Abstract
Background: Due to the partial shading effects on different photovoltaic (PV) modules in a PV array, PV module operating conditions are inconsistent, and PV array output power is significantly reduced. Although the maximum power point (MPP) of a non-uniform irradiance PV array can be observed through global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT), no evaluation of the array's energy potential has been done.
Objective: One of the most effective solutions to overcome the negative effects of partial shading in PV systems is the PV array reconfiguration process. To optimize the electrical structure of the PV array as the PV modules are partially shaded in a non-uniform manner, this study proposes a promising technique for dynamic reconfiguring a PV array in order to improve the extracted maximum power from a PV array under partial shading conditions (PSC).
Method: PV modules are rearranged by iteratively sorting them to allow the PV array with nonuniform irradiance to produce as much power as possible. This is conducted by applying a switching matrix to implement a PV-switched system approach. The proposed system with different PV array dimensions (e.g., 3×4, 4×6, and 5×8) is assessed in order to validate the proposed algorithm. A MATLAB/Simulink PV array developed model is used to find the global maximum power point for the different PV array dimensions in both pre-reconfiguration and post-reconfiguration states.
Results: A detailed numerical comparison of the extracted power from the proposed system has been provided.
Conclusion: The results show that the proposed system has the potential to extract the exact global maximum power for a PV-switched system under PSC, irrespective of array dimensions, according to simulation results.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2023.170559]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.09.089]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.056]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.07.039]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CIPECH.2016.7918765]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/INDICON.2015.7443701]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120241]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.04.042]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.020]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2230033]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.059]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.080]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.04.039]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.10.020]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.010]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110754]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2008.924169]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2024664]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3018722]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.067]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3036124]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2021.3049720]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.080]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2414180]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.n75a10]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACPEE51499.2021.9437140]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2208128]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2005.1529064]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PESC.2008.4592234]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.008]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.26634/jee.5.4.1863]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.104317]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/j3010005]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.070]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.02.057]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.01.020]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2002.805204]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC.2010.5490027]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCEP.2009.5212083]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en11102743]