532
4, OCTOBER 2012
Control and Circuit Techniques to Mitigate Partial
Shading Effects in Photovoltaic Arrays
Ali Bidram, Student Member, IEEE, Ali Davoudi, Member, IEEE, and Robert S. Balog, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Partial shading in photovoltaic (PV) arrays renders
conventional maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques
ineffective. The reduced efficiency of shaded PV arrays is a sig-
nificant obstacle in the rapid growth of the solar power systems.
Thus, addressing the output power mismatch and partial shading
effects is of paramount value. Extracting the maximum power of
partially shaded PV arrays has been widely investigated in the lit-
erature. The proposed solutions can be categorized into four main
groups. The first group includes modified MPPT techniques that
properly detect the global MPP. They include power curve slope,
load-line MPPT, dividing rectangles techniques, the power incre-
ment technique, instantaneous operating power optimization, Fi-
bonacci search, neural networks, and particle swarm optimization.
The second category includes different array configurations for
interconnecting PV modules, namely series–parallel, total-cross-
tie, and bridge-link configurations. The third category includes
different PV system architectures, namely centralized architec-
ture, series-connected microconverters, parallel-connected micro-
converters, and microinverters. The fourth category includes dif-
ferent converter topologies, namely multilevel converters, voltage
injection circuits, generation control circuits, module-integrated
converters, and multiple-input converters. This paper surveys the
proposed approaches in each category and provides a brief discus-
sion of their characteristics.
Index Terms—Impedance matching, maximum power point
tracking (MPPT), partial shading, photovoltaic (PV) systems, solar
arrays.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity in the U.S. is
T projected to increase up to 24 GW by 2015 [1]. However,
the low-energy conversion efficiency of PV materials remains
a barrier to the prolific growth of solar electricity [2]–[6] and
necessitates tracking the maximum power point (MPP) of the
PV arrays to ensure harvesting the most energy. Under uniform
insolation, the characteristic curve of a PV array presents a
single power maximum [7]–[9] which can be tracked using one
of several well-known maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
techniques (e.g., hill-climbing [10], perturb & observe (P&O)
[11]–[16], incremental conductance [17], [18], ripple correlation
Manuscript received March 6, 2012; revised April 24, 2012; accepted May
20, 2012. Date of publication July 5, 2012; date of current version September
18, 2012. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant 1137354.
A. Bidram and A. Davoudi are with the Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76011 USA (e-mail:
ali.bidram@mavs.uta.edu; davoudi@uta.edu).
R. S. Balog is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 USA (e-mail:
robert.balog@ieee.org).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2012.2202879
2156-3381/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO.
control [19], and dP/dV or dP/dI feedback control [20]). A
comparison of MPPT techniques for normal operation of PV
systems under uniform insolation is presented in [21].
However, when multiple power maxima exist [22]–[29], such
as in a partially shaded array or an array installed on a curved
surface [30], [31], these conventional MPPT techniques do not
perform well. Multiple maxima occur due to the bypass diodes,
which are used to avoid hot spots formed when some cells in a
module, or some modules in a string, receive less insulation than
others [32]–[37]. Without remediation by power electronics, the
lost generation due to partial shading can be significant. Thus, it
is imperative to utilize MPPT techniques that reliably track the
unique global power maximum present in shaded arrays.
Partial shading effects can also be alleviated through PV ar-
ray configurations, system architectures, and converter circuit
topologies. PV array configuration pertains to the intercon-
nections of individual PV modules which are typically either
series–parallel (SP), total-cross-tied (TCT), or bridge-linked
(BL) [38]–[41]. The PV system architecture describes how the
power electronics converters are connected to configurations
of PV modules. An architecture that permits the module-level
MPPT can often harvest more energy than a string-level or
array-level inverter [42], [43]. The circuit topology of the power
electronics converters can be modified to further enhance the
output power of PV systems under the partial shading condition
and provide module-level MPPT [44], [45].
Given the large body of work published on MPPT techniques
and circuit topologies for shaded PV arrays, a comprehensive
survey of existing approaches is of paramount value. This pa-
per summarizes various ways to extract a maximum amount of
power from shaded arrays and is intended for the researchers
and practicing engineers working in PV-based power systems.
This paper does not include conventional MPPT techniques or
circuit topologies that cannot differentiate between global and
local maximum and hence are ineffective under shading or mis-
matching conditions.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II discusses the
salient characteristics of partial shading including the PV electri-
cal characteristics and hot-spot phenomena under partial shad-
ing. Section III reviews control algorithms that perform global
MPPT under partial shading conditions. These algorithms pre-
sented vary in their implementation, complexity, cost, and track-
ing speed, as well as their effectiveness to track the global
maximum under different partial shading conditions. Section
IV provides different PV array configurations that alleviate the
negative effects of partial shading. In Section V, different PV
system architectures are discussed. Section VI provides the PV
circuit topologies that are proposed to address the partial shading
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS 533

I P
(0 , Isc) MPP
(Vmpp , Impp)

(Voc , 0) (Voc , 0)
0 V 0 V
(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Characteristic curves of a PV array. (a) Current–voltage curve and

(b) power–voltage curve.

negative effects. Section VII summarizes the potential charac-

teristics of discussed control schemes and circuit topologies and
concludes this paper.
Fig. 2. PV modules under the partial shading condition.

I
II. PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS Operation of
shaded cell in
Fig. 1 illustrates typical current–voltage and power–voltage reverse bias region
curves for a homogeneous PV array under uniform insolation Unshaded cell in the string
of all the PV modules. Conventional MPPT techniques find the
String Current
voltage Vm pp and current Im pp at which the PV array operates
at the MPP. However, these techniques may malfunction for Shaded cell in the string
nonuniform insolation of the PV array [21].
Break down Vbias 0 V
Various factors such as aging, dust, and partial shading result voltage
in mismatching and, hence, nonuniform operation conditions.
Partial shading is a frequent phenomenon that occurs when some Fig. 3. Current–voltage curve of a PV cell operating in a reverse bias region.
cells within a module or array are shaded by buildings, birds,
passing clouds, or some other object, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Since the short-circuit current of a PV cell is proportional to the
insolation level, the partial shading effect is a reduction of the - V1 + + V2 - - V3 + - Vn +
photocurrent for the shaded PV cells while the unshaded cells
continue to operate at a higher photocurrent. Since the string
current must be equal through all the series-connected cells, the + VD -
result is that the shaded cells operate in the reverse bias region Bypass Diode
to conduct the larger current of the unshaded cells [22]–[28].
Fig. 3 illustrates how the string current flows through all the Fig. 4. Bypass diode across the PV cells when one cell is shaded.
series-connected cells including shaded and unshaded. The bias
voltage Vbias is the reverse voltage at which the shaded cells that is shown in Fig. 4 begins to conduct when
must operate to support the common string current.

n
The shaded cells consume power due to the reverse voltage V2 − Vi ≥ VD , i = 2 (1)
polarity. Therefore, the maximum extractable power from the i=1
shaded PV array decreases. The high bias voltage may also
is satisfied, where VD is the forward voltage drop of the diode.
lead to an avalanche break down. This, in turn, may cause the
Since the bypass diodes provide an alternate current path,
thermal break down of the cell, creating a so-called hot spot.
cells of a module no longer carry the same current when partially
If untreated, excessive heating can result in cell burn out and
shaded. Therefore, the power–voltage curve develops multiple
create an open circuit in the shaded string. This hot spot can be
maxima, shown in Fig. 5. Conventional MPPT algorithms may
avoided by using the bypass diodes. These diodes are connected
not be capable of distinguishing between the local and global
parallel to the cells to limit the reverse voltage and, hence, the
maximum.
power loss in the shaded cells. For example, in a module with
36 series cells, one diode may be connected across each set of
18 series cells [31]–[33]. III. MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING TECHNIQUES FOR
SHADED PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
If the reverse voltage across the shaded cell increases, the
bypass diode restricts the reverse voltage to less than the break- The different MPPT techniques that address the partial shad-
down voltage of the PV cells. For example, the bypass diode ing condition are presented in an arbitrary order.
534 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

P Global MPP of the shaded array I

with bypass diodes
Curve under partial shading Curve without shading

rs
Single MPP of the shaded array
occu
without bypass diodes ing
ad
Operating point shifted Sh
to global maximum

0 V e
lin
oad
L
Fig. 5. Power–voltage curve of a PV array under the partial shading condition. Intersection of load
line in the vicinity
of global maximum
P P P< 0
>0 V
V 0 V
To left To right

P P
Fig. 7. Load line and the power curve with and without the partial shading.
<0 >0
V V

acceptable accuracy (tracking efficiency) of this technique in

0 V
Fig. 6. Change of ∂P /∂V sign in both sides of a local maximum.
A. Power Curve Slope
In this technique, the sign of ∂P/∂V at different points is
used to track the global maximum. It utilizes the fact that the
presence of another maximum on the left side of an existing
maximum is indicated by the change of the ∂P/∂V sign from
positive to negative, shown in Fig. 6. Similarly, the change of
∂P/∂V sign from negative to positive indicates the existence
of another maximum on the right side of the existing one [37].
This technique performs the search for the global maximum
on both sides of the last stored maximum. Initially, the search is
performed on the vicinity of the MPP, found under the uniform
insolation. If a local maximum is found, as indicated by the
change of the sign of ∂P/∂V , it is compared with the stored
maximum. If the detected local maximum is greater than the
stored maximum, the stored maximum will be updated. Oth-
erwise, the search for the global maximum in that direction is
immediately terminated. The search continues until the global
maximum is reached, shown in Fig. 6 [37]. Therefore, once a
local maximum with lower power is encountered, there exists
no higher maximum power afterward. This significantly short-
ens the tracking time. The subroutine keeps searching in one
direction until a smaller local maximum is found or the voltage
threshold is reached. The voltage threshold is the lowest possi-
ble voltage below which the existence of the global maximum
is unlikely.
The power curve slope technique works in conjunction with
a dc–dc converter and can be simply implemented by an inex-
pensive microcontroller and current and voltage sensors. Often,
the functionality is included within the controller for the dc–dc
converter. This technique has been empirically verified in [37].
The test setup consists of three series-connected PV arrays each
with six series-connected modules. The maximum power rat-
ing of each module is 38 W. The experimental results show the
detecting the global MPP of the PV array. The reported error
for the calculated global MPP is less than 0.5% of the actual
global MPP. The tracking speed has been improved to the order
of couple of seconds in [37] by applying a feed-forward control
scheme for the dc–dc converter. However, this technique is not
fast enough for the portable PV applications due to the rapid
change of partial shading condition [9]. This technique is effec-
tive under both the uniform and nonuniform insolation of the
PV array.
B. Load-Line Maximum Power Point Tracking
Two different load-line MPPT approaches have been identi-
fied in the literature, herein called Type I and Type II. In Type
I, the load line is defined by the ratio of Vm pp to Im pp . This line
can be computed by measuring the open-circuit voltage Vo c and
the short-circuit current Isc of the PV array under the uniform
insolation. Vm pp and Im pp are set to the 80% of Vo c and 90%
of Isc , respectively [46]. Subsequent to the partial shading con-
dition, the operating point is moved to the vicinity of the global
maximum that is the result of intersection of the load line with
current–voltage curve, shown in Fig. 7. Once in the vicinity
of the MPP, a conventional incremental conductance method is
used to find the global maximum. It uses the fact that the slope of
the power–voltage curve is equal to zero at the MPP [21], [47].
Since
dP d(V I) dI ΔI
= = V +I ∼
= V +I (2)
dV dV dV ΔV
then
ΔV V
=− (3)
ΔI I
is satisfied at MPP. Thus, the MPP can be found by comparing
Δ I and − I at different time instants. This technique can be
ΔV V
simply implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller or in-
cluded within the controller for another power converter such
as an inverter or dc–dc optimizer. In addition to the voltage and
current sensors, an additional circuit is needed for online mea-
surement of Vo c and Isc . As reported in [46], this technique can
track the global MPP in an order of 0.2–0.3 s. For the case study
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
I Shading occurs P
Isc C A
A The dividing rectangles (DIRECT) technique utilizes a Lip-
Linear D D
3
function C 1
B 2
0 V* VD VA V 0 V*
(a)
Fig. 8. Tracking the global maximum using the linear function. (a) Current–
voltage curve and (b) power–voltage curve.
in [46], the error ratio of the tracked MPP is around 4.8%. The
load-line technique relies on the assumption that the estimated
operating point will land in the vicinity of the global maximum.
However, the partial shading may result in more complex multi-
modal power–voltage curves. Therefore, this technique can only
track the global MPP under certain shading conditions [46], [48].
In the Type-II load-line MPPT, a linear function brings the
operating point into the vicinity of the global maximum [48].
The tracking process starts once partial shading condition is
detected. Shading is detected if
ΔV = V [n] − V [n − 1] < ΔVset
ΔI I[n] − I[n − 1] I[n]
= < −ΔIset = −
I[n − 1] I[n − 1] Np
are satisfied, where the indices n and n − 1 correspond to the
last two operating points of the PV array, and Np is the number
of strings that are connected in parallel. ΔVset and ΔIset are the
prespecified thresholds.
When partial shading occurs, the operating point is moved
from point A to B, shown in Fig. 8. Then, the controller responds
by adjusting the converter operation to move to the reference
voltage (point C) as
Ns V o c
V∗ = I[n]
Np Isc
where Ns is the number of modules in a string. Finally, the
incremental conductance method is used to track the global
maximum power (point D).
Type-II load-line technique can be simply implemented in
a microcontroller using voltage and current sensors. The per-
formance of this technique has been verified by a 3-kW PV
system in [48]. The experimental results show that this tech-
nique is relatively fast and has an acceptable accuracy (tracking
efficiency) in detecting the global MPP of the PV array [48].
For the case study in [48], compared with the conventional
incremental conductance method, Type-II load-line technique
improves the output power of the PV system by 15% of the
output power under uniform solar irradiance. However, the ac-
curacy of the Type-II load-line technique can be declined by the
change of the electrical parameters of PV arrays which is caused
by aging [49].
535
C. Dividing Rectangles Technique
schitz condition to track the global maximum of the PV array
power as a function of the array voltage [50]. For the uniformly
B
bounded power function P (v) on the voltage interval [a, b], (7)
is deduced
b−a
P (v) ≤ max(P (v)) ≤ P (v1 ) + M (7)
VD VA Voc V 2
(b)
where v1 is the center of [a, b], and M is the maximum value of
∂P/∂V on [a, b]. DIRECT uses (7) to track the global maximum
power of a PV array. In each MPPT iteration, the voltage interval
that is found in the previous iteration [a, b] is divided into three
equal subintervals. Among which, the ith interval is chosen as
the potentially optimum interval (POI) if a constant k > 0 exist
such that
⎧ bj − aj bi − ai
⎪
⎨ P (vj ) + k ≤ P (vi ) + k ∀j
2 2
(8)
⎪
⎩P bi − ai
m ax + ε |Pm ax | ≤ P (ci ) + k
2
where Pm ax is the current tracked maximum power, and ε is a
positive constant value. ai , bi , aj , and bj are the end points of
the ith and jth intervals, respectively. P (ci ) is the power value
sampled at the midpoint of the ith interval. The first condition
(4) in (8) ensures that the interval with the highest potential for the
maximum power is chosen for further exploration. The second
(5)
condition in (8) ensures that this interval results in the further
increment in Pm ax by at least ε |Pm ax |. In the global search
mode, a relatively large ε is chosen (0.03 is adopted in [50]) to
bring the operating point into the vicinity of a global maximum.
In the local search mode, ε is reduced further to accurately track
the global maximum. This procedure is repeated until the global
maximum of the function is detected.
The DIRECT technique does not depend on the shape of
power–voltage characteristics and can track the global maxi-
mum under different shading conditions. In this technique, the
requirement to calculate the power–voltage curve gradient has
been obviated [49]. Therefore, this technique can be simply im-
(6)
plemented by an inexpensive microcontroller that controls the
dc–dc converter connected to the PV array. Voltage and current
sensors are required to measure the PV array’s voltage and cur-
rent. The performance of this technique has been verified by a
60-W PV array in [50]. The experimental results show that this
technique is efficient and accurate in tracking the global MPP
under the partial shading condition. The average tracking effi-
ciency is more than 95%, and the tracking speed is around ten
sampling cycles [50]. However, the initial point in this algorithm
needs to be appropriately chosen to avoid being trapped at the
local maxima power points [51].
D. Power Increment Technique
The power increment technique utilizes the augmented power
converter as a tunable constant power load [49]. This technique
is implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller. As shown
in Fig. 9, the power converter is controlled to draw a constant
power in a successive manner, starting from the open-circuit
536 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

P shaded 15-W PV array in [49] show that the difference between

P6 the estimated global MPP and its actual value is approximately
B5
P5 less than 0.1% of the actual global MPP. Additionally, for the
P4 B4
PV load lines case study reported in [49], the tracking speed of the power in-
B3
P3 crement technique is approximately three times of the tracking
P2 B2
speed of the particle swarm optimization technique [61].
B6
E. Instantaneous Operating Power Optimization
B1
0 V This technique relies on the fact that the maximum output
power of a PV array is dependent on the irradiance E(t) and
Fig. 9. Constant power lines in a power increment technique. p–n junctions temperature T (t) as [52], [53]

TABLE I MPP(t) = MPP(T (t), E(t)). (9)

PERTURBATION SELECTION IN THE P&O METHOD
Thus, the expression for MPP can be written as
Existing perturbation sign PV array power Next perturbation sign
Negative Increases Negative MPP(t) = a(T (t))b(E(t)) (10)
Negative Decreases Positive
Positive Increases Positive where a(T (t))is the voltage factor. The irradiance factor b(E(t))
Positive Decreases Negative determines IMPP . The p–n junctions temperature T (t) depends
on the ambient temperature, the operating point of the PV
condition: point B1 . At each step, the amount of power is in- module [54], [55], and the environmental conditions includ-
creased, resulting in progressing toward the global MPP (points ing weather, mounting angle, and surrounding objects [56]. The
B1 to B5 ), and the corresponding PV array voltage is stored voltage factor a(T (t)) is computed as follows. If IMPP is less
in the microcontroller memory. The power increment process than a prespecified threshold, a(T (t)) = a0 , where a0 is a con-
is continued until further increasing of the drawn power is not stant value. Otherwise, the P&O method is adopted to assess
feasible because of passing the maximum power of the PV array a(T (t)). Since the P&O method may detect a local maximum,
(reaching B6 in Fig. 9). Once B6 is achieved, the dc–dc con- it needs to be performed around an approximated value of the
approx approx
verter regulates the output voltage of the PV array at the stored global IMPP , IMPP , to assess a(T (t)). IMPP is found as
voltage corresponding to B5 . Therefore, the converter operates approx
in the close vicinity of the global MPPT. Then, the P&O or hill IMPP = Ki Im eas (t) (11)
climbing algorithm is adopted to attain the global MPP. where
In the P&O algorithm, a perturbation is applied to the oper-
Iloi cal
ating voltage of the PV array until the global MPP is reached. Ki = . (12)
In this method, as can be seen in Fig. 1(b), once the operating IMPP
point is on the right of the MPP, the voltage decrement (in-
crement) increases (decreases) the power. On the other hand, A preassessment of the current at local maxima Iloi cal and the
once the operating point is on the left of the MPP, the voltage current at global maximum IMPP is needed to calculate Ki .
decrement (increment) decreases (increases) the power. The per- Once a(T (t)) is found, the proposed algorithm in [52] con-
turbation is chosen which is based on the algorithm summarized tinuously compares the measured PV power Pm eas (t) and the
in Table I. If the power increases by applying a voltage pertur- reference power P (t) = a(T (t))Im eas (t), where Im eas (t) is the
bation, the same perturbation is kept until the global MPP is measured current of the PV array. If Pm eas (t) < P (t), IMPP is
achieved. If the power decreases by applying a voltage pertur- tracked by changing the operating current as
bation, the direction of the perturbation is reversed. Once the I(t) = Im eas (t) − ΔI (13)
global MPP is reached, the perturbation step size is reduced to
diminish the oscillation of operating point around the global where ΔI is kept constant. If Pm eas (t) > P (t), IMPP is tracked
MPP [11]–[16], [21]. by changing the operating current as
The hill climbing method is similar to the P&O method. Pm eas (t)
However, instead of the operating voltage, the perturbation is I(t) = . (14)
a(T (t))
applied to the duty cycle of the power converter which in turn
perturbs the PV array current and t voltage [10], [21]. This procedure is repeated until (15) is satisfied
The power increment technique can track the global MPP in
Pm eas (t) − a(T (t))Im eas (t)
both stand-alone and grid-connected PV systems. In this tech- < ε. (15)
Pm eas (t − 1)
nique, voltage and current sensors are required to measure the
PV array’s voltage and current. This technique does not require The instantaneous power optimization can be used for the
any previous knowledge of the PV modules’ characteristics and power–voltage curves with more than one local maximum. How-
configurations, and can accurately track the global MPP in a ever, a potential drawback of this technique is that a preliminary
relatively short period of time. The experimental results on a investigation is needed to assess the currents at different maxima
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS 537

P P Hidden
layer
Input
layer
Isc
Output
layer out
αs Pmax
0 v3i v1i v2i v4i V 0 v3i+1 v1i+1 v2i+1 v4i+1 V
Estimated output power
(a)
ai bi ai (b) ai+1 bi+1 ai+1
Temp.
Old search range New search range
wij
Fig. 10. Shifting and restricting search strategy to find the maximum value.
(a) Old search range and (b) new search range.
_
Weight adjustment Error + Actual power
algorithm Σ
to calculate Ki in (12). In this technique, voltage and current sen-
sors are needed. The instantaneous power optimization can be
Fig. 11. ANN configuration to estimate the MPP of the shaded PV array.
implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller. An experimen-
tal PV system has been used in [53] to verify the performance of
this technique. In this PV system, the microcontroller controls a The search interval for the next iteration is shifted either to
dc–dc converter that is connected to a storage device (e.g., ultra- the left or right based on the following rule:
electric double-layer capacitors). The storage device is adopted 
if P (v1i ) < P (v2i ) ⇒ v3i+1 = v1i , v4i+1 = v4i
to store the energy from the PV source under high irradiance (18)
conditions and deliver it to the grid or local loads during the if P (v1i ) > P (v2i ) ⇒ v3i+1 = v3i , v4i+1 = v2i .
low irradiance conditions. The storage device is connected to The search is terminated when (19) is satisfied
the grid (or ac load) through a dc–ac inverter. Experimental re-  i 
v4 − v3i  ≤ δ
sults show that this technique is relatively fast and can track
  (19)
the global MPP in less than 0.2 s. For the case study reported P (v4i ) − P (v3i ) ≤ ε
in [53], the difference between the estimated global MPP and its
actual value is approximately less than 1% of the actual global where δ and ε are predetermined tolerances.
MPP. The Fibonacci search technique is similar to the P&O and hill
climbing techniques. However, the step size is variable and is
determined by the Fibonacci sequence in (16). It should be noted
F. Fibonacci Search that this technique may mistakenly detect the local maxima
The Fibonacci line search can be employed to find the MPP instead of the global maximum in power–voltage characteristics
under both uniform and nonuniform insolation [57], [58]. This with many local maxima. This technique has been empirically
technique utilizes Fibonacci sequence of numbers tested in [58] using a 300-W PV array that consists of six series-
connected PV modules. The tracking speed of this method is
⎧ acceptable if it is not trapped at the local maxima. This technique
⎪
⎨ c0 = 0 can be simply implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller
c1 = 1 (16)
⎪
⎩
and voltage and current sensors [58].
cn = cn −2 + cn −1 , n ≥ 2.
G. Artificial Neural Networks
The search relies on the shifting and restricting strategy, Artificial neural network (ANN) can predict the MPP of a PV
shown in Fig. 10. The subscript i represents the iteration num- array under both the uniform and nonuniform insolation condi-
ber. In each iteration, the curve is evaluated at two check points tions [59]. The neural network has a three-layer feed-forward
(e.g., v1i andv2i ) within an interval. In Fig. 10, ai denotes the dis- configuration that consists of an input layer, a hidden layer of
tance between the check point and the interval bounds, v3i and neurons, and an output layer, shown in Fig. 11. Ambient tem-
v4i , and bi denotes the distance between two subsequent check perature Temp and short-circuit current Isc of a pilot PV cell
points. ai and bi are determined by the Fibonacci rule (as a measure of the solar insolation level) are taken as input.
⎧ ai The sun’s position αs is used as another input to consider the
cn +1
⎪
⎨b = c shading effect.
i n The system is first trained with a known set of input and
(17)
⎪ ai+1 = cn .
⎩ output data. During the training process, the weights wij , which
bi+1 cn −1 are shown in Fig. 11, are trained to correctly map input data
to the desired output. The training is based on minimizing the
538
error between the network output power and the desired output
power level. Once trained, this network of artificial neurons is
expected to estimate the maximum output power of a PV array
for any shading condition.
In [59], it is assumed that shading due to moving objects such
as clouds has a uniform effect on the PV array, and hence, it uses
only the sun’s position to consider the effect of partial shading.
It is advantageous as it needs fewer inputs to train the neural
network. However, the assumption of a uniform shading effect
due to mobile objects is not always valid. An additional fuzzy
logic controller is used with ANN to track the actual MPP in
[60]. The fuzzy controller tracks the reference voltage generated
by ANN. Adjacent PV modules are assigned as a group, and the
average irradiance level and the cells temperature are used as
the inputs to train the neural network. This is applicable under
different shading conditions.
For the case study reported in [59], the ANN technique shows
an acceptable accuracy and tracking speed in detecting the
global MPP under the partial shading condition. The ANN tech-
nique can be implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller.
The sensors that are required to implement the ANN technique
are current and temperature sensors. Additionally, the irradi-
ance factor needs to be measured as an input to ANN. This
technique is system specific and may not yield accurate results
under all shading conditions if periodic tuning is not conducted.
Since the characteristics of PV arrays change by time, neural
networks need to be trained regularly to preserve the accuracy
of MPPT.
H. Particle Swarm Optimization
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a metaheuristic ap-
proach which is used to optimize a multivariable function. This
technique consists of so-called cooperating agents that scan
through the search space based on the shared information to
find the optimum value of a function. The velocity velki , with
which the ith agent proceeds at the kth iteration, is determined
by the agent’s previous best solution pib est and the best solution
of the group of agents gb est [61]. The velocity velki and position
ski of each agent are updated as given by
velki +1 = wvelki + c1 r1 pib est + c2 r2 gb est (20)
ski +1 = ski + velki +1 (21)
where w is the momentum factor. c1 and c2 are positive con-
stants. 0 < r1 < 1 and 0 < r2 < 1 are random numbers. pib est
is updated only if the current position of the agent gives a better
solution.
PSO can be applied for MPPT of a PV system by dividing
the PV array into a number of different modules each controlled
by an individual dc–dc converter. The modules’ voltages are
considered to be the position vector of each agent in the PSO
algorithm, which is shown in
sk = [v1k , v2k , . . . , vN
k
] (22)
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012
where vjk is the jth array voltage at the kth iteration, and N is
the number of PV modules. The velocity vector is
velk = [v1k − v1k −1 , v2k − v2k −1 , . . . , vN
k k −1
− vN ]. (23)
The function to be optimized is the total array output power.
The PSO technique has been shown to track the global MPP
within 2 s, is based on the experiments that are performed on
a 200-W PV array, and have a deviation between the estimated
global MPP and the actual global MPP of less than 4% [61]. A
more accurate algorithm, adaptive perceptive particle swarm op-
timization (APPSO), is presented in [62]. In APPSO, each agent
scans the search space within its perception range. The agent
performs the search in a fixed number of directions by sam-
pling finite number of points along each direction. In APPSO,
the agent modifies its perception radius, search directions, and
the number of sampling points along each direction depending
upon whether or not the current iteration improves the agent
performance. This adaptability ensures accurate tracking of the
global maximum. As reported in [62], the error in estimating
the global maximum by APPSO is less than 3%.
In a PSO-based MPPT, a structure similar to hill climbing
method can be adopted to utilize the direct duty cycle control.
The duty cycle is maintained at a constant value, and the steady-
state oscillations are reduced [63]. The PSO technique needs
only two sensors for the PV voltage and current. However, the
algorithm exhibits a complicated implementation, and a power-
ful microcontroller is required for digital implementation. The
performance of the PSO technique does not depend on the shape
of the power–voltage curve.
IV. ARRAY CONFIGURATION
The partial shading effects can be alleviated by employing dif-
ferent array configurations for interconnecting PV modules [40],
[41], [64]. SP, TCT, and BL configurations are shown in Fig. 12.
The interconnections between the PV strings enable different
current flowing through the PV strings in TCT and BL con-
figurations. This may decrease the current that flows through
the shaded cells and keep them in the forward bias region,
thus blocking the operation of bypass diodes. Therefore, com-
pared with the traditional SP array configuration, TCT and BL
configurations can improve the MPP of the PV system under
partial shading. In [65], an artificial static shading is applied on
a 2.2-kW PV plant, causing the power–voltage curve to have
two maxima. The comparative study shows that BL and TCT
configurations result in a 2.3% and 3.8% increase in MPP com-
pared with the SP configuration, respectively. A similar study
in [35] and [66] shows that the TCT configuration yields the
highest MPP. Considering the number of interconnections, the
SP configuration has the minimum wiring, while the TCT con-
figuration requires the maximum number of wires. The higher
number of interconnections slightly increases the loss of the PV
system due to the additional cable loss. However, the simpler
pattern of TCT configuration for large PV arrays causes easier
wiring process [65].
Reconfigurable PV arrays are another viable solution to com-
pensate the power loss due to the partial shading condition [39].
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 12. Array configurations for alleviating the power loss under the partial
shading condition. (a) SP, (b) TCT, and (c) BL.
Switching
matrix
Fixed part of Adaptive
PV module bank
Fig. 13. Decomposition of a reconfigurable PV array.
For example, a reconfigurable PV array with TCT configura-
tion is presented in [39]. The PV system consists of a fixed
part and a small adaptive bank of PV modules used for energy
compensation, as shown in Fig. 13. Once shading is detected,
a switching matrix reconfigures the PV modules. The shaded
modules in the fixed part are compensated by the modules in the
adaptive bank. Thus, the PV system produces a constant power
even when shaded. As reported in [39], equipping a 3×3 PV
array with TCT configuration (three PV modules in each row
and three PV modules in each column) with a 3×3 adaptive part
can increase the MPP by 60%. Therefore, the reconfigurable PV
array shows the most improvement of MPP compared with the
TCT and BL configurations. However, the reconfigurable PV
array is not cost efficient, compared with TCT and BL configu-
rations, due to the requirement for a complicated control system
and additional PV modules [39].
Another potential drawback of the reconfigurable PV array
is its performance under severe shading conditions: With a low
number of cells in the adaptive bank, it is not practical to com-
pensate for all shaded cells. A large adaptive bank significantly
increases installation cost and requires a complicated control
algorithm [39].
V. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM ARCHITECTURES
Centralized architecture, series-connected microconverters,
parallel-connected microconverters, and microinverters are
the basic architectures for grid-connected PV systems, as
shown in Fig. 14. The most conventional architecture is the
539
dc/dc dc/dc dc/dc
dc/ac dc/ac
Grid Grid
(a) (b)
dc/dc dc/dc dc/dc dc/ac dc/ac dc/ac
dc/ac Grid
Grid
(c) (d)
Fig. 14. PV system architectures. (a) Centralized, (b) series-connected micro-
converter, (c) parallel-connected microconverter, and (d) microinverter.
centralized architecture, shown in Fig. 14(a), in which the global
MPP of individual PV modules cannot be tracked. Therefore,
this architecture is more vulnerable to shading and mismatching
loss [42], [43]. In the series-connected microconverter architec-
ture, shown in Fig. 14(b), dc–dc converters are employed to
track the MPP of individual modules [67]. The output of the
series-connected converters is fed to a central inverter. In the
parallel-connected microconverter, shown in Fig. 14(c), mod-
ules are connected to the central inverter using individual dc–dc
converters. Alternatively, the microinverter architecture, shown
in Fig. 14(d), eliminates the central inverter and permits MPPT
for individual modules. Except for the central architecture, other
architectures enable module-level MPPT and are suitable for
partial shading conditions.
VI. CIRCUIT TOPOLOGIES
In this section, circuit topologies that specifically mitigate the
partial shading effects are discussed.
A. Multilevel Converters
Multilevel diode-clamped converters have a slightly modi-
fied centralized architecture [45], [68]–[71]. A four-level diode-
clamped converter that is connected to three PV arrays is shown
in Fig. 15. Each PV array is connected parallel to a capaci-
tor. This architecture allows array-level MPPT by controlling
the operating voltage of the corresponding array. As reported
in [68], experimental results demonstrate 30% improvement
in the output power when a four-level converter is used in-
stead of a conventional inverter. A PV system with a multi-
level diode-clamped converter is not upgradable, i.e., to increase
the number of PV arrays, a multilevel diode-clamped converter
with more semiconductor switches is required. The larger num-
ber of PV arrays significantly increases the number of semi-
conductor switches, making the control system more complex
and the approach cost prohibitive. The switching loss in the
540
a
b Grid
c
Fig. 15. Four-level diode-clamped converter connected to three PV arrays.
multilevel converter is relatively high due to the larger number
of semiconductor devices [70].
Alternatively, each PV array can be divided into two identical
and independent subarrays and connected to the grid using a
neutral point-clamped converter with an individual MPPT sys-
tem for each subarray [72]. The individual MPPT system for
each subarray can also be implemented using half-bridge con-
verters. Since the power of both subarrays can be separately
optimized, it is more probable to track the global MPP. There-
fore, these circuit topologies are more energy efficient than the
multilevel diode-clamped converter topology. However, since
there is only one MPP tracker for each subarray, module-level
MPPT is not achieved. Therefore, despite improvement, there
will still be losses due to the partial shading effects. Individual
MPPT for each subarray would increase the complexity and cost
of the control system [70], [73].
B. Voltage Injection
In the voltage injection topology, the extracted maximum
powers of the PV systems are improved by injecting a bias
voltage into the shaded PV strings or modules [74]–[76].
In the first approach, referred to here as Type I, the bias voltage
is injected to align the global MPP of the shaded PV strings
with the MPP of the nonshaded PV strings. This procedure is
elaborated for two parallel PV strings, when one of them is
50% shaded. The power–voltage curves of these PV strings are
shown in Fig. 16(a). Vmnax and Vms ax are the operating voltages
of the MPP in the normal and shaded PV strings, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 16(b), the global MPP of the shaded PV string
is aligned with the MPP of the nonshaded string by injecting a
bias voltage to the shaded PV string. The bias voltage can be
provided by connecting the shaded PV string to a capacitor in
series.
The circuitry that is proposed for the aforementioned voltage
injection-based approach is shown in Fig. 17. As seen, the ca-
pacitors are connected in series with PV strings. The PV string
selector connects the shaded PV string with the capacitor de-
pending on PV strings’ current I1 , . . . , In and dc bus current Id .
The string selector deselects the PV string if the bias voltage,
that needs to be injected, becomes small enough. As reported
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012
P P
Non-shaded 50% shaded Non-shaded
50% shaded
0 s n n
Vmax Vmax V Vmax V
(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Effect of bias voltage on the PV string power–voltage curves.
(a) Without bias voltage injection and (b) with bias voltage injection.
Id
I1 I2 In
Grid
PV String Selector
I1,...,In
Relay Id
Fig. 17. Voltage injection-based circuitry to align the MPP of shaded and
nonshaded PV modules.
in [74], for a 300-W shaded PV system, the bias-voltage injec-
tion improves the extracted power from the PV panel by 20%
under a certain partial shading condition. The Type-I voltage
injection topology can be simply controlled by an inexpensive
microcontroller. This topology can be upgraded as the number
of PV strings increases. However, a potential drawback of this
topology is that if two or more PV strings experience differ-
ent shading levels, each shaded string requires a different bias
voltage. Therefore, since the proposed circuitry cannot provide
different bias voltages simultaneously, the maximum power of
the PV panel cannot be extracted, and the energy efficiency of
the PV system decreases [76].
In the second approach, referred to here as Type II, the
bias voltages can deactivate shaded PV modules in a string,
as shown in Fig. 18. In this circuit, individual dc–dc converters
are mounted on each PV string. Each dc–dc converter is fed
from the output voltage of the PV system Vout and provides the
i
bias voltage Vbias for the ith PV string. The shaded PV modules
in each PV string are deactivated by forward biasing the bypass
diodes. The number of PV modules that needs to be deactivated
specifies the required bias voltage for each PV string. There-
fore, the voltage of each PV module needs to be monitored and
compared with other modules’ voltage to extract the number
of the shaded modules in each string. A complicated control
system is required to manage the dc–dc converters. As reported
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS 541

+ I
I1 D2

Vout 1
Pmax
+
I2
1 2 + m +
Vbias _ dc/dc Vbias _ dc/dc Vbias _ dc/dc
_

2
Fig. 18. Voltage injection-based circuitry to deactivate shaded PV modules. Pmax

0
2 1 V
Vmax Vmax
+ +
Vout m Fig. 21. Effect of changing the off-duty ratio of switches on the extracted
_ power in the multichopper topology.

Vout Ipv
+
Vout m
S3 S4
_ _
S1 S2 Istring

Fig. 19. DC–DC converter-based GCC topology.

Fig. 22. MIC-based topology: a typical circuitry used in the series-connected

+ microconverter architecture.

(1)

+
+

_ Vout
Vout
+

_
(2)
MPPT 1 MPPT 2

Fig. 23. MIB converter with a modified PV module.

C. Generation Control Circuits

_
Fig. 20. Multichopper-based-GCC topology.
in [75], for a PV array with three strings and eight modules in
each string (MPP of each module is 24.4 W), Type-II topology
improves the energy efficiency of the shaded PV system from
23% to 95%. As opposed to Type I, Type-II voltage injection
topology properly functions when two or more PV strings expe-
rience different shading levels. One of the potential drawbacks
of Type-II voltage injection topology is that the full power ca-
pacity of the PV system cannot be exploited since the shaded PV
modules are deactivated. This circuit topology can be upgraded
by using more dc–dc converters as the number of PV strings
increases. However, increasing the number of dc–dc converters
increases the system cost [75], [76].
The generation control circuit (GCC) improves the extracted
power of a PV string by controlling the operating voltage of
PV modules [77]–[79]. Here, two different GCC topologies are
discussed.
The first topology, which is named dc–dc converter-based
topology [77], [78], is shown in Fig. 19. In this topology, the
operating voltage of all PV modules is controlled at a constant
value of Vout /m. Vout is the output voltage of the PV string,
and m is the number of PV modules in the string. Once one
module is shaded, its parallel capacitor provides extra current
to compensate for the difference between the string current and
the current of the shaded PV module. The compensating current
facilitates the operation of the shaded PV module at the same
voltage as the operating voltage of nonshaded modules. As re-
ported in [78], the dc–dc converter-based topology improves the
extracted power from the PV panel. In this topology, the individ-
ual voltage control of each PV module is not feasible. It should
542 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012

TABLE II
COMPARISON TABLE FOR DIFFERENT MPPT TECHNIQUES DISCUSSED IN SECTION III

Periodic Tracking Implementation Sensed Necessary condition for convergence/

Type Tracking accuracy
tuning speed complexity parameters Limitations

Voltage and Increasing local maxima until the global

Power curve slope No Medium Highly accurate Medium
current maximum is reached.
Load line must intersect I-V curve in the
This technique is not
vicinity of the global maximum. The
always accurate Voltage and
Type I Yes Fast Low accuracy of this technique can be
under all partial current
Load line deteriorated by the aging of the electrical
shading conditions.
MPPT components in the PV system.
The change in electrical components,
Voltage and
Type II Yes Fast Accurate Medium caused by aging, can negatively affect the
current
accuracy of this technique.
A proper initialization is needed to avoid
Voltage and
Dividing rectangles No Fast Accurate Medium being trapped at the local maxima power
current
points.
Power increment Voltage and
No Fast Highly accurate Medium Convergence is always guaranteed.
technique current

Instantaneous power Voltage and A preliminary investigation is needed to

No Medium Highly accurate Medium
optimization current assess the currents at different maxima.
This technique is not
always accurate Voltage and Uncertain converge to global maximum if
Fibbonaci search No Medium Medium
under all partial current a large set of local maxima exist.
shading conditions.
Temperature
Artificial neural A system specific approach that requires
Yes Fast Accurate High irradiance,
network retuning.
and current
Particle swarm Voltage and
No Medium Accurate High Convergence is always guaranteed.
optimization current

be noted that exploiting PV modules at a constant operating D. Module-Integrated Converters

voltage can improve the PV string power to some extent; how-
ever, module-based MPPT is not feasible, which confines the
energy efficiency of the PV system. This potential drawback has
been obviated in multichopper topology [77], shown in Fig. 20.
The dc–dc converter-based topology can be upgraded, and ac-
commodate higher number of PV modules. The control system
can be simply implemented by an inexpensive microcontroller.
In multichopper topology, the off-duty ratio of the switch
associated with the ith PV module Di can be individually con-
trolled to regulate the operating voltage of the ith PV module.
This is elaborated for a PV string with two PV modules, where
the second one is shaded. The current–voltage curves of these
PV modules are shown in Fig. 21. Pm1 ax and Pm2 ax are the MPP
of the first and second PV modules, respectively. The total out-
put power of this PV string can be adjusted by adjusting the
off-duty ratio of the shaded PV module D2 . Similarly, for a PV
string with m PV modules, the central controller needs to suc-
cessively adjust the off-duty ratio of all switches to ensure that
all PV modules are working at their MPPs. This might increase
the complexity and cost of the PV system controller and is a
potential disadvantage of this GCC topology [77]. As reported
in [77], for a 600-W shaded PV system, the multichopper topol-
ogy improves the extracted power from the PV panel by 20%
under a certain partial shading condition. This circuit topology
can be upgraded as the number of PV modules increases.
The module-integrated converters (MICs) conventionally
use a series-connected microconverter architecture, shown in
Fig. 14(b). In this circuit topology, a dc–dc converter is inte-
grated to each PV module. The sets of PV modules and their
associated converters are connected in series to form a PV
string. This circuit topology facilitates the operation of series-
connected PV modules at different current levels. Each dc–dc
converter is controlled by an autonomous local controller to
extract the PV module’s maximum power. Additionally, the de-
coupled control policy of PV modules significantly increases
the PV system robustness and reliability [80]–[85].
The dc–dc converter can be conventional converters (e.g.,
buck, boost, buck–boost, and Cuk) [81], [82]. More recently,
modified converter topologies have been presented to achieve a
higher efficiency [83], [85]. For example, the circuitry shown in
Fig. 22 can operate in buck, boost, and pass-through modes. In
this circuit, when the PV module is partially shaded, i.e., Ipv <
Istring , the converter operates in the buck mode. In this mode, S4
is ON and S2 is OFF, and the converter is controlled by S3 and
S1 . When the other PV modules work at a lower power level, i.e.,
Ipv > Istring , the converter operates in the boost mode. In this
mode, S3 is ON and S1 is OFF, and the converter is controlled
by S2 and S4 . Under the normal condition Ipv ≈ Istring , the
converter operates in the pass-through mode. In this mode, S3
and S4 are always ON, and the input is directly linked to the
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS 543

TABLE III
COMPARISON TABLE FOR DIFFERENT CIRCUIT TOPOLOGIES DISCUSSED IN SECTION VI

Type Key advantages Potential disadvantages

Individual PV modules may not operate at their MPP.
MPPT for individual PV arrays. A large PV array requires numerous semiconductor
Multilevel diode-clamped
PV system has acceptable energy efficiency under switches, increasing the system complex and cost.
converter
partial shading condition. High switching power loss.
PV system is not upgradable.
MPPT for individual PV sub-arrays.
PV system provides better energy efficiency than the
PV system with an auxiliary Individual PV modules may not operate at their MPP.
multilevel diode-clamped converter.
half-bridge converter PV system is not upgradable.
Lower number of switches and, hence, lower switching
loss than the multilevel diode-clamped converter.
MPPT for individual PV sub-arrays. Individual PV modules may not operate at their MPP.
Neutral point clamped converter PV system provides better energy efficiency than the PV system is not upgradable.
multilevel diode-clamped converter. High switching loss.
Maximum possible power cannot be extracted when
Simple circuitry and control system.
Type I two or more PV strings are partially shaded (confined
Voltage Upgradability.
energy efficiency).
injection based
Higher energy efficiency than Type I when two or more More complicated control system than Type I.
topology
Type II PV strings are partially shaded. Full power capacity of PV system cannot be exploited
Upgradability. since the shaded PV modules are deactivated.
Dc-dc Simple control system. Shaded PV modules may not operate precisely at
converter Upgradability. their MPP (Confined energy efficiency).
Generation
MPPT for individual PV module.
control circuit
topology Multi- PV system has acceptable energy efficiency under the
Complicated control structure.
chopper partial shading condition.
Upgradability.
Module-integrated circuit MPPT for individual PV module. Relatively large number of passive and active
(series-connected micro- High energy efficiency. components per PV module.
converter architecture) Upgradability. Complicated control structure .
Relatively large number of passive and active
MPPT for individual PV modules.
components per PV module.
High energy harvest efficiency.
Module-integrated circuit The ac gird technical issues and electromagnetic
Smaller size and safer installation than series-connected
(micro-inverter architecture) interface issues need to be considered in the design of
micro-converter architecture.
integrated inverters.
System expandability.
Complicated control structure.
Higher output power than single input boost converters. With the higher number of inputs, the number of
Multiple-input boost converter Acceptable energy efficiency under partial shading semiconductor switches and inductors increases
Upgradability. which in turn adds to the system size and cost.
Multiple-input single-output Lower size and cost compare to conventional MISO.
More complex control structure than the multiple-
(MISO) converter with a single Upgradability.
input boost converter.
inductor Acceptable energy efficiency under partial shading.

output. As reported in [83], adopting the proposed converter E. Multiple-Input Converters

for the MIC-based topology improves the efficiency of the PV
system by 95% for most operating ranges. Additionally, for
a shaded 85-W PV system, the MIC-based topology in [83]
improves the output power of the PV array by 38%.
The MIC-based topology can also be implemented as a mi-
croinverter architecture, shown in Fig. 14(d). In this circuit
topology, which are known as “ACPV modules,” an inverter
is used instead of a dc–dc converter. Using inverters obvi-
ates the requirement of the central dc–ac converter and the
high-voltage dc bus, thus resulting in lower size and safer in-
stallation of the PV string [86], [87]. However, ACPV intro-
duces filtering, protection, and the electromagnetic interface
issues [81].
The MIC-based topology requires a fast and complicated con-
trol system to manage the operation of converts that are installed
on the PV modules. This increases the cost and complexity of the
PV system. The MIC-based topology can be simply upgraded
by adding new PV modules.
A multiple-input single-output (MISO) boost converter can be
implemented as a first-stage dc–dc converter in micro-converter
architectures [43]. In a modified PV module, which is shown
in Fig. 23, the electrical contact is separated in point 1, and the
bypass diodes are removed from point 2. The string outputs are
connected to the boost converters. The voltages and currents of
the strings are measured for the purpose of MPPT. Since bypass
diodes are removed from the PV module, the power–voltage
curve has only one MPP. Thus, a simple control algorithm, e.g.,
P&O, can be implemented for MPPT. As reported in [43], for
a shaded 120-W PV module, a MISO boost converter increases
the output power by 9.6%, compared with a single-input
boost converter. This circuit topology can be upgraded for the
connection of more PV strings. With a higher number of inputs,
the number of semiconductor switches and inductors increases,
which, in turn, adds to the system size and cost. The size and cost
issues can be reduced by using single-inductor MISO converters
[88].
544
VII. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Given the large number of existing MPPT techniques and
circuit topologies, the PV system operators may face a chal-
lenge when choosing the most suitable one for their applications.
Keeping this in mind, the main features of different MPPT tech-
niques and circuit topologies should be discussed and compared.
Table II provides an overview of different MPPT techniques
that address partial shading. The accuracy and tracking speed
is one of the dominant factors to choose a MPPT technique.
For mission-critical applications that require fast and accurate
tracking, algorithms such as the power increment technique can
be adopted. The simplicity of implementation and total cost are
the other important factors to select a proper MPPT technique.
These two factors are determined based on the number and type
of required sensors and the complexity of the algorithm. Some
techniques such as ANN require a complicated measuring sys-
tem for the irradiance level. Some other techniques, such as
DIRECT and APPSO, are relatively complex and computation-
ally inefficient. For applications where simplicity and cost are
more dominant factors, techniques such as load-line MPPT can
be used. Some techniques such as Fibonacci search are only
functional with a specific pattern of the power–voltage curve.
Table III provides an overview of the key advantages and po-
tential disadvantages of different circuit topologies that are dis-
cussed in Section VI. The circuit topologies differ in their im-
plementation, energy efficiency, number of active and passive
elements, complexity of control systems, upgradability, and the
capability of individual MPPT for each PV module.
REFERENCES
[1] S. V. Dhople and A. Dominguez-Garcia, “Estimation of photovoltaic
system reliability and performance metrics,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 27, no. 1, p. 554-563, Feb. 2012.
[2] F. Bradaschia, M. C. Cavalcanti, P. E. P. Ferraz, F. A. S. Neves, E. C. dos
Santos, and J. H. G. M. da Silva, “Modulation for three-phase transformer-
less z-source inverter to reduce leakage currents in photovoltaic systems,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 5385–5395, Dec. 2011.
[3] T. Kerekes, R. Teodorescu, P. Rodriguez, G. Vazquez, and E. Aldabas, “A
new high-efficiency single phase transformerless PV inverter topology,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 76–84, Jan. 2011.
[4] O. Lopez-Lapena, M. T. Penella, and M. Gasulla, “A new MPPT method
for low-power solar energy harvesting,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 3129–3138, Sep. 2010.
[5] S. V. Dhople, A. Davoudi, A. D. Dominguez Garcia, and P. L. Chapman,
“A unified approach to reliability assessment of multiphase DC–DC con-
verters in photovoltaic energy conversion systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 739–751, Feb. 2012.
[6] T. Esram, P. T. Krein, B. T. Kuhn, R. S. Balog, and P. L. Chapman, “Power
electronics needs for achieving grid-parity solar energy costs,” in Proc.
IEEE Energy 2030 Conf., 2008, pp. 1–5.
[7] S. Vergura, G. Acciani, V. Amoruso, G. E. Patrono, and F. Vacca, “Design
and application for PV generation system using a soft-switching boost
converter with SARC,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 515–
522, Feb. 2010.
[8] S. Vergura, G. Acciani, V. Amoruso, G. E. Patrono, and F. Vacca, “Descrip-
tive and inferential statistics for supervising and monitoring the operation
of PV plants,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 4456–4464,
Nov. 2009.
[9] L. Gao, R. A. Dougal, S. Liu, and A. P. Iotova, “Parallel-connected solar
PV system to address partial and rapidly flactuating shadow conditions,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 1548–1556, May. 2009.
[10] E. Koutroulis, K. Kalaitzakis, and N. C. Voulgaris, “Development of a
microcontroller-based, photovoltaic maximum power point tracking con-
trol system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46–54, Jan.
2001.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012
[11] G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “A multivariable perturb and
obsereve maximum power point tracking technique applied to a single
stage photovoltaic inverter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 1,
pp. 76–84, Jan. 2011.
[12] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “A technique for
improving P&O MPPT performance of double-stage grid-connected pho-
tovoltaic systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 76–84,
Jan. 2011.
[13] R. Kadri, J. P. Gaubert, and G. Champenois, “An improved maximum
power point tracking for photovoltaic grid-connected inverter based on
voltage oriented control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 1,
pp. 66–75, Jan. 2011.
[14] O. Wasynezuk, “Dynamic behavior of a class of photovoltaic power sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Apparat. Syst., vol. PAS-102, no. 9, pp. 3031–
3037, Sep. 1983.
[15] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “Optimization of
perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 963–973, Jul. 2005.
[16] N. Kasa, T. Iida, and L. Chen, “Flyback inverter controlled by sensorless
current MPPT for photovoltaic power system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1145–1152, Aug. 2005.
[17] A. Safari and S. Mekhilef, “Simulation and hardware implementation of
incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method using cuk
converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1154–1161,
Apr. 2011.
[18] Q. Mei, M. Shan, L. Liuand, and J. M. Guerrero, “A novel variable step
size incremental resistance MPPT method for PV systems,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 2427–2434, Jun. 2011.
[19] J. W. Kimball and P. T. Krein, “Discrete-time ripple correlation control for
maximum power point tracking,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23,
no. 5, pp. 2353–5362, Sep. 2008.
[20] S. J. Chiang, K. T. Chang, and C. Y. Yen, “Residential photovoltaic energy
storage system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 385–394,
Jun. 1998.
[21] T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, “Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum
power point tracking techniques,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 439–449, Jun. 2007.
[22] F. Spertino and J. S. Akilimali, “Are manufaturing I-V mismatch and
reverse currents key factors in large photovoltaic arrays?,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 4520–4531, Nov. 2009.
[23] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, “MATLAB-based modeling to study the effects
of partial shading on PV array characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 302–310, Mar. 2008.
[24] A. E. Ghitas and M. Sabry, “A study of the effect of shadowing location
and area on the Si solar cell electrical parameters,” Vacuum, vol. 81,
pp. 475–478, Nov. 2006.
[25] M. Drif, P. J. Pérez, J. Aguilera, and J. D. Aguilar, “A new estimation
method of irradiance on a partially shaded PV generator in grid-connected
photovoltaic systems,” Renewable Energy, vol. 33, pp. 2048–2056, Sep.
2008.
[26] A. Maki and S. Valkealahti, “Power loss in long string and parallel-
connected short strings of series-connected silicon-based photovoltaic
modules due to partial shading conditions,” IEEE Trans. Energy Con-
vers., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 173–183, Mar. 2012.
[27] E. V. Paraskevadaki and S. A. Papathanassiou, “Evaluation of MPP voltage
and power of mc-Si PV modules in partial shading conditions,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 923–932, Sep. 2011.
[28] R. A. Mastromauro, M. Liserre, and A. Dell’Aquila, “Control issues in
single-stage photovoltaic systems: MPPT, current and voltage control,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 241–254, May. 2012.
[29] R. Gules, J. De Pellegrin Pacheco, H. L. Hey, and J. Imhoff, “A maximum
power point tracking system with parallel connection for PV stand-alone
applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2674–2683,
Jul. 2008.
[30] A. Karavadi and R. S. Balog, “Novel non-flat photovoltaic module ge-
ometries and implications to power conversion,” in Proc. Energy Convers.
Congr. Expo., 2011, pp. 7–13.
[31] A. Karavadi, “Power electronics design implications of novel photovoltaic
collector geometries and their application for increased energy harvest,”
M.S. thesis, Dept. Electr. Comput. Eng., Texas A&M Univ., College Sta-
tion, 2011.
[32] W. Herrmann, W. Wiesner, and W. Vaassen, “Hot spot investigations on
PV modules—New concepts for a test standard and consequences for
module design with respect to bypass diodes,” in Proc. Photovolt. Spec.
Conf., 1997, pp. 1129–1132.
BIDRAM et al.: CONTROL AND CIRCUIT TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE PARTIAL SHADING EFFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
[33] M. C. A. Garcı́a, W. Herrmann, W. Böhmer, and B. Proisy, “Thermal
and electrical effects caused by outdoor hot-spot testing in associations of
photovoltaic cells,” Progr. Photovolt.: Res. Appl., vol. 11, pp. 293–307,
2003.
[34] W. Knaupp, “Evaluation of PV module designs at irregular operation
conditions,” in Proc. Photovolt. Spec. Conf., 1997, pp. 1213–1216.
[35] E. Karatepe, M. Boztepe, and M. Çolak, “Development of a suitable
model for characterizing photovoltaic arrays with shaded solar cells,”
Solar Energy, vol. 81, pp. 977–992, Jan. 2007.
[36] A. Kajihara and A. T. Harakawa, “Model of photovoltaic cell circuits under
partial shading,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol., 2005, pp. 866–870.
[37] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, “Maximum power point tracking scheme for PV
systems operating under partially shaded conditions,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1689–1698, Apr. 2008.
[38] E. Karatepe, Syafaruddin, and T. Hiyama, “Simple and high-efficiency
photovoltaic system under non-uniform operating conditions,” IET Re-
newable Power Generat., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 354–368, 2010.
[39] D. Dzung and B. Lehman, “An adaptive solar photovoltaic array us-
ing model-based reconfiguration algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2644–2654, Jul. 2008.
[40] G. Velasco-Quesada, F. Guinjoan-Gispert, R. Pique-Lopez, M. Roman-
Lumbreras, and A. Conesa-Roca, “Electrical PV array reconfiguration
strategy for energy extraction improvememnt in grid-connected PV sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 4319–4331, Nov.
2009.
[41] D. Dzung and B. Lehman, “A reconfigurable solar photovoltaic array
under shadow conditions,” in Proc. Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo.,
2008, pp. 980–986.
[42] E. Roman, R. Alonso, P. Ibanez, S. Elorduizapatarietxe, and D. Goitia,
“Intelligent PV module for grid-connected PV systems,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1066–1073, Aug. 2006.
[43] S. V. Dhople, J. L. Ehlmann, A. Davoudi, and P. L. Chapman, “Multiple-
input boost converter to minimize power losses due to partial shading
in photovoltaic modules,” in Proc. Energy Convers. Congr. Expo., 2010,
pp. 2633–2636.
[44] E. Ozdemir, S. Ozdemir, and L. M. Tolbert, “Fundamental frequency
modulated six-level diode clamped multilevel inverter for three-phase
stand-alone photovoltaic system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56,
no. 11, pp. 4407–4415, Nov. 2009.
[45] J. Rodriguez, L. Jih-Sheng, and P. Fang Zheng, “Multilevel inverters:
A survey of topologies, controls, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 724–738, Aug. 2002.
[46] K. Kobayashi, I. Takano, and Y. Sawada, “A study of a two stage maximum
power point tracking control of a photovoltaic system under partially
shaded insolation conditions,” Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells, vol. 90,
pp. 2975–2988, Nov. 2006.
[47] A. Safari and S. Mekhilef, “Implementation of incremental conductance
method with direct control,” in Proc. IEEE TECON, 2011, pp. 944–948.
[48] J. Young-Hyok, J. Doo-Yong, W. Chung-Yuen, L. Byoung-Kuk, and
K. Jin-Wook, “A real maximum power point tracking method for mis-
matching compensation in PV array under partially shaded conditions,”
IEEE Trans. Power Elctron., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1001–1009, Apr. 2011.
[49] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, “A new technique for tracking the global
maximum power point of PV arrays operating under partial-shading con-
ditions,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184–190, Apr. 2012.
[50] T. L. Nguyen and K. S. Low, “A global maximum power point tracking
scheme employing DIRECT search algorithm for photovoltaic systems,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 3456–3467, Oct. 2010.
[51] B. N. Alajmi, K. H. Ahmed, S. J. Finney, and B. W. Williams, “A
maximum power point tracking technique for partially shaded pho-
tovoltaic systems in micorgrids,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., DOI:
10.1109/TIE.2011.2168796.
[52] G. Carannante, C. Fraddanno, M. Pagano, and L. Piegari, “Experimen-
tal performance of MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic sources subject to
inhomogeneous insolation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11,
pp. 4374–4380, Nov. 2009.
[53] N. Mutoh, M. Ohno, and T. Inoue, “A method for MPPT control while
searching for parameteres corresponding to weather conditions for PV
generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1055–
1065, Aug. 2006.
[54] F. Attivissimo, A. D. Nisio, M. Savino, and M. Spadavecchia, “Uncertainty
analysis in photovoltaic cell parameter estimation,” IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1334–1342, May 2012.
[55] A. Luque and S. Hegedus, Handbook of Photovoltaic Science and Engi-
neering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2002.
545
[56] R. S. Balog, Y. Kuai, and G. Uhrhan, “A photovoltaic module thermal
model using observed insolation and meteorological data to support a
long life, highly reliable module-integrated inverter design by predicting
expected operating temperature,” in Proc. IEEE Energy Convers. Congr.
Expo., 2009, pp. 3343–3349.
[57] N. A. Ahmed and M. Miyatake, “A novel maximum power point tracking
for photovoltaic applications under partially shaded insolation conditions,”
Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 777–784, 2008.
[58] M. Miyatake, T. Inada, I. Hiratsuka, Z. Hongyan, H. Otsuka, and
M. Nakano, “Control characteristics of a fibonacci-search-based maxi-
mum power point tracker when a photovoltaic array is partially shaded,”
in Proc. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., 2004, pp. 816–821.
[59] D. D. Nguyen, B. Lehman, and S. Kamarthi, “Solar photovoltaic array’s
shadow evaluation using neural network with on-Site measurement,” in
Proc. Electr. Power Conf., 2007, pp. 44–49.
[60] Syafaruddin, E. Karatepe, and T. Hiyama, “Artificial neural network-polar
coordinated fuzzy controller based maximum power point tracking control
under partially shaded conditions,” IET Renewable Power Generat., vol. 3,
no. 2, pp. 239–253, 2009.
[61] M. Miyatake, M. Veerachary, F. Toriumi, N. Fujii, and H. Ko, “Maxi-
mum Power point tracking of multiple photovoltaic arrays: A PSO ap-
proach,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electr. Syst., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 367–380,
Jan. 2011.
[62] S. Roy Chowdhury and H. Saha, “Maximum power point tracking of
partially shaded solar photovoltaic arrays,” Solar Energy Mater. Solar
Cells, vol. 94, pp. 1441–1447, 2010.
[63] K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, M. Amjad, and S. Mekhilef, “An improved particle
swarm optimazation (PSO)-based MPPT for PV with reduced steady state
oscillation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 3627–3638,
Aug. 2012.
[64] G. Lijun, R. A. Dougal, L. Shengyi, and A. P. Iotova, “Parallel-connected
solar PV system to address partial and rapidly fluctuating shadow condi-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1548–1556, May
2009.
[65] D. Picault, B. Raison, S. Bacha, J. Aguilera, and J. De La Casa, “Changing
photovoltaic array interconnections to reduce mismatch losses: A case
study,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Environ. Electr. Eng., 2010, pp. 37–40.
[66] N. D. Kaushika and N. K. Gautam, “Energy yield simulations of inter-
connected solar PV arrays,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 127–133, Mar. 2003.
[67] W. Saranrom and S. Polmai, “The efficiency improvement of series con-
nected PV panels operating under partial shading condition by using per-
panel DC/DC converter,” in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Electr. Eng./Electron.,
Comput., Telecom. Inf. Tech., 2011, pp. 760–763.
[68] S. Busquets-Monge, J. Rocabert, P. Rodriguez, S. Alepuz, and J. Bor-
donau, “Multilevel diode-clamped converter for photovoltaic generators
with independent voltage control of each solar array,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2713–2723, Jul. 2008.
[69] S. Busquets-Monge, S. Alepuz, J. Bordonau, and J. Peracaula, “Voltage
balancing control of diode-clamped multilevel converters with passive
front-ends,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1751–1758,
Jun. 2008.
[70] F. Blaabjerg, C. Zhe, and S. B. Kjaer, “Power electronics as efficient
interface in dispersed power generation systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1184–1194, Oct. 2004.
[71] M. C. Cavalcanti, A. M. Farias, K. C. Oliveira, F. A. S. Neves, and
J. L. Afonso, “Eliminating leakage currents in neutral point clamped in-
verters for photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59,
no. 1, pp. 435–443, Jan. 2012.
[72] M. Galvez, E. Bueno, F. J. Rodriguez, F. J. Meca, and A. Rodriguez, “New
MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic systems connected to NPC converters
and optimized for large variations of solar radiation,” in Proc. Energy
Convers. Congr. Expo., 2009, pp. 48–53.
[73] H. Ghoddami and A. Yazdani, “A single-Stage three-phase photovoltaic
system with enhanced maximum power point tracking capability and in-
creased power rating,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1017–
1029, Apr. 2010.
[74] T. Mishima and T. Ohnishi, “A power compensation and control system
for a partially shaded PV array,” Electr. Eng. Jpn., vol. 146, pp. 74–82,
Sep. 2004.
[75] E. Karatepe, T. Hiyama, M. Boztepe, and M. Colak, “Power controller de-
sign for photovoltaic generation system under partially shaded insolation
conditions,” in Proc. Intell. Syst. Appl. Power Syst., 2007, pp. 1–6.
[76] E. Karatepe, T. Hiyama, M. Boztepe, and M. Çolak, “Voltage based
power compensation system for photovoltaic generation system under
546
partially shaded insolation conditions,” Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 49,
pp. 2307–2316, Aug. 2008.
[77] T. Shimizu, M. Hirakata, T. Kamezawa, and H. Watanabe, “Generation
control circuit for photovoltaic modules,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 293–300, May 2001.
[78] T. Kamezawa, M. Hirakata, M. Ohsato, T. Shimizu, G. Kimura, N. Ito,
S. Fukao, N. Sunaga, M. Tsunoda, and K. Muro, “Photovoltaic system
with generation control circuit,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Technol.,
1996, pp. 242–246.
[79] Z. Qi, S. Xiangdong, Z. Yanru, and M. Mikihiko, “A novel topology
for solving the partial shading problem in photovoltaic power generation
system,” in Proc. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., 2009, pp. 2130–
2135.
[80] J. H. R. Enslin, M. S. Wolf, D. B. Snyman, and W. Swiegers, “Integrated
photovoltaic maximum power point tracking converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 769–773, Dec. 1997.
[81] G. R. Walker and P. C. Sernia, “Cascaded DC–DC converter connection
of photovoltaic modules,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 4,
pp. 1130–1139, Jul. 2004.
[82] L. Quan and P. Wolfs, “A review of the single phase photovoltaic module
integrated converter topologies with three different DC link configura-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1320–1333, May
2008.
[83] L. Linares, R. W. Erickson, S. MacAlpine, and M. Brandemuehl, “Im-
proved energy capture in series string photovoltaics via smart distributed
power electronics,” in Proc. Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2009,
pp. 904–910.
[84] E. Román, V. Martinez, J. C. Jimeno, R. Alonso, P. Ibañez, and S. Elor-
duizapatarietxe, “Experimental results of controlled PV module for build-
ing integrated PV systems,” Solar Energy, vol. 82, pp. 471–480, May
2008.
[85] R. K. Hester, C. Thornton, S. Dhople, Z. Zheng, N. Sridhar, and D. Free-
man, “High efficiency wide load range buck/boost/bridge photovoltaic mi-
croconverter,” in Proc. Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2011, pp. 309–
313.
[86] R. Carbone and A. Tomaselli, “Recent advances on AC PV-modules for
grid-connected photovoltaic plants,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Clean Electr.
Power, 2011, pp. 124–129.
[87] C. Prapanavarat, M. Barnes, and N. Jenkins, “Investigation of the per-
formance of a photovoltaic AC module,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gener.
Transm. Distrib., vol. 149, pp. 472–478, Jul. 2002.
[88] S. Poshtkouhi and O. Trescases, “Multi-input single inductor dc–dc con-
verter for MPPT in parallel-connected photovoltaic applications,” in Proc.
Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo., 2011, pp. 41–47.
Ali Bidram (S’09) received the B.S. (Hons.) and
M.S. (Hons.) degrees in electrical engineering from
the Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran, in
2008 and 2010, respectively. He is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree with the University of Texas
at Arlington.
His research interests include the application of
power electronics in power systems, microgrid, and
renewable energy resources.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 2, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2012
Ali Davoudi (S’04–M’11) received the B.Sc. degree
from the Sharif University of Technology, Tehran,
Iran, the M.Sc. degree from The University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, and the
Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, in 2003, 2005, and 2010, respectively,
all in electrical and computer engineering.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Texas at Arlington. He was with Solar Bridge Tech-
nologies, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Royal
Philips Electronics. His research interests are all aspects of modeling, simula-
tion, and control of power electronics and energy conversion systems, renewable
energy sources, and transportation electrification.
Dr. Davoudi is an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICU-
LAR TECHNOLOGY and the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS.
He is also the guest associate editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER
ELECTRONICS Special Issue on Transportation Electrification and Vehicle
Systems.
Robert S. Balog (S’92–M’96–SM’07) received the
B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Rutgers-
The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick,
NJ, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical en-
gineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
He was an Engineer with Lutron Electronics,
Coopersburg, PA, from 1996 to 1999, a Researcher
with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Engineering
Research and Development Center (ERDEC), Con-
struction Engineering Research Lab (CERL), Cham-
paign, IL, from 2005 to 2006, a Senior Engineer with SolarBridge Technologies,
Champaign, from 2006 to 2009, and he then joined Texas A&M University, Col-
lege Station, where he is currently an Assistant Professor with the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He holds 11 issued and pending U.S.
patents. His current research interests include power converters for solar energy,
particularly microinverters for ac photovoltaic modules and highly reliable elec-
trical power and energy systems, including dc microgrids.
Dr. Balog is a Registered Professional Engineer in Illinois. He received the
IEEE Joseph J. Suozzi INTELEC Fellowship in Power Electronics in 2001. He
is a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Sigma Xi, the National Society of Professional
Engineers, the American Solar Energy Society, and the Solar Electric Power As-
sociation. He received the 2011 Rutgers College of Engineering Distinguished
Engineer Award.