Journal Home > Volume 8 , Issue 3
CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems 2022, 8(3): 682-695 https://doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.02510
Open Access | Issue | Published: 06 October 2020

Performance Investigation of Hybrid and Conventional PV Array Configurations for Grid-connected/Standalone PV Systems

Show Author's Information Praveen Kumar Bonthagorla,  Suresh Mikkili ( )
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, National Institute of Technology Goa, India
Keywords:
triple-tied (TT), maximum power point (MPP), partial shading, Fill factor, global maximum power (GMP), hybrid PV array configuration, mismatch power loss (MPL)
Cite this article:
Bonthagorla PK, Mikkili S. Performance Investigation of Hybrid and Conventional PV Array Configurations for Grid-connected/Standalone PV Systems. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 2022, 8(3): 682-695. https://doi.org/10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.02510
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

596

Views

22

Downloads

Citations

17

Crossref

N/A

WoS

29

Scopus

2

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Currently, the critical challenge in solar photovoltaic (PV) systems is to make them energy efficient. One of the key factors that can reduce the PV system power output is partial shading conditions (PSCs). The reduction in power output not only depends on a shaded region but also depends on the pattern of shading and physical position of shaded modules in the array. Due to PSCs, mismatch losses are induced between the shaded modules which can cause several peaks in the output power-voltage (P-V) characteristics. The series-parallel (SP), total-cross-tied (TCT), bridge-link (BL), honey-comb (HC), and triple-tied (TT) configurations are considered as conventional configurations, which are severely affected by PSCs and generate more mismatch power losses along with a greater number of local peaks. To reduce the effect of PSCs, hybrid PV array configurations, such as series-parallel: total-cross-tied (SP-TCT), bridge-link: total-cross-tied (BL-TCT), honey-comb: total-cross-tied (HC-TCT) and bridge-link: honey-comb (BL-HC) are proposed. This paper briefly discusses the modeling, simulation and performance evaluation of hybrid and conventional 7 ×7 PV array configurations during different PSCs in a Matlab/Simulink environment. The performance of hybrid and conventional PV configurations are evaluated and compared in terms of global maximum power (GMP), voltage and currents at GMP, open and short circuit voltage and currents, mismatch power loss (MPL), fill factor, efficiency, and a number of local maximum power peaks (LMPPs).


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Performance Investigation of Hybrid and Conventional PV Array Configurations for Grid-connected/Standalone PV Systems

Show Author's information Praveen Kumar Bonthagorla, Suresh Mikkili ( )
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, National Institute of Technology Goa, India

Abstract

Currently, the critical challenge in solar photovoltaic (PV) systems is to make them energy efficient. One of the key factors that can reduce the PV system power output is partial shading conditions (PSCs). The reduction in power output not only depends on a shaded region but also depends on the pattern of shading and physical position of shaded modules in the array. Due to PSCs, mismatch losses are induced between the shaded modules which can cause several peaks in the output power-voltage (P-V) characteristics. The series-parallel (SP), total-cross-tied (TCT), bridge-link (BL), honey-comb (HC), and triple-tied (TT) configurations are considered as conventional configurations, which are severely affected by PSCs and generate more mismatch power losses along with a greater number of local peaks. To reduce the effect of PSCs, hybrid PV array configurations, such as series-parallel: total-cross-tied (SP-TCT), bridge-link: total-cross-tied (BL-TCT), honey-comb: total-cross-tied (HC-TCT) and bridge-link: honey-comb (BL-HC) are proposed. This paper briefly discusses the modeling, simulation and performance evaluation of hybrid and conventional 7 ×7 PV array configurations during different PSCs in a Matlab/Simulink environment. The performance of hybrid and conventional PV configurations are evaluated and compared in terms of global maximum power (GMP), voltage and currents at GMP, open and short circuit voltage and currents, mismatch power loss (MPL), fill factor, efficiency, and a number of local maximum power peaks (LMPPs).

Keywords: triple-tied (TT), maximum power point (MPP), partial shading, Fill factor, global maximum power (GMP), hybrid PV array configuration, mismatch power loss (MPL)

References(36)

[1]
S. Malathy and R. Ramaprabha, “Comprehensive analysis on the role of array size and configuration on energy yield of photovoltaic systems under shaded conditions,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 49, pp. 672–679, Sep. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]
B. Subudhi and R. Pradhan, “A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89–98, Jan. 2013.
DOI Google Scholar
[3]
S. F. Jiang, C. Wan, C. Chen, E. B. Cao, and Y. H. Song, “Distributed photovoltaic generation in the electricity market: status, mode and strategy,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 263–272, Sep. 2018.
DOI Google Scholar
[4]
S. K. Gupta and R. S. Anand, “Development of solar electricity supply system in India: an overview,” Journal of Solar Energy, vol. 2013, pp. 632364, May 2013.
DOI Google Scholar
[5]
S. E. De León-Aldaco, H. Calleja, and J. A. Alquicira, “Reliability and mission profiles of photovoltaic systems: a fides approach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2578–2586, May 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]
P. Mazumdar, P. N. Enjeti, and R. S. Balog, “Analysis and design of smart PV modules,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 451–459, Sep. 2014.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]
J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A critical evaluation on maximum power point tracking methods for partial shading in PV systems,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 47, pp. 933–953, Jul. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[8]
H. S. Sahu, S. K. Nayak, and S. Mishra, “Maximizing the power generation of a partially shaded PV array,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 626–637, Jun. 2016.
DOI Google Scholar
[9]
A. Mohapatra, B. Nayak, P. Das, and K. B. Mohanty, “A review on MPPT techniques of PV system under partial shading condition,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 80, pp. 854–867, Dec. 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[10]
H. Islam, S. Mekhilef, N. B. M. Shah, T. K. Soon, M. Seyedmahmousian, B. Horan, and A. Stojcevski, “Performance evaluation of maximum power point tracking approaches and photovoltaic systems,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 365, Feb. 2018.
DOI Google Scholar
[11]
M. Seyedmahmoudian, B. Horan, T. K. Soon. R. Rahmani, A. M. T. Oo, S. Mekhilef, and A. Stojcevski, “State of the art artificial intelligence-based MPPT techniques for mitigating partial shading effects on PV systems–a review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 64, pp. 435–455, Oct. 2016.
DOI Google Scholar
[12]
P. Joshi and S. Arora, “Maximum power point tracking methodologies for solar PV systems—a review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 70, pp. 1154–1177, Apr. 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[13]
D. Yousri, T. S. Babu, D. Allam, V. K. Ramachandaramurthy, and M. B. Etiba, “A novel chaotic flower pollination algorithm for global maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 121432–121445, Aug. 2019.
DOI Google Scholar
[14]
P. K. Bonthagorla and S. Mikkili, “Optimal PV array configuration for extracting maximum power under partial shading conditions by mitigating mismatching power loss,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, to be published. .
DOI Google Scholar
[15]
S. R. Pendem, S. Mikkili, and P. K. Bonthagorla, “PV Distributed-MPP Tracking: total-cross-tied configuration of string-integrated-converters to extract the maximum power under various PSCs,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1046–1057, Mar. 2020.
DOI Google Scholar
[16]
S. R. Pendem and S. Mikkili, “Modelling and performance assessment of PV array topologies under partial shading conditions to mitigate the mismatching power losses,” Solar Energy, vol. 160, pp. 303–321, Jan. 2018.
DOI Google Scholar
[17]
P. K. Bonthagorla and S. Mikkili, “A novel fixed PV array configuration for harvesting maximum power from shaded modules by reducing the number of cross-ties,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, to be published. .
DOI Google Scholar
[18]
S. Bana and R. P. Saini, “Experimental investigation on power output of different photovoltaic array configurations under uniform and partial shading scenarios,” Energy, vol. 127, pp. 438–453, May 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[19]
M. Dhimish, V. Holmes, B. Mehrdadi, M. Dales, B. Chong, and L. Zhang, “Seven indicators variations for multiple PV array configurations under partial shading and faulty PV conditions,” Renewable Energy, vol. 113, pp. 438–460, Dec. 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]
K. Lappalainen and S. Valkealahti, “Output power variation of different PV array configurations during irradiance transitions caused by moving clouds,” Applied Energy, vol. 190, pp. 902–910, Mar. 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]
D. G. Montoya, J. D. Bastidas-Rodriguez, L. A. Trejos-Grisales, C. A. Ramos-Paja, G. Petrone, and G. Spagnuolo, “A procedure for modeling photovoltaic arrays under any configuration and shading conditions,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 767, Mar. 2018.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]
B. I. Rani, G. S. Ilango, and C. Nagamani, “Enhanced power generation from PV array under partial shading conditions by shade dispersion using Su Do Ku configuration,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 594–601, Jul. 2013.
DOI Google Scholar
[23]
S. N. Deshkar, S. B. Dhale, J. S. Mukherjee, T. S. Babu, and N. Rajasekar, “Solar PV array reconfiguration under partial shading conditions for maximum power extraction using genetic algorithm,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 43, pp. 102–110, Mar. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[24]
S. G. Krishna and T. Moger, “Optimal SuDoKu reconfiguration technique for total-cross-tied PV array to increase power output under non-uniform irradiance,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1973–1984, Dec. 2019.
DOI Google Scholar
[25]
M. Matam, V. R. Barry, and B. Lehman, “Performance improvement of dynamic PV array under partial shade conditions using M2 algorithm,” Institution of Engineering and Technology, vol.13, no.8, pp. 1239–1249, 2019.
DOI Google Scholar
[26]
M. Balato, L. Costanzo, and M. Vitelli, “Chapter 5-DMPPT PV system: modeling and control techniques,” in Advances in Renewable Energies and Power Technologies, I. Yahyaoui, Ed. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier, 2018, pp. 163–205.
DOI
[27]
S. Shongwe and M. Hanif, “Comparative analysis of different single-diode PV modeling methods,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 938–946, May 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[28]
D. Jena and V. V. Ramana, “Modeling of photovoltaic system for uniform and non-uniform irradiance: a critical review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 52, pp. 400–417, Dec. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[29]
M. Balato, L. Costanzo, and M. Vitelli, “Series–Parallel PV array re-configuration: maximization of the extraction of energy and much more,” Applied Energy, vol. 159, pp. 145–160, Dec. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[30]
O. Bingöl and B. Özkaya, “Analysis and comparison of different PV array configurations under partial shading conditions,” Solar Energy, vol. 160, pp. 336–343, Jan. 2018.
DOI Google Scholar
[31]
F. Belhachat and C. Larbes, “Modeling, analysis and comparison of solar photovoltaic array configurations under partial shading conditions,” Solar Energy, vol. 120, pp. 399–418, Oct. 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[32]
C. T. K. Kho, J. Ahmed, Y. L. Then, and M. Kermadi, “Mitigating the effect of partial shading by triple-tied configuration of PV modules,” in Proceedings of 2018 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2018, pp. 532–537.
[33]
A. S. Yadav, R. K. Pachauri, Y. K. Chauhan, S. Choudhury, and R. Singh, “Performance enhancement of partially shaded PV array using novel shade dispersion effect on magic-square puzzle configuration,” Solar Energy, vol. 144, pp. 780–797, Mar. 2017.
DOI Google Scholar
[34]
G. S. Krishna and T. Moger, “Comparative study on solar photovoltaic array configurations under irregular irradiance conditions,” in Proceedings of 2018 8th IEEE India International Conference on Power Electronics (IICPE), JAIPUR, India, 2018, pp. 1–6.
DOI
[35]
S. R. Pendem, V. V. Katru, and S. Mikkili, “Hybrid PV array configurations for mitigating the mismatching power loss and number of peaks in the output characteristics under various PSCs,” in Proceedings of IECON 2019–45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 2019, pp. 2377–2382.
DOI
[36]
A. A. Desai and S. Mikkili, “Modelling and analysis of PV configurations (alternate TCT-BL, total cross tied, series, series parallel, bridge linked and honey comb) to extract maximum power under partial shading conditions,” CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, to be published .
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 06 June 2020
Revised: 29 July 2020
Accepted: 02 September 2020
Published: 06 October 2020
Issue date: May 2022

Copyright

© 2020 CSEE

Rights and permissions

Return