[Link].

com/scientificreports

OPEN Performance analysis of partially

shaded high‑efficiency mono
PERC/mono crystalline PV module
under indoor and environmental
conditions
Neha Kumari 1, Sanjay Kumar Singh 1*, Sanjay Kumar 2 & Vinay Kumar Jadoun 3*

The ever-increasing demand for sustainable energy has drawn attention towards photovoltaic
efficiency and reliability. In this context, the shading and associated hotpot degradation within PV
modules has become an important area of research and development. The experimental approach of
this paper aims to investigate single cell shading in high efficiency monocrystalline silicon PV PERC
modules. Prior to the outdoor experiment, the PV module underwent experimental testing under
STC to determine variation in electrical and thermal behaviour due to partial shading. The indoor
experiments are performed using Sun-simulator and the I–V and P–V curves are analysed. Further,
the outdoor experiments were performed under realistic conditions. In both cases, results showed
that during 40–60% shading in single cell leads to critical shading scenario causing significant drop
in power output in comparison with their unshaded conditions. The maximum power loss of 36.34%
and 42% is recorded for indoor and outdoor experiments. The outdoor experiments recorded hotspot
temperature of 85–90.1 °C under respective 40% and 60% critical shading scenarios. The efficiency
recorded in the time interval of 11:00:00 and 11:30:00 was highest for the solar radiations between
940 and 990 W/m2. The maximum drop in efficiency is recorded from noon till 13:30:00 time of the
day. Development of hotspot is directly related to the failure or malfunction of protecting system.
Hence the importance of type of PV technology, amount of shading, and critical shading scenario is
presented in the study. This study is important for researcher and manufacture to consider single cell
shading in PV technology.

Keywords Hotspot, Power output, Photovoltaic, Partial shading, Efficiency

Abbreviations
PV Photovoltaic
MPP Maximum power point
FF Fill factor
PERC Passivated emitter and rear contact
STC Standard test condition
NOCT Nominal operating cell temperature
MTC Module test container
PLG Pulse light generator

As stated in a report by “Renewables 2022, Global Status Report” the solar PV industry outshines by adding 175
Gigawatts of new capacity in 2021, as evidenced in Fig. 1. The statistical data are presented by REN 21 which
is the only community at global level that provide updates, data, facts, figures, policies related to renewables.
Figure 1 represent the year-by-year data giving clear picture of year wise increase in solar Photovoltaic capacity

1
Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur, India. 2Department
of Electrical Engineering, UIT, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, H.P., India. 3Department of Electrical &
Electronics Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal,
Karnataka, India. *email: [Link]@[Link]; [Link]@[Link]

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 1.  Solar PV Global Capacity and annual addition from 2011 to ­20211,2.

installations presented by report. Year 2021 experienced the largest ever yearly capacity increase. The total global
solar PV capacity expanded at the fastest rate ever observed, summing up to 942 ­GW1,2. Three generations of
PVs are available in the market including the first-generation family comprising crystalline si-solar technologies,
second-generation is of thin-film technologies, and the third-generation includes emerging PVs technologies.
The upcoming research in the field of various PV technologies focuses on materials and devices that are
extremely efficient, environmentally friendly, economical, operate consistently, and integrate seamlessly. For
PV professionals, preventing failures entirely is still the primary objective.
In this context, the degradation processes of photovoltaic systems primarily determine their lifetime and
reliability. Several studies have indicated that localized overheating, or "hot spots," should receive special
attention because it is identified as one of the primary causes of abrupt failures and accelerated aging. One of
the primary reasons for hotspots is shading. With this aim, a methodology is developed where the behaviour
of a monocrystalline solar module under shading is experimentally analysed under controlled indoor standard
testing setup and outdoor climatic conditions.
A PV module is a combination of a number of solar cells together having series and parallel connections. A
single-diode equivalent circuit is typically used to represent a PV c­ ell3,4 as demonstrated in Fig. 2a. The light-
induced current IL , the diode dark saturation current Is , the diode quality factor m, series resistance Rs , and
shunt resistance Rsh are the five modeling parameters. The above-mentioned modeling parameters get affected
by the variation in ambient conditions like irradiation and temperature. Changes in irradiance are reflected in
the light-induced c­ urrent5. Equation 1 represents the terminal Current (I) and Voltage (V) equation of the PV
cell in terms of the above-mentioned modeling parameters.
   
(V + IRs ) V + IRs
I = IL − Is exp −1 − (1)
mnse VT Rsh
where nse is the number of series-connected cells in the PV module, VT is the thermal voltage. The I–V
characteristic of a whole PV module comes from the I–V characteristics of the constituent solar cell.
A typical current–voltage (I–V) and power–voltage (P–V) curve of the cell, module, or array is shown in
Fig. 2b. Figure 2b shows that both the curves I–V curve does not have any multiple steps and the P–V curve has

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.  (a) A schematic model of a single diode solar cell (b) corresponding electrical characteristics of a solar
cell.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

only one peak point called the Maximum power point ( Mpp). These characteristics represent the standard form
of the I–V curve and P–V curve. In case of degradation, these electrical characteristics tend to c­ hange6. Figure 2b
shows three crucial points on the I–V and P–V curves: the short circuit point (V = 0, I = Isc ), the open circuit
point (I = 0, V = Voc ), and the MPP point. An illuminated solar cell delivers a specific voltage at a given current.
The operating point of a solar PV system is the combination of current and voltage values. A particular operating
point of a solar cell is fixed with a load resistance. The short and open circuit conditions associated with a solar
cell are defined as the load resistance equal to zero or infinitely large, respectively. The current and voltage values
at short-circuit and open-circuit conditions are called short-circuit current ( Isc ) and open-circuit voltage (Voc ),
respectively. There is one specific point where the amps ( Imp ) times volts (Vmp ) generate the greatest wattage.
This point on the I–V characteristic curve of an illuminated solar cell is called the maximum power point Pmax.
Pmax = Vmp ∗ Imp (2)
The additional parameter sets the maximum power generated with the product of Voc and Isc and is called
the Fill Factor (FF).
Pmax
FF = (3)
Isc ∗ Voc
The ratio of the useful output power (delivered by the conversion device) to the incident power (of the solar
radiation) is called the efficiency (η) of a solar cell.
Vmp ∗ Imp
η= (4)
S ∗ Ar
S = solar irradiation (W/m2), Ar = module surface area (­ m2).
The dependability and performance of PV modules may be severely affected by the faults that develop gradu-
ally in a PV system in outdoor conditions. The electrical performance of PV modules is constrained by several
factors, including the inefficiency of the cells, the discontinuity of the solar source, the unpredictable nature of
the weather, and inefficient working circumstances brought on by electrical m ­ ismatch7. The two variables that
influence I–V characteristics are temperature and solar radiation. As solar irradiance fluctuates all day long, the
I–V and P–V characteristics vary accordingly. Temperature plays yet another critical factor in defining solar
cell efficiency. This paper aims to understand how the attributes of the I–V and P–V curves get affected due to
shading, specifically in Mono PERC PV modules under STC conditions and outdoor conditions. Thereafter, to
conclude the potential development of hotspots in PERC monocrystalline PV technologies. A research study
presented by authors DC Jordan et al., presented that hotspot are major concerns over past decade in installed
PV system. Single cell shading is very crucial point to consider as it is related with turning ON of protecting
during hotspot development in a PV system. However, it is been observed that a vast study is been done either
on small wattage solar panel and individual solar cell inside laboratory or the research is been conducted on a
commercial large scale PV system. As mentioned in the r­ eport8 with almost 60% market share, PERC design
is consolidating its supremacy in commercial field. Hence it calls attention to research the impact of dynamic
environment on thermal and electrical behaviour of commercial designs high efficiency PERC PV modules due
to single cell shading. The study targets to finds out the critical shading area for a single cell in case of commercial
PERC modules that could cause hotspot to develop. The extended part of the research finds out the maximum
efficiency and duration when the maximum efficiency is achieved in several shading percentages. Hence the
work provides following key contributions as:

1. Critically analyses of the environmental impacts on high efficiency commercial monocrystalline PERC PV
Module and analyse the vulnerability of PERC technology towards partial shading and hotspot development.
2. Electrical and thermal responses PV Modules as well as the severity of shading of single cell in high efficiency
PERC Modules.
3. With the aid of data acquisition systems, the experiments are continuously monitored and the various read-
ings of temperature, output power, efficiency is recorded during the day.
4. The influence of type of PV technology, amount of shading, critical shading percentage is presented in
the study. This study is important for researcher and manufacture to consider single cell shading in PERC
modules. Based on the recorded results a novel technique could be researched in future studies to improve
the protecting circuit against hotspot formation.

Literature review
Shading and its impact on PV module
Understanding the efficiency, reliability, and durability of photovoltaics is very important in perspective with
the rapid growth of PV systems. A PV system’s performance is directly affected by shading. Shading can be in
any form—complete shadow or partial shadow. The shaded portion of the illuminated PV module acts as load
resistance and starts to consume the electrical power. In such conditions, the unshaded parts of the PV module
compel the shaded part to go in reverse bias condition. Under reverse bias conditions, the shaded portion dis-
sipates power, causing surface temperature to increase and consequently leading to hotspot. A bypass diode
is therefore needed to prevent irreversible damage to the shaded solar module. The most frequent causes of
shadowing a PV module are vegetation, buildings, the build-up of dust and soil, and animal and bird waste. A
shading defect caused by any of these reasons leads to a drop in generated output power. Entire PV panels in the

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

array will be impacted if a single cell or single PV panel experiences shading. Therefore, it’s crucial to work on
how to lessen the impact of shading on PV systems.
There has been intensive research done to understand the on how the shading is impacting energy of a PV
­system9,10. Figure 3 gives a brief demonstration of I–V curves in two different scenarios: uniformly illuminated
PV module and partially illuminated PV module. The degradation caused by shading is meticulously presented
in a research paper by M. C. García et al. The work done in their research demonstrated the diode characteristics
under shaded conditions, where a PV cell tends to function in the 3rd quadrant, indicating the power output
response of a shaded ­module11. Another research work demonstrated that the partial shade hinders the PV
performance and damages or degrades the module over t­ ime12. According to Lappalainen et al., the partial
shading is primary reasons of mismatch losses observed in a PV system. The sharp shadows create the largest
mismatch loss. These types of shadows are major issues on the roof top as well as residential ­installations13.
Partial shadows created by moving clouds are of great concern in large-scale PV setups, creating mild irradi-
ance variations among adjacent PV modules. Mohammedi A. et al., 2014 presented the complexity and substantial
impact of shadowing. Their research work showed that several partially shaded arrays can impact the output
more severely than one completely shaded a­ rray14. Another research article confirmed the power loss of up to
10% to 70% due to ­shading15.
The connection configuration in a module is one of the significant factors that impact the outputs under shad-
ing. However, Vigni et al., 2015 demonstrated that incorporating an extra DC/DC converter and modifications
in the configuration of the PV system could upscale the array’s energy yield by 30% and power losses by shading
can be recovered by 13%16. The authors presented different configurations of series–parallel combinations to
lessen the effect of partial shading. However, the effect of by-pass diode was not c­ onsidered17. The research article
by Indu et al. proposed a novel Su Do Ku arrangement, which could effectively reduce the effect of shading in
a PV ­system18. The bypass diode can prevent a cell voltage from reaching its breakdown voltage while shading.
However, Rossi et al. in their experiment concluded that detrimental effects due to shading, such as hotspots,
still may appear even if the by-diodes are incorporated into the ­module19.
A research article proposed a novel topology incorporating BJT with two MOSFETs instead of using a bypass
diode to maintain the voltage positive across the shaded cell. This advancement could successfully lower the
power loss due to shading. However, the model complexity and overall system cost i­ncreased20. The shading
can cause the variation in the temperature at cell and module level. The result of a research study demonstrated
temperature surges and decrease in output voltage under various shadow s­ ituations21. Software-implemented
research is also one of the approaches used to analyze PV modules under shading. Several methodologies have
been identified in recent research such as artificial neural networking to recognize the short circuit types of faults

(a) (b)
Fig. 3.  I–V characteristics of a module (a) Uniformly illuminated (b) Partially shaded.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

in a PV a­ rray22 while few other authors incorporated fuzzy logic for the same p ­ urpose23. Software-employed
simulation-based models, such as PSpice, PSIM, EMT, and others, are used thoroughly to investigate shadowing
effects on photovoltaic s­ ystems24,25. Though quite a large literature is available for partial shading in conventional
field installed modules, addressing partial shading in BIPV is still a new emerging research area. Authors Q. Li
et al. presented their remarkable work where a multi-physics mathematical model is presented to foresee the
performance of electrical, thermal and structural parameters under three conditions like no-shading, shading
and masking and predicts when the hot-spot occurs in BIPV ­technology26. Yet a significant research regard-
ing power output prediction in partially shaded BIPV is presented by L. Zhu et al. where the author proposed
a thoughtful approach that correlated the solar cell shaded area proportion (%) with photocurrent and series
resistor. Based on this analysis, a simplified mathematical model is presented to predict the various parameter
under the partial shading conditions. Secondly, they demonstrated relationship between shaded area proportion
(%) with I–V and P–V results of PV Module and finally descried the method to maximise the power output of
BIPV ­Module27. The present literature addresses the issue to partial shading and give us an idea how research in
this field can lead to improvement in performances of different PV technologies.

Hotspot in photovoltaic
Generating hotspots in PV systems is one of the most challenging conditions. Hotspots can be understood as
localized heat sources that may develop in any part of a PV module, leading to an increase in temperature in
a particular area. Many reasons are pointed out in the available literature for the development of the hotspot,
such as sudden changes in the day-to-night temperature transition. One of the significant reasons for hotspot
development documented in the literature is “shading”28. The appearance of I–V curve provides much informa-
tion about hotspot h­ eating29. Due to their frequency and severity, hotspot has emerged as one of the prevalent
modes of degradation in installed PV s­ ystems30. However, some authors used a bypass diode to reduce the
hotspot mechanism. The concept of bypass diode was initially proposed in the year 1982 to reduce power loss
and hotspot ­conditions31.
The temperature in hotspot areas may even rise over 100 °C, which further leads to other degradations like
breakage of glass and browning discoloration, and it may even induce fire in severe c­ ases32. A research article
reported that partial shading is more dangerous than full-cell shading. The paper proposed a new approach to
identify the shading in a PV module and, hence, knowing the stage where the cell is destroyed permanently
due to localized ­heating19. In their article, the author showed the numerous ways to recognize the impact of
shading and hotspots. They also demonstrated the impact of non-uniformity of solar radiation using infrared
­techniques33. The research study showed that shading ratios from 40 to 60% potentially increased the temperature
of the shaded portion from 25 to 105 °C, ­respectively34. Even the new design technology is facing hotspots due to
shading responses. In an experiment, shingled modules showed a greater tendency to build a hotspot than half-
cut modules when both modules are exposed to the same shading responses. The hotspot of 145 °C temperature
was observed in the study, along with the variation in the cell characteristics during ­shading35. In addition, the
presence of shading creates the chances of generations of hotspots that may cause the development of multiple
peaks in the cell characteristics that directly impact the output generations and drop the life expectancy of the
PV ­module36. With the technology advancement there are many cutting-edge techniques aim to increase the
resilience of PV technology in various conditions including shading. In one of the recent research studies, the
authors proposed a novel circuit design to mitigate the hotspot in PV Module by employing a dual stage current
comparator. Through this technique, the hotspot temperature of 55 °C dropped to 35 °C and the output power
increased by 5.3%37. Another novel circuit for hotspot mitigation is proposed by authors Ghosh et al. where the
circuit named as HSMC- Hotspot Mitigation Circuit is capable of reducing elevated cell temperature by 10 °C
under mismatch conditions by modified bypass t­ echniques38. Such a technique could be very beneficial for large
scale PV systems potentially reducing mitigation process. Recent literature presented an article on optimization
technique called as a black widow reconfiguration which proposed to boost power output and better functioning
scenario in partial shading conditions. The technique showed better power generation in dynamic and static
partial conditions and mismatch losses get minimised with its ­implementation39. All these progressions together
aim addressing the problem of hotspot and mitigating the development of hotspot.

Fundamental details to estimate hotspot temperature

Reverse biasing of a solar cell leads to power dissipation that could accelerate ageing and increase failure rates in
PV ­module40. The hotspot temperature can be estimated as described ­below41 through result could be technol-
ogy specific as w ­ ell42:
For m number of PV cells in a string protected by a diode of a PV module operating under S irradiance with
Tcell be the cell temperature, Voltage be V and Current be IC , a condition of hotspot develops in a cell when its
ISCD that is short circuit current decreases due any internal and external factors as shown in Eq. 5:
ISCD < IC (5)
Consequently, the hotspot-affected PV cell inclines to work at a negative voltage:
Vdf = −(n − 1)Vndf + V (6)
where df and ndf in the subscript representation defective (hotspot affected) and non-defected PV cell respec-
tively. Ths is the increase in temperature in the defective (hotspot affected) as compared with healthy cell (non-
defective cells). The Ths is directly related to the product of IC × Vdf .
Ths can be calculated as:

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

IC × Vdf
Ths ≈ CT × (7)
A
where A is the surface area of the cell, CT denotes the thermal dissipation coefficient. CT can be calculated using
Eq. 4. The NOCT is the nominal operating cell temperature.
NOCT − 20
CT = (8)
800 W/m2

Electro‑thermal modelling of a PV cell under hotspot condition

Thermal modeling provides clarity in finding the temperature of the shaded area ( THS ) of the module under
hotspot (Ar HS ) while the entire area of the PV cell is denoted by Ar cell . The time “t” is the instant at which the
PV module undergoes the shading condition, and the tHS is the generic time instant (reverse bias state), where
the PV cell undergoes hotspot conditions. The thermal model can be used to determine the thermal behaviour
of a shaded PV cell. Figure 4 represents the equivalent thermal model to estimate the time dependence of the
temperature of the portion of PV cell (Ar HS ) under hotspot conditions. Two series of interconnected RC circuits
are present in the thermal model. The upper RC circuit in Fig. 4 demonstrates the temporal functioning Ar HS
during full or partial shading as a function of Pdiss , the power dissipated in the shunt resistor Rsh, shunt resistor.
The lower RC circuit explanation the temporal functioning of the PV cell temperature as a function of Solar
irradiation (Tcell ) only.
The expression for computing THS (t) is explained in the equation:
THS (t) = Ta + RTHcell sirr {t < tHS } (9)
  
t−tHS
− R CTHcell
THS (t) = Ta + Arcell RTHcell Sirr (t) β + (1 − β)e THcell

 
t−tHS
 (10)
−
+ Pdiss RTH−HS 1 − e RTH−HS CTH−HS {t ≥ tHS }

S
where β = irr−shaded
Sirr shows the relative mismatch condition in the solar irradiance between shaded (Sirr−shaded )
and the uniformly illuminated cell that is unshaded (Sirr).
Equation (9) represents the condition before a hot spot condition develops (t < tHS ); during this moment,
the temperature of the whole module PV cell is constant and can be seen as THS = Tcell Ta + RTHcell Sirr . In this
condition, the PV cell works under Solar irradiation Sirr and represents solar PV cell in forward biased condition.
Hence, power dissipation is negligible, and cell temperature depends only on Solar irradiation,Sirr . Ta is known
to be the ambient temperature of the module.
Equation (10) illustrates the shaded PV cell entering hotspot condition (t ≥ tHS ). Under this condition, two
phenomena are noticed: the shaded PV cell is impacted by reduced solar irradiation,Sirr , and contribution of
power dissipation through Rsh . The reduction in solar irradiation tends to reduce the temperature with time,
while the power dissipation causes an increase in temperature. It has been well observed in the available literature
that the power dissipation through Rsh is more dominant than primary phenomena causing temperature THS ,
to rise very quickly.
The parameters in the above equation THS, RTH−HS , CTH−HS , represents temperature, thermal resistance and
­ 2/W], [°C · m
thermal capacitance given in [°C], [°C · m ­ 2 · s/W] respectively, of the PV cell of area Ar HS under

Fig. 4.  The equivalent thermal model to estimate the temperature of the portion of PV cell (Ar HS) under
hotspot conditions with time.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

­ 2/W] , CTHcell [°C · ­m2· s/W] represents temperature, thermal resistance

going hotspot. Tcell [◦ C], RTHcell , [°C · m
and thermal capacitance respectively for the rest of the PV module area not under hotspot. The parameters
RTH−HS , CTH−HS depend upon the materials incorporating the top layers of the module cells.
The literature makes it evident that a significant study has been performed on impacts of partial shading in
a PV Module.

Methodology
Combining laboratory and outdoor testing is helpful to ensure that PV modules meet their performance require-
ments and consistently produce power over their operational lifetime. Different PV technologies tested inside
a laboratory may behave when installed in outdoor conditions. This study aims to analyse how a commercial
PV module behaves when placed in outdoor conditions. Partial or full shading of PV systems is a widespread
phenomenon. However, shading could generate non-linearities in electrical characteristics of PV systems. The
initial investigation of the PV module is done in the laboratory under STC conditions. Under standard condi-
tions, different shading percentages are applied to a single PV cell, and the responses of the PV module are
recorded. The experiment records the obtained variations in: electrical characteristics, performance parameters,
temperature of the shaded cell, and temperature of the entire PV module due to shading.
The results of shaded and unshaded are recorded and analysed. A module may behave very differently when
installed in outdoor conditions. Due to variable solar radiation and ambient temperature, the shading may impact
the efficiency and performance of photovoltaic modules Under fielded conditions. Hence, during outdoor test-
ing, the impact of shading is analysed under various shading scenarios. After that, possibilities for the develop-
ment of hotspots are analysed. Along with this, various electrical parameters and electrical characteristics are
noted. It should be noted that for some temperature directly depends on concentration of leakage current. The
temperature increase is influenced by the region where the power is d ­ issipated11. The outdoor experiment will
present a thorough impact on thermal and electrical properties due to shaded PV cell. The operation of diode
conduction depends on two phenomena—the amount of shading and the shape of the I–V characteristic obtained
under a shaded scenario. The measured temperature of the shaded cell through the day is important to attain
a corelation between shade-affected PV cells, bypass diode, and increase in temperature. Furthermore, experi-
ments performed in the laboratory will provide basic information about the possibility of hotspot occurrence
in shaded cells subsequently supported by outdoor testing. The detailed experimental setup is explained below.
The experimental approach adopted to determine the corelation between outdoor behaviour and flasher val-
ues under standard test settings. This involves repeated laboratory and field measurements under different partial
shading conditions. This method seeks to examine the connection between the STC warranties and real-world
experiences for commercial PERC monocrystalline technology. Terawatt Testing and Research Institute Private
Limited, Rajasthan, is renowned organization that provides the accredited solar testing indoor and outdoor
laboratory where all the measurement procedure are performed with complete quality management system as
per ISO/IEC-17025 standards.
The I–V and P–V measurements are recorded during indoor experiments with a steady state G-Sola AAA sun
simulator capable of generating variable irradiations from 400 to 1100 W/m2. The simulator is designed as per
IEC 60904 guidelines and meets international guidelines. The entire system has 3 units, the module test container
(MTC) where the module is placed, pulse light generator (PLG) which generator the pulse for flashes and I–V test
operating system. The I–V test system has an operating software, LabVIEW, to record and present various I–V
and P–V curves. An electronic load and professional data acquisition system is also present to trace the graph
and record all the experimental results. The simulator makes use of xenon lamps as a source of light generator
to stimulate natural sun light for testing purpose to match AM 1.5 spectrum. In the present study, experiment
is conducted with fixed irradiation of 1000 W/m2 and variable shading percentages on a single cell. The I–V
and P–V curves, Isc, Voc,Pmax , ɳ are generated and recorded through the software system as a procedure of the
experiments. During the test, the PV module is exposed to flash test analysis, which will confirm the accuracy
as mentioned in the datasheet. After that, the PV module is tested with the flash test for different partial shading
conditions which is explained next section.
The outdoor work intends to form a bridge between STC data collected from the laboratory and yield of the
partially shaded PV module. Though experiments performed indoor offers a highly controlled setup, the results
may differ in the external environments due to varying ambient conditions. To understand the partial shading
and hotspot development further, an outdoor experimental study is performed. The module is tested to analyse
the electrical and thermal response due to single cell shading. All the variables such as solar irradiation, daily
ambient temperature, wind and humidity are recorded continuously and saved with the automatic data loggers
available at the outdoor setup. At present this is the best methodology adopted to understand the development
of hotspot due cracks, mismatch caused by partial shadings.

Indoor experimental setup

The location for the experimental setup is the Terawatt Testing And Research Institute (TTRI), Khushkhera,
Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, India. The indoor laboratory setup is shown in the Fig. 5. The laboratory has a well-designed
experimental setup with a Solar simulator Class-AAA, providing variable irradiations ranging from 400 till 1100
W/m2, Data logger with LabVIEW software that extracts I–V and P–V curves, Temperature gun -Fluke model.
The electrical specifications of the PV module are given in Table 1. Various shading profiles are created using an
opaque black rubber piece, as shown in Fig. 5. The opaque black rubber piece was positioned on the immediate
surface of the cell. The sun simulator is used to create an artificial environment of the sun and, along with it, a
software incorporated with it. This setup provides information on electrical characteristics and parameters like
output power, efficiency, and fill factor. Figure 5 gives the indoor setup at the PV testing laboratory.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 5.  (a) reflect a 72-cell monocrystalline PERC PV module representing the method and material used for
shading. (b) shows the PV module positioned on the Sun Simulator for experimental purposes.

PREL -370W (monocrystalline PV module)

Rated peak power (W) 370 Wp
Open circuit voltage 48 V
Short circuit current 9.90 A
Fill factor 77.82%
Efficiency 19.57%
Junction box IP67/IP68 3 bypass diode
Cell encapsulant EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate)

Table 1.  Module specification.

Experimental procedure at Standard conditions

For PERC, monocrystalline PV panel experiments are performed in two steps. The STC conditions are character-
ized by 1000 W/m2 of solar irradiance with cell temperature of 25 °C.

I. Primarily, the experiment is conducted under no shading conditions. The electrical parameters and
characteristics are recorded. This is done to verify that the module is in healthy condition and does not
pursue an initial defect.
II. Secondarily, the shading is applied from the bottom to the top of the module. The shading starts by cov-
ering 20% of the cell area, then 40%, 60%, and 80%. Finally, the complete shading is done by covering
100% of the area of the selected cell.

The implemented shading pattern is shown in Fig. 6 and the arrangement of outdoor experimental setup
is explained in Fig. 7. Their respective electrical characterization results are demonstrated in Figs. 8, 9 and 10,
respectively.

Outdoor experimental setup

The experiment is conducted in the outdoor testing setup at Terawatt Testing and Research Institute (TTRI),
Khushkhera, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, INDIA. The installation setup has a bracket when module is placed at south
facing angle at a tilt of 28°. Two K-type thermocouples are attached at the back side of the module to get the
reading of shaded and unshaded cell during the experiment. On the top of the bracket, a pyranometer is installed
at 28° of inclination to get the readings of varying solar irradiance. The entire setup of the PV system is attached
to an automatic data logger that tracks and record the measured data. The various environmental conditions
like humidity, ambient temperature, and wind speed are monitored with the sensors installed at the institute;

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 6.  Shading percentage on single PV cell by using black rubber piece.

Fig. 7.  The figure depict the arrangement of outdoor experimental setup, (a) represents the placement of
pyranometer and thermocouples attached at the back side of the module to record temperature elevation (b)
show the alignment of the module during experiments (c) Attachment of thermocouple.

however, such readings are not required for this experiment. Usually, these measurements play a significant role
in PV predictive modeling, hence eliminated in the presented papers.
All outdoor experiments are conducted on the mono PERC module, which is initially tested in indoor
conditions in the lab. The outdoor experimental studies are conducted in the month of April, 2023. The weather
condition during this month in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan is typically dry and hot climate. The average relative humidity
during the days when experiments were conducted is noted to be approximately 20.6%. The precipitation was
minimal round the month of about 0.02 mm which show very dry conditions. The outdoor experiments are

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 9

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 8.  The generated I–V and P–V characteristics of PV module at standard testing conditions.

Fig. 9.  Module I–V response under different shading percentages.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 10

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

Fig. 10.  Module P–V response under shading percentage.

Condition Shading Pmax (Watt) Efficiency (η) Fill factor (F.F.)

STC No shading 364.822 18.55% 76.14%

Table 2.  Performance parameters of the module tested at STC.

performed on a clear and sunny day with an average ambient temperature for the month noted to be + 34 °C
and the average wind speed for the month is 1.5 m/sec. The readings are noted for every single minute for the
whole day, starting from 08:15:00 to 17:30:00; however, the results are analyzed from time 9:00:00 to 16:00:00.
The average solar irradiation noted at 9:00:00 is 560 W/m2 and 470 W/m2 at 16:00:00 during the days when test
is performed. However, these values keep on increasing as the day passes by, reach a peak value, and drop by
post afternoon. It is also observed that there is not much variation observed in the irradiance during the noon
time as the angle of inclination of sun rays is smallest around 12 noon.

Results and discussion

First, the experiments are conducted in an indoor laboratory setup under STC conditions. The different shading
profiles are implemented by covering 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% of the cell area. After that, the experimental
analysis is performed outdoors with the exact shading percentages starting from 20 to 100% and applied on five
consecutive days respectively. The results are noted down and discussed in the subsections below. All the meas-
urements are recorded according to standards and under ISO/IEC-17025 accredited l­ aboratory43,44.

Experimental analysis of indoor testing

Electrical characteristics at standard test conditions with no shading
Primarily, the test is conducted on a fully illuminated, unshaded module PV module at STC (indoor)conditions.
Figure 8 shows recorded I–V and P–V curves of the module at standard test conditions. The blue graph shows
the current–voltage curve, and the power–voltage curve are shown by red curve. For the I–V curve, the x-axis
shows the voltage (V) whereas the y-axis shows the current (I) measurements. Likewise for P–V curves, the

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 11

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

x-axis shows the voltage (V) and y-axis shows the power (P) measurements. Figure 8 demonstrate the curves to
be in perfect shape and no deviations from standard shapes. The recorded values of short circuit current is 9.81
A, open circuit voltage is 48 V, and maximum output power is 364.822 W. The other performance parameters,
which are efficiency and fill factor, are available in Table 2.

Electrical characteristics at standard test conditions with shading

PV modules with shading defects can be easily traced with I–V and P–V curve characterization. Numerous
studies have demonstrated the occurrence of multiple steps in I–V characteristics and multiple notches in P–V
curves of the shaded PV ­modules45,46. Multiple local maxima were found in simulation and experimental studies
conducted on a 72 mono-crystalline cells 180 W PV. The author found that such a condition is very dangerous
and can source permanent ­damage47. Even type of distribution of shadow can cause damage to the PV Module.
In this context Bayrak et al. 2017 demonstrated the influence of vertical, horizontal, and cellular shading on the
output of PV ­modules48. The corelation between shaded area and its influence on output is presented by Galeano
et al. 2018. Their findings showed that rise in shadow coverage influences the standard shapes of the I– curve and
minimises the maximum output c­ urrent49. Similar results were obtained in a study where the results showed the
occurrence of multiple peaks in the I–V and P–V curves with cellular and vertical type shading but no variation
in the curve with horizontal s­ hading50. Authors Lyden and Haque presented a methodology to estimate the influ-
ence of partial shading for operational PV systems. The results confirmed the visible multiple global maximum
power points due to shading under rapidly changing irradiance ­conditions51. The authors in their work analysed
the impact of shading generated by buildings shading, wire poles shading, plants and birds droppings shading
on 20 MWp grid-connected photovoltaic project in northwest China and found similar distractions in electrical
­characteristics52. A study analysed the PV system under shaded with using MATLAB/Simpower system software.
The author demonstrated the effect of shape, intensity and distance of shadow on a PV ­system53. Figures 9 and
10 exemplify the recorded results under different shading profiles, respectively.

Interpretation of electrical characteristics obtained from indoor experiment

The I–V and P–V curves represents the electrical characteristics of PV module. These curves have a standard
shape under healthy working conditions. Any kind of faults in PV module, distorts I–V and P–V curves from
their actual shapes. The graphs in Figs. 9 and 10 show visible steps and notches in I–V and P–V curves, respec-
tively. According to literature, the results in Figs. 9 and 10 are clear indications of mismatch due to shading in the
PV ­module47,54–57. The maximum power point (MPP) in a PV system, method monitors the instances where the
maximum power is produced. Under no-fault conditions, there is just a single maximum point, as demonstrated
in Fig. 8. While under shading, the PV panel has multiple operating points, which can be seen in this paper
as well in Fig. 10. Under such conditions, the MMP tracker finds it challenging to distinguish a single GMMP
(Global Maximum Power Point) from several local maxima (peaks). Its nature of unique global peak is defined
by array configuration and shading pattern.
Due to shading in a single PV cell, the short circuit current Isc shows minor drop in its original unshaded
values. Hence, the Isc of the PV module is affected due to shading. A similar effect on short circuit current is
also noted in the conducted experimental test by authors in their research w ­ ork58. However, while covering the
entire PV cell by implementing 100% shading, the value of Isc drops to its lowest value. These types of results are
also evidently presented in the research article generated b ­ y59. Authors in their study concluded degradation in
the Isc as one main reason for power ­degradation60. Significant changes in Isc impact the maximum generated
power (P max ) and efficiency (ƞ).

Power output of PV module under shading condition

Two well-known performance indicators of a PV module are maximum power output ( Pmax ) and efficiency
(ƞ). The experimental study is performed on single cell that represent spot shading. The results show noticeable
power losses as the shading factor is increased. As the cell area is 20% shaded, a power loss of 11.6% is recorded.
However, further shading 40% of the PV cell causes a rapid drop in power of 30.4%. The large variance is recorded
during 40% shading, where the module power ranges from 364.822 to 253.5546 W. After shading 60% and 80%
shading, the power loss stabilizes to approximately 36.18%. This is probably because, once the shaded cell is forced
to function at negative voltages, the power response becomes more sensitive in order to minimize variances in cell
reverse characteristics. While shading, significant changes are observed in Isc , leading to a significant reduction
in Pmax and efficiency. The experimental results of different shading scenarios are given in Table 3.

Shading percentage Irradiation (W/m2) Pmax(W) Efficiency (ɳ) (%) Fill factor (F.F.) (%)
No shading 1000 364.823 18.55 76.14
20% cover 1000 322.317 16.42 70.24
40% cover 1000 253.555 12.89 55.20
60% cover 1000 232.474 11.84 50.64
80% cover 1000 232.825 11.83 50.58
100% cover 1000 231.884 11.79 50.70

Table 3.  Performance parameters under different conditions.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 12

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

The data clearly reflect that shading single cell tends to reduce the overall power out, efficiency, fill factor of
a module. The results corelates with the experiment conducted by Sathyanarayan et al. employing non-uniform
shading and results concluded that efficiency and fill factor drastically decreased when a large cell area was
­shaded61. Shaded cells can act as resistive loads, converting the absorbed sunlight into heat instead of electricity.
This localized increase in heat can create h ­ otspots35,62. At the shading profiles of 40% to 60%, the maximum
temperature of 30.6 °C is recorded in the shaded cell. However, upon further shading, the temperature of the
shaded cell starts reducing and reaches 30.3 °C. At full coverage, the temperature elevation nearly disappeared.
As observed from the experiment, the rise in temperature of the shaded cell has the potential to develop hotspots
further when exposed to fielded conditions. It is essential to consider that elevated temperatures depend on
the leakage current, and power is dissipated in some regions of the cell. During indoor testing, the shaded cell
recorded a high temperature of 30.6 °C, while the other unshaded cell did not exhibit a significant increase in
temperature. The impact of different shading profiles is observed by analysing the electrical parameters and
curves and elevated temperature recorded by the data acquisition system available at the laboratory.

Experimental analysis of outdoor testing

Apart from power loss, shading can have multiple consequences, and one of the most destructive consequences
can be the development of hotspots. The hotspot temperature and its dwell time vary with the respective cells
and conditions.
Since the temperature of the hotspot is a function of irradiance, it can fluctuate during the d ­ ay34 Also, the
literature states that the amount of power dissipation at the hotspot can vary depending on the defective or
mismatched ­cell63. During outdoor testing conditions, the PV module is mounted at the outdoor setup for a
month and made to work in real conditions to replicate the field-installed solar modules. Using the arrangements
described in Fig. 11, each shade profile is tested over one day. The readings are noted down from 08:15:00 to
17:30:00 for every minute with the help of data loggers. The module temperature during unshaded conditions
is recorded to be in a range of 55–59 °C for the entire day.
When cell is stimulated with 20% shading, the temperature rises a maximum value of 70 °C. A sharp increase
in shaded cell temperature is observed when the shading is increased from 40 to 60%, and the recorded values
are 85.5 °C and 90.1 °C, respectively while the indoor experiments resulted maximum temperature of 30.6 °C.
However, when the module was operating outdoors, it was anticipated that the shaded cell temperature would
rise more under shading ­scenarios64,65. Not much variation is noted in the module temperature. During the
entire day the temperature of the module under single shaded condition ranged from 59 to 62 °C during the
entire experimental process and did not very much. However, in the last two shading conditions, 80–100% of
a shaded cell temperature drops and is observed in the range of 65–63 °C. This occurs due to a sudden drop in
photo-generated current. It is very clear from the experiment that the shading percentage from 40 to 60% is a
probable partial shading condition when exhibited on a single PV, will cause maximum damage to the PV cell.
Under this condition, a hotspot may develop in the shaded cell with an expected hike in temperature. This could
be explained as the photocurrent declines due to shading, the cell that is shaded undergoes reverse bias causing
difference in operating points of shaded and other series connected cell. This reverse characteristic of shaded cell
is accountable for reverse bias process of the partially shaded cell. For conventional monocrystalline silicon cell
avalanche breakdown is one of the crucial mechanism responsible for junction and this occurs at the weakest
location in the cell area. The leakage current distribution might not be uniform under reverse bias condition, and
one of them could lead to hotspot. Hence it a material property and the distribution of leakage current distribu-
tion that would define the rise of ­temperature66. Bressan et al. similar to this paper work explained that partial
shading condition is more critical than full shading. To combat this situation they proposed real time shading
fault detection that could prevent ­hotspotting67. Figure 11 represents the maximum temperature and maximum
efficiency of each shading profile. The maximum temperature of the shaded part in an outdoor setup is different

Fig. 11.  Values of maximum efficiency and recorded hotspot temperature of the shaded cell for a particular
shading percentage.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 13

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

from that in an indoor setting. This difference is because the ambient temperature and irradiations are constant
in indoor setups, while in outdoor setups, the PV module experiences a variable ambient temperature and solar
radiation. Hence, the generated output is the combined effect of the persistent environmental conditions.
The current flowing through the entire string drops when even a single solar cell is shaded. As a result, each
PV cell in the string will subsequently operate at the current determined by the shaded cell. The conduction of
diode depends on the amount of shading and the I–V curve shape of the shaded cell. The influence on string,
however, is not covered by the present experimental analysis and may be included in future research.
Figure 11 shows the value of maximum efficiency and value of maximum hotspot temperature under
particular shading percentage. The temperature of the shaded cell increases till the cell area is shaded 60% of the
cell. Beyond that, the temperature of the shaded cell drops. Figure 12 clearly compares the recorded efficiencies
of the PV module for the entire day under respective shading profiles. The resultant efficiency of the module
was obtained with a combined impact of variable solar irradiance and ambient temperature and temperature
of the cell. Low irradiance and high ambient temperature lead to lower efficiency. In our experiment, the third
factor, that is hotspot due to shading, is considered along with the solar irradiation and ambient temperature.
As shown in Fig. 12, the efficiency is low when the sun rises; however, as the solar radiation becomes stronger
with time, the efficiency increases. However, an increase in ambient temperature along with solar radiation causes
module efficiency to drop. It is observed that under the hot and dry outdoor conditions, the maximum drop
in the efficiency during the experiments is recorded mainly around noon till 13:30:30, when solar radiation is
not varying much and the average ambient temperature is at its peak. It is observed that when the PV module
is not shaded, the module performs well with a maximum efficiency (%) of 16.25. The temperature of the cell to
be tested for shading is of the same temperature as that of the PV module. The maximum efficiency during the
20% shading is generated at 11:30:00 with a solar irradiance of 960 W/m2. Likewise, maximum efficiency during
40%, 60%, 80%, and 100% shading is attained at 970 W/m2, 990 W/m2, 950 W/m2, and 940 W/m2, respectively.
Table 4 give the values of the Maximum hotspot temperature, Maximum efficiency, maximum ambient tempera-
ture, maximum module temperature profiles during the days when the respective shading experiment is done.
The results recorded from the outdoor experiment under different shading profiles are synthesized in Table 5.
The output power also declines when the shading percentage is increased, similarly as reported in the ­papers68–70.
It can be noticed from the results in Table 5, that the generated output current is declining as the shading profile
varies progressively from 0 to 100%. The maximum power generation ( Pmax ) decreased to critical during the
40–60% shading range ( Pmax = 210.5 Watt and Pmax = 201.89 Watt, respectively).

Fig. 12.  Variation in module efficiency for a full day under different shading profiles.

Maximum cell temperature of the shaded Maximum ambient temperature recorded

Shading % cell (°C) Maximum efficiency (%) (°C) Maximum module temperature (°C)
0 59 16.2 32 50
20 70 15.1 32 60
40 85.8 13.5 34 61
60 90.1 12.6 35 62
80 65 11.3 34 65
100 63 11.9 34 62

Table 4.  Temperature and Efficiency profile under shaded condition of Commercial Monocrystalline PV
Module.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 14

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

PV module technology Shading percentage on single cell shading

Monocrystalline PV module 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Imp[A] 8. 67 7.79 6.25 6.20 6.32 6.89
Vmp[V] 40.15 37.98 33.68 32.50 32.56 34.56
Pmax[W] 348.10 295.86 210.5 201.89 202.78 237.08

Table 5.  Outdoor shading scenario and power responses of single shaded PV cell.

Monocrystalline PERC PV Module Pmax Power loss (% ) Efficiency (ɳ)

Shading percentage Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor
20 322.317 295.86 11.6 15.00 16.42 15.1
40 253.555 210.5 30.4 39.52 12.89 13.5
60 232.474 201.89 36.27 42.00 11.84 12.6
80 232.825 202.78 36.18 41.75 11.83 11.3
100 231.884 237.08 36.43 31.89 11.79 11.9

Table 6.  Comparative values of indoor and outdoor experiments.

Similar observations are recorded in an experimental investigation wherein single cell shading causes hotspot
to develop and temperature of the shaded cell got elevated to 70.1 °C in case of single string configuration.
However, in series–parallel connection the hotpot temperature ranged in 64.2 °C and 70.7 °C71. Authors Ray
et al. in their work compared the performance of mono and polycrystalline solar cell. The research covers new
geographical locations, a bigger data sets and a unique climatic condition offering new insights to the behaviour
of solar cells. Their research work revealed dual axis tracking system offered more energy output than fixed
orientation system. The methodology and finding meticulously resulted monocrystalline cell performed better in
terms of injecting more energy into the grid and pursue higher performance in all the o ­ rientations42. Conversely
Benghanem et al. conducted a similar comparative research study in hot and arid region geographical area
characterised by very high solar radiation and temperature. The power losses recorded for monocrystalline
modules were more than polycrystalline modules in case of high solar radiation greater than 500 w/m272. It is
observed in several studies that diode did not conduct during single cell shading that caused shaded cell to act
as a load. The temperature of the cell was observed to increase very ­quickly71. Similar observations were seen in
another recent work that performed fault diagnosis on utility- scale PV p ­ rojects73.
To authenticate the effectiveness of our experimental process under partial shading condition, the paper
presents statistical results of power output, efficiency, hotspot temperature. The results presented in this work is
in good agreement with the work done by Ghosh et al. and Ahan et al. Similar testing procedure on single cell
shading but with different array configuration was adopted by authors Ghosh et al. The observed results showed
increase in temperature up to 80.7 °C in 3 × 1 string under different partial shading c­ ondition74. The work pre-
sented in this paper is closely parallel to the work done by [Link] et al. where similar testing methodology in
conventional crystalline silicon modules. The hotspot temperature of 86.6 °C is recorded under partial shading
­condition75. It is evident that the results correlates with the finding available in the literature however this paper
strictly focusses on single cell shading on new commercial high efficiency designs like PERC monocrystalline
modules. A consolidate table representing the comparative values of outdoor and indoor experiments are pre-
sented in Table 6.

Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehend study on how commercial PERC monocrystalline PV module operated in
outdoor climatic condition during single cell shading. The experiments are conducted in the a specifically cho-
sen commercial monocrystalline PERC PV Module under the North Indian Climatic conditions of Rajasthan.
In contrast to laboratory testing, the outdoor conditions are realistic and hence unpredictable. To understand
the difference in the performance the shading experimental work is done in STC conditions under controlled
conditions. For indoor setup the maximum power loss is of 36.34%, however for outdoor conditions the power
loss of 42% is recorded. The outdoor study defines the critical shading scenario that could lead to temperature
rise of about 91.1 °C in the shaded cell. Also, it shows that PV parameter show dependency on varying outdoor
conditions. It is observed that in commercial PERC module the critical shading scenario ranges from 40 to 60%
of the solar cell that causes hotspot development. The efficiency of the shaded module peaks from 11:00 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. thereafter the efficiency starts declining due to increase in temperature and solar irradiation having its
maximum values. The results present that PERC monocrystalline modules installed in outdoor conditions pose
greater challenges because of higher power losses and potential hotspot development due to single cell shading
This article is beneficial for the researchers, designers, and investors working with solar power systems specifi-
cally for commercial PERC PV modules to have a critical assessment of PV power systems under shading faults.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 15

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.

Received: 24 May 2024; Accepted: 9 September 2024

References
1. Preliminary data from International Energy Agency (IEA) Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVPS), Snapshot of Global
PV Markets 2022, p. 6, [Link]
2. S. Enkhardt, “BloombergNEF Says Global Solar Will Cross 200 GW Mark for First Time This Year, Expects Lower Panel Prices,”
pv magazine, February 1, 2022, [Link]
mark-​for-​first-​time-​this-​year-​expec​ts-​lower-​panel-​prices.
3. Shannan, N. M. A. A., Yahaya, N. Z. & Singh, B. Single-diode model and two-diode model of PV modules: A comparison. In 2013
IEEE international conference on control system, computing and engineering (pp. 210–214). IEEE (2013)
4. Chan, D. S. & Phang, J. C. Analytical methods for the extraction of solar-cell single-and double-diode model parameters from IV
characteristics. IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 34(2), 286–293 (1987).
5. Bharadwaj, P., Chaudhury, K. N. & John, V. Sequential optimization for PV panel parameter estimation. IEEE J. Photovolt. 6(5),
1261–1268 (2016).
6. Kumari, N., Singh, S. K. & Kumar, S. Effect of degradations and their possible outcomes in PV cells. Renew. Energy Syst. Model.
Optim. Appl. 469–515 (2022).
7. Tubniyom, C., Jaideaw, W., Chatthaworn, R., Suksri, A. & Wongwuttanasatian, T. Effect of partial shading patterns and degrees of
shading on Total Cross-Tied (TCT) photovoltaic array configuration. Energy Proc. 153, 35–41 (2018).
8. IEA,[online],Available, [Link]
9. Chepp, E. D. & Krenzinger, A. A methodology for prediction and assessment of shading on PV systems. Solar Energy 216, 537–550
(2021).
10. Osmani, K. et al. Mitigating the effects of partial shading on PV system’s performance through PV array reconfiguration: A review.
Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 31, 101280 (2022).
11. García, M. C., Herrmann, W., Böhmer, W. & Proisy, B. Thermal and electrical effects caused by outdoor hot‐spot testing in
associations of photovoltaic cells. Prog. Photovolt. 11, 293 (2003).
12. M.A. Al Mamun, M. Hasanuzzaman, J. Selvaraj, Experimental investigation of the effect of partial shading on photovoltaic
performance. IET Renew. Power Gener. 11(7) (2017).
13. Lappalainen, K. & Valkealahti, S. Effects of PV array layout, electrical configuration and geographic orientation on mismatch losses
caused by moving clouds. Solar Energy 144, 548–555 (2017).
14. Mohammedi, A., Mezzai, N., Rekioua, D. & Rekioua, T. Impact of shadow on the performances of a domestic photovoltaic pumping
system incorporating an MPPT control: A case study in Bejaia, North Algeria. Energy Convers. Manag. 84, 20–29 (2014).
15. Gouws, R. & Lukhwareni, T. Factors influencing the performance and efficiency of solar water pumping systems: A review. Int J
Phys Sci 7, 6169–6180 (2012).
16. Vigni, V. L. et al. Proof of concept of an irradiance estimation system for reconfigurable photovoltaic arrays. Energies 8, 6641–6657
(2015).
17. Kaushika, N. D. & Gautam, N. K. Energy yield simulations of interconnected solar PV arrays. Energy Convers. IEEE Trans. 18(1),
127–134 (2003).
18. Indu, R. B., Saravana, I. G. & Chilakapati, N. Enhanced power generation form PV array under partial shading conditions by shade
dispersion using Su do Ku configuration. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4(3), 594–601 (2013).
19. Rossi, D., Omaña, M., Giaffreda, D. & Metra, C. Modeling and detection of hotspot in shaded photovoltaic cells. IEEE Trans. Very
Large Scale Integr. Syst. 23(6), 1031–1039 (2014).
20. Niazi, K., Khan, H. A. & Amir, F. Hot-spot reduction and shade loss minimization in crystalline-silicon solar panels. J. Renew.
Sustain. Energy 10(3), 033506 (2018).
21. Kazem, H. A., Chaichan, M. T., Alwaeli, A. H. & Mani, K. Effect of shadows on the performance of solar photovoltaic.
In Mediterranean green buildings & renewable energy: Selected papers from the world renewable energy network’s med green
forum (pp. 379–385). Springer (2017).
22. Chine, W. et al. A novel fault diagnosis technique for photovoltaic systems based on artificial neural networks. Renew. Energy 90,
501–512 (2016).
23. Dhimish, M., Holmes, V., Mehrdadi, B., Dales, M. & Mather, P. Photovoltaic fault detection algorithm based on theoretical curves
modelling and fuzzy classification system. Energy 140, 276–290 (2017).
24. Kumari, N., Singh, S. K. & Kumar, S. MATLAB-based simulation analysis of the partial shading at different locations on series-
parallel PV array configuration (2022).
25. Deline, C., Dobos, A., Janzou, S., Meydbray, J. & Donovan, M. A simplified model of uniform shading in large photovoltaic arrays.
Solar Energy 96, 274–282 (2013).
26. Li, Q., Zhu, L., Sun, Y., Lu, L. & Yang, Y. Performance prediction of Building Integrated Photovoltaics under no-shading, shading
and masking conditions using a multi-physics model. Energy 213, 118795 (2020).
27. Zhu, L., Li, Q., Chen, M., Cao, K. & Sun, Y. A simplified mathematical model for power output predicting of Building Integrated
Photovoltaic under partial shading conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 180, 831–843 (2019).
28. Simon, M. & Meyer, E. L. Detection and analysis of hot-spot formation in solar cells. Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 94(2), 106–113
(2010).
29. Munoz, J., Lorenzo, E., Martinez-Moreno, F., Marroyo, L. & Garcia, M. An investigation into hot-spots in two large grid-connected
PV plants. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 16(8), 693–701 (2008).
30. Jordan, D. C., Silverman, T. J., Wohlgemuth, J. H., Kurtz, S. R. & VanSant, K. T. Photovoltaic failure and degradation modes. Prog.
Photovolt. Res. Appl. 25(4), 318–326 (2017).
31. Cox, C.H., Silversmith, D.J. & Mountain, R.W. Reduction of photovoltaic cell reverse breakdown by a peripheral bypass diode. In
Proceedings of the 16th IEEE photovoltaics specialists conference, San Diego, CA, USA (pp. 834–839) (1982).
32. Guerriero, P. & Daliento, S. Toward a hot spot free PV module. IEEE J. Photovolt. 9(3), 796–802 (2019).
33. Kaminski, A. et al. Infrared characterization of hot spots in solar cells with high precision due to signal treatment processing. Solar
Energy Mater. Solar Cells 51(3–4), 233–242 (1998).
34. Dhimish, M. & Lazaridis, P. I. An empirical investigation on the correlation between solar cell cracks and hotspots. Sci. Rep. 11(1),
23961 (2021).
35. Clement, C. E., Singh, J. P., Birgersson, E., Wang, Y. & Khoo, Y. S. Hotspot development and shading response of shingled PV
modules. Solar Energy 207, 729–735 (2020).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 16

Vol:.(1234567890)
[Link]/scientificreports/

36. Olalla, C., Hasan, M. N., Deline, C. & Maksimović, D. Mitigation of hot-spots in photovoltaic systems using distributed power
electronics. Energies 11(4), 726 (2018).
37. Dhimish, M., Theristis, M. & d’Alessandro, V. Photovoltaic hotspots: A mitigation technique and its thermal cycle. Optik 300,
171627 (2024).
38. Ghosh, S., Yadav, V. K. & Mukherjee, V. A novel hot spot mitigation circuit for improved reliability of PV module. IEEE Trans.
Dev. Mater. Reliab. 20(1), 191–198 (2020).
39. Satpathy, P. R., Aljafari, B., Thanikanti, S. B. & Sharma, R. An efficient power extraction technique for improved performance and
reliability of solar PV arrays during partial shading. Energy 282, 128992 (2023).
40. Köntges et al. Review of failures of photovoltaic modules (2014).
41. Moretón, R., Lorenzo, E. & Narvarte, L. Experimental observations on hot-spots and derived acceptance/rejection criteria. Solar
Energy 118, 28–40 (2015).
42. Ray, M. et al. Performance evaluation of monocrystalline and polycrystalline-based solar cell. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 14,
949–960 (2023).
43. International Standard IEC 61215:1993. Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV) modules—Design qualification and type
approval (1993).
44. Firman, A., Cáceres, M., González Mayans, A. R. & Vera, L. H. Photovoltaic qualification and approval tests. Standards 2(2),
136–156 (2022).
45. Ragb, O. & Bakr, H. A new technique for estimation of photovoltaic system and tracking power peaks of PV array under partial
shading. Energy 268, 126680 (2023).
46. El Iysaouy, L., Lahbabi, M., Bhagat, K., Azeroual, M., Boujoudar, Y., Saad El Imanni, H., et al. Performance enhancements and
modelling of photovoltaic panel configurations during partial shading conditions. Energy Syst. 1–22 (2023).
47. Bennani-Ben Abdelghani, A. & Ben AttiaSethom, B. A. Modeling PV installations under partial shading conditions. SN Appl. Sci.
2(4), 627 (2020).
48. Bayrak, F., Ertürk, G. & Oztop, H. F. Effects of partial shading on energy and exergy efficiencies for photovoltaic panels. J. Clean.
Prod. 164, 58–69 (2017).
49. Gutiérrez Galeano, A., Bressan, M., Jiménez Vargas, F. & Alonso, C. Shading ratio impact on photovoltaic modules and correlation
with shading patterns. Energies 11(4), 852 (2018).
50. Dolara, A., Lazaroiu, G. C., Leva, S. & Manzolini, G. Experimental investigation of partial shading scenarios on PV (photovoltaic)
modules. Energy 55, 466–475 (2013).
51. Lyden, S. & Haque, M. E. Modelling, parameter estimation and assessment of partial shading conditions of photovoltaic modules.
J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy 7(1), 55–64 (2019).
52. Sun, Y., Chen, S., Xie, L., Hong, R. & Shen, H. Investigating the impact of shading effect on the characteristics of a large-scale
grid-connected PV power plant in Northwest China. Int. J. Photoenergy 2014, 763106 (2014).
53. Shaiek, Y., Smida, M. B., Sakly, A. & Mimouni, M. F. Comparison between conventional methods and GA approach for maximum
power point tracking of shaded solar PV generators. Solar Energy 90, 107–122 (2013).
54. Seapan, M., Hishikawa, Y., Yoshita, M. & Okajima, K. Detection of shading effect by using the current and voltage at maximum
power point of crystalline silicon PV modules. Solar Energy 211, 1365–1372 (2020).
55. Prince Winston, D., Ganesan, K., Samithas, D. & Baladhanautham, C. B. Experimental investigation on output power enhancement
of partial shaded solar photovoltaic system. Energy Sour. Part A Recov. Util. Environ. Effects 1–17 (2020).
56. Fialho, L., Melicio, R., Mendes, V. M. F., Figueiredo, J. & Collares-Pereira, M. Effect of shading on series solar modules: simulation
and experimental results. Proc. Technol. 17, 295–302 (2014).
57. Alonso-García, M. C., Ruiz, J. M. & Herrmann, W. Computer simulation of shading effects in photovoltaic arrays. Renew. Energy
31(12), 1986–1993 (2006).
58. Swatowska, B. A. R. B. A. R. A. & Panek, P. I. O. T. R. The impact of shading on solar cell electrical parameters. Opt. Appl. 47(2),
319–323 (2017).
59. Silvestre, S. & Chouder, A. Shading effects in characteristic parameters of PV modules. In 2007 Spanish conference on electron
devices (pp. 116–118). IEEE (2007).
60. Rajput, P., Tiwari, G. N., Sastry, O. S., Bora, B. & Sharma, V. Degradation of mono-crystalline photovoltaic modules after 22 years
of outdoor exposure in the composite climate of India. Solar Energy 135, 786–795 (2016).
61. Sathyanarayana, P., Ballal, R., Sagar, P. L. & Kumar, G. Effect of shading on the performance of solar PV panel. Energy Power 5(1A),
1–4 (2015).
62. Deng, S. et al. Research on hot spot risk for high-efficiency solar module. Energy Proc. 130, 77–86 (2017).
63. Herrmann, W., Adrian, M., Wiesner, W. & Rheinland, T. (1998). Operational behaviour of commercial solar cells under reverse
biased conditions. In Proceedings of the second world conference on photovoltaic solar energy conversion (pp. 2357–2359).
64. Carlsson, P., Cider, L. & Lindgren, B. (1998). Yield losses due to shading in a building-integrated PV installation; evaluation,
simulation and suggestions for improvements.
65. International Electrotechnical Commission, Procedures for temperature and irradiance corrections to measured I–V characteristics,
IEC norm No. 60891 2nd edition, 2009-12.
66. Özkalay, E. et al. The effect of partial shading on the reliability of photovoltaic modules in the built-environment. EPJ Photovolt.
15, 7 (2024).
67. Bressan, M., Gutierrez, A., Gutierrez, L. G. & Alonso, C. Development of a real-time hot-spot prevention using an emulator of
partially shaded PV systems. Renew. Energy 127, 334–343 (2018).
68. Zhang, Q. & Li, Q. Temperature and reverse voltage across a partially shaded Si PV cell under hot spot test condition. In 2012 38th
IEEE photovoltaic specialists conference (pp. 001344–001347). IEEE (2012).
69. Magdaleno, R. S., Sánchez-Pérez, P. A., Cruz, J. R., Escobar, D. M. & Sánchez-Juárez, A. Influence of partial shading on the power
output of a solar cell and a PV module. In 2018 IEEE 7th world conference on photovoltaic energy conversion (WCPEC)(A joint
conference of 45th IEEE PVSC, 28th PVSEC & 34th EU PVSEC) (pp. 1324–1327). IEEE (2018).
70. Wang, A. & Xuan, Y. Close examination of localized hot spots within photovoltaic modules. Energy Convers. Manag. 234, 113959
(2021).
71. Ghosh, S., Singh, S. K. & Yadav, V. K. Attenuation of hotspot phenomenon in PV systems. Energy Sour. Part A Recov. Util. Environ.
Effects 45(4), 11788–11802 (2023).
72. Benghanem, M. et al. Evaluation of the performance of polycrystalline and monocrystalline PV technologies in a hot and arid
region: An experimental analysis. Sustainability 15(20), 14831 (2023).
73. Bakır, H. Detection of faults in photovoltaic modules of SPPS in Turkey infrared thermographic diagnosis and recommendations.
J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 18, 1945–57 (2023).
74. Ghosh, S., Singh, S. K. & Yadav, V. K. Experimental investigation of hotspot phenomenon in PV arrays under mismatch conditions.
Solar Energy 253, 219–230 (2023).
75. Ahsana, S., Niazib, K., Khana, H. A. & Yangb, Y. Hotspots and performance evaluation of crystalline-silicon and thin-film
photovoltaic modules. Microelectron. Reliab. 88, 1014–1018 (2018).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 17

Vol.:(0123456789)
 [Link]/scientificreports/

Acknowledgements
The APC is funded by Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) Manipal.

Author contributions
“Conceptualization, N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; methodology, N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; software, N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.;
validation, N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; formal analysis N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; investigation N.H., S.K.S., S.K. and V.K.J.;
resources, N.H., S.K.S., S.K. and V.K.J.; data curation, N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; writing—original draft preparation,
N.H., S.K.S. and S.K.; writing—review and editing, S.K.S. S.K. and V.K.J.; visualization, N.H., S.K.S., S.K. and
V.K.J.; supervision, S.K.S. and S.K.; project administration, S.K.S., S.K. and V.K.J.; funding acquisition, S.K.S.,
S.K. and V.K.J.

Funding
Open access funding provided by Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval
This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

Authors transfer to Springer the publication rights and warrant that our contribution is original.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.K.S. or V.K.J.
Reprints and permissions information is available at [Link]/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy
of this licence, visit [Link]

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:21587 | [Link] 18

Vol:.(1234567890)