
500
System D
400

AC Power (kW)
AC Power (kW)
400
August 28, 2012
300
300
All systems BT 
200 200
Median System
100 System C 100
System D
0 0
 
600
500
September 9, 2012 500
400
AC Power (kW)

AC Power (kW)
Median System and 400
System C BT 300
300
System D
200 200
TT Median System Median System
 
100 System C 100 System C
System D System D

500 500

400 400
September 20, 2012
AC Power (kW)

AC Power (kW)

Median System BT 300 300

Systems C and D TT 200 200

Median System
Median System
100 System C 100 System C
System D
System D
  0   0

978-1-4799-3299-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 0796