sustainability

Article
Minimizing the Utilized Area of PV Systems by Generating the
Optimal Inter-Row Spacing Factor
Ayman Al-Quraan 1, * , Mohammed Al-Mahmodi 2 , Khaled Alzaareer 3 , Claude El-Bayeh 4 and Ursula Eicker 4

1 Electrical Power Engineering Department, Hijjawi Faculty for Engineering Technology, Yarmouk University,
Irbid 21163, Jordan
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Renewable Energy, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan;
[email protected]
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of engineering, Philadelphia University, Amman 19392, Jordan;
[email protected]
4 Canada Excellent Research Chair Team, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3H 2L9, Canada;
[email protected] (C.E.-B.); [email protected] (U.E.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In mounted photovoltaic (PV) facilities, energy output losses due to inter-row shading
are unavoidable. In order to limit the shadow cast by one module row on another, sufficient inter-
row space must be planned. However, it is not uncommon to see PV plants with such close row
spacing that energy losses occur owing to row-to-row shading effects. Low module prices and high
ground costs lead to such configurations, so the maximum energy output per available surface area
is prioritized over optimum energy production per peak power. For any applications where the
plant power output needs to be calculated, an exact analysis of the influence of inter-row shading on
power generation is required. In this paper, an effective methodology is proposed and discussed in
Citation: Al-Quraan, A.;
detail, ultimately, to enable PV system designers to identify the optimal inter-row spacing between
Al-Mahmodi, M.; Alzaareer, K.;
arrays by generating a multiplier factor. The spacing multiplier factor is mathematically formulated
El-Bayeh, C.; Eicker, U. Minimizing
the Utilized Area of PV Systems by
and is generated to be a general formula for any geographical location including flat and non-flat
Generating the Optimal Inter-Row terrains. The developed model is implemented using two case studies with two different terrains, to
Spacing Factor. Sustainability 2022, 14, provide a wider context. The first one is in the Kingdome of Saudi Arabia (KSA) provinces, giving
6077. https://doi.org/10.3390/ a flat terrain case study; the inter-row spacing multiplier factor is estimated for the direct use of
su14106077 a systems designer. The second one is the water pump for agricultural watering using renewable
energy sources, giving a non-flat terrain case study in Dhamar, Al-Hada, Yemen. In this case study,
Academic Editors: Francesco Calise,
Maria Vicidomini and Francesco
the optimal inter-row spacing factor is estimated for limited-area applications. Therefore, the effective
Liberato Cappiello area using the proposed formula is minimized so that the shading of PV arrays on each other is
avoided, with a simple design using the spacing factor methodology.
Received: 27 February 2022
Accepted: 11 May 2022
Keywords: photovoltaic system; inter-row spacing; tilt angle; effective area; sun path; sun angles
Published: 17 May 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction
iations.
The penetration level of small-scale renewable energy resources, particularly photo-
voltaic (PV) systems, has rapidly evolved over recent years. Their low installation and
operational costs make these resources competitive in the energy market in those countries
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
that have high solar radiation, such as those located in the Middle East and South Africa
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
(MENA). Several studies have been conducted to investigate the possibilities of maximizing
This article is an open access article
the yield of energy production from renewable power generation, taking the MENA region
distributed under the terms and as a case study, using intensive surveys and theories of theoretical and practical optimiza-
conditions of the Creative Commons tion [1–3]. With more focus on PV systems, roof-top solar energy projects are incentivized
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// due to the simplicity of grid integration and the possibility of trade and exchange within
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the grid via certain policies [4]. Furthermore, prompt implementation with scalable ca-
4.0/). pacity and a low maintenance cost encouraged communities, households, and companies

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106077 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 2 of 15

to invest in PV systems. One of the main hurdles encountered by systems designers is

accommodating the area with the targeted demand without affecting the quantity and
quality of the yielded energy.
Several studies have analyzed solar energy system designs from a variety of perspec-
tives. For instance, many studies are devoted to studying the grid integration of solar
energy systems and its impact on system quality, sustainability, and reliability [5–7]. Others
concentrate on solar radiation assessments for different locations on Earth [8,9]. A concrete
design for a solar energy system was also introduced in several studies, discussing the
sizing, tracking system, maximum power point tracking (MPPT), and the power electronic
devices. Nevertheless, there is a deficiency in the article’s content when it comes to effective
area maximization in PV systems design. The studies that introduced the surface area are
limited to the available area, suitable tilt angles, etc.
The sun’s path differs from one season to another, as well as varying based on the
location around the globe. The winter season is the time when the elevation angle of the
sun is at its minimum, which is the case when shading is at its maximum [10]. The variation
in sun position is addressed by the researcher by studying the optimal orientation of PV
panels to maximize as much extracted energy as possible. Karafil et al. [11] carried out
a mathematical analysis and calculated the optimal tilt angle of the system, comparing
the result with the practical data acquired. The shading effect is analyzed in [12] using
hill-shade analysis, considering different levels of the roof potential of a PV system: the
physical, geographical, and technical aspects. Furthermore, a tracking system is undergoing
development to follow the sun’s path and has consequently increased the system yield, as
introduced in [13–15].
The system’s overall area is affected by two main factors, which are module dimension
and inter-row spacing. The spacing between arrays depends on how much the module
is tilted, i.e., the tilt angle of the PV panel. In one study [16], different inter-row spacing
is simulated and compared to analyze the solar shading levels throughout the year. The
effect of inter-row spacing on energy yield was also investigated in another study [17]
using data analysis of the measurements of the energy production of large PV plants for the
calculation of shading effects. Joshi et al. [18] investigate different spacing ratios relative
to the module height and simulate each one using PVsyst software to identify the most
adequate spacing. The authors of [19] provide a sensor design to detect the shading on the
inter-row spacing, to enable the system designer to test the shading of the PV modules.
Different configurations are considered in PV systems design. These configurations
manipulate the installation angles through certain orientations upon tilt and azimuth angles,
as well as change the panel’s orientation from portrait to landscape and vice versa [20,21].
The performance of PV systems is mainly affected by the shading phenomenon. Some
software has been developed to estimate the spacing between PV arrays. Others have been
developed to facilitate PV system design in terms of sizing and energy calculations. For
example, PVsyst and PVsol both provide sizing features and performance analysis [22–24].
Some features are designed to calculate panel distribution in the studied area, such as the
Skelion feature in the SketchUp software [25]. The accuracy of all the software types varies
between 5.00 and 18.75% in terms of percentage error, according to the results reported
in [26,27]. The software that is most commonly used in estimating the spacing between
arrays has limited accuracy and could not deal with the different configurations of panel
distribution for either flat or non-flat terrains.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, studies that have introduced this issue are
almost completely confined to the articles listed in this manuscript, with certain weaknesses
and gaps. For example, although the authors of [28] extensively examined commercial
buildings and shading within the roof restrictions, they have not come up with a clear
methodology or presented any mathematical model to justify the selected spacing areas;
even the parameters used are vague. The same issue is found in another study [22], where
inter-row spacing was selected without considering the worst-case scenario when shading is
at the maximum, especially in the case study in Germany, which has a very small elevation
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 3 of 15

angle that was ignored. Other studies tended to assume different spacing patterns and
different orientations to investigate the impact of each selected value, as presented by the
authors of [17,18]. The rest of the articles either relied on software directly or ignored
some parameters, which is the case in [29–31]. Moreover, scholars have not paid significant
attention to PV systems in the case of hilly sites and terrain restrictions. The research gap is
that insufficient articles are available to clearly address the issue of shading by providing a
clear and detailed methodology for the researcher and designer to select adequate inter-
row spacing, considering the essential parameters and different configurations to ensure
minimizing the shading area and maximizing the energy production.
Therefore, the contribution of this manuscript can be summarized as the following:
• Generating the optimal inter-row spacing factor for minimizing the installation area
and maximizing the energy output of the PV system for flat and non-flat terrains.
• A detailed method of estimating the needed angles of the sun’s path, which play an
essential role in systems design.
• A comprehensive description of inter-row spacing estimation is given to establish the
most appropriate spacing that avoids the worst-case scenario of the shading effect.
• Generating an inter-row spacing factor formula and validating it through a case study
that was conducted in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which has high solar
radiation and solar energy potential but insufficient studies in this regard.
The rest of this article is organized as follows: the methodology of sun angle calculation
and factor generation is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, the methodology of optimum
area estimation is introduced, while the objective function is presented in Section 4. Case
studies and the validation process are introduced in Section 5, and Section 6 presents
our conclusions.

2. Definitions and Methodology

2.1. Sun Angles Calculation
It is essential to identify the sun’s path at the system’s final location to understand
the nature of shading over the course of a year, especially in the worst-case scenario when
the objects’ shading is at maximum in the northern hemisphere on 21 December every
year [27,32]. The first stage of designing a PV system sun chart is to consider and identify
the required sun radiation angles; elevation and azimuth. Figure 1 illustrates an example
of a two-dimensional (2D) sun path, and how these angles can be estimated by analyzing
this chart. As shown at 9.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m., the shading is the longest, so the figure
represents the method of identifying the angles. It can be noticed from Figure 1 that on 21
December, the date when shading is at the maximum, the sun elevation angle is 28◦ and
the azimuth angle is about 45◦ .
 Sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14,2022, 14, 6077
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 4 of 16

28°

45°

Figure 1. Example of a two-dimensional sun path, with angles estimated [33].

Figure 1. Example of a two-dimensional sun path, with angles estimated [33].

TheTheelevation
elevationangle
anglein in the winterseason
the winter season is the
is the smallest
smallest value, value,
basedbased
on the onrulethe
thatrule tha
the smaller the elevation angle, the greater the shading of objects
the smaller the elevation angle, the greater the shading of objects [34]. In the case [34]. In the case of PV of PV
system installation, this angle is considered to avoid exposing the PV
system installation, this angle is considered to avoid exposing the PV array to the shading array to the shading
of the array behind. To this end, intensive calculation is required to determine the optimal
of the array behind. To this end, intensive calculation is required to determine the
inter-row spacing between arrays. In this section, the methodology of selecting the most
optimal inter-row
efficient space thatspacing
ensuresbetween
minimizing arrays. In this
the area section,
occupied andthe methodology
maximizing of selecting
the energy
the production
most efficient space that ensures minimizing the area occupied and maximizing the
is introduced.
energy production is introduced.
Different parameters are required to identify the distance between two rows. The
first parameter is from
Different parameters are the module dimension
required and whether
to identify the module
the distance is implemented
between two rows. The
individually or mounted in two modules. Then, the tilt angle that is selected by the designer
first parameter is from the module dimension and whether the module is implemented
is also required. In this step, the height difference, ∆H, which is shown in Figure 2, is
individually or mounted
estimated, assuming in module
that the two modules.
shading has Then, the with
an angle tilt angle that is called
the horizontal selected
the by the
designer
azimuth is angle,
also θrequired. In this step, the height difference, 𝛥𝐻, which is shown in
az . As the elevation angle θelev is determined from the sun’s path and the
Figure
height2,difference
is estimated, assuming
is estimated from the that
modulethedimension
moduleand shading
tilt angle,has an angle
the shading lengthwith the
can consequently
horizontal called the be determined
azimuth angle, 𝛳 . As
and denoted by X. However,
the elevation angle 𝛳has appeared
the shading is determined
from with
thea sun’s
length path
of X; this
andcannot be considered
the height as theisspacing
difference valuefrom
estimated because theit module
is tilted atdimension
an
angle. The spacing, which is denoted by D, can be estimated using the X-value and the
and tilt angle, the shading length can consequently be determined and denoted by X
azimuth angle in the triangle when laid horizontally.
However, Thethe shading
inter-row has appeared
spacing between PVwith arraysacan
length of X; this
be calculated by cannot
estimating bethese
considered
angles as the
spacing value because it is tilted at an angle. The spacing, which is
in addition to the dimensions of the panel used. Once these angles are graphically estimated, denoted by D, can be
estimated using
the inter-row the can
spacing X-value and the
be determined usingazimuth angle
the following in the triangle when laid
formula:
horizontally.
∆H = L sin θtilt (1)
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 5 of 15

where ∆H is the height of the module terminal, L is the PV panel length, and θtilt is
the tilt angle of the module. Then, the inter-row spacing can be estimated using the
following equation:
∆H
X= (2)
tan θelev
where X is the shadow length and θelev is the sun elevation angle at the location, which can
be determined from the sun’s path.

ustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW cos θ az 5 of 16

D = ∆H × (3)
tan θelev

Figure 2. Sun path analysis and shading effect representation.

Figure 2. Sun path analysis and shading effect representation.

TheFigure
inter-row spacing
3 represents thebetween PV arrays
two-dimensional can be
geometry calculated
of solar by estimating these
panel implementation
relative to the sun’s path, with inter-row spacing as D, height difference,
angles in addition to the dimensions of the panel used. Once these angles and installation
are graphically
angles: tilt angle and elevation angle [35]. As shown in this figure,
estimated, the inter-row spacing can be determined using the following formula: the elevation angle
significantly affects the self-shading. This angle varies, based on the geographic location.
Δ𝐻 = 𝐿 sin 𝛳
The second parameter is the tilt angle, which depends on the system designer’s decision (1)
where Δ𝐻 is the height of the module terminal, L is the PV panel length, and 𝛳 is the
tilt angle of the module. Then, the inter-row spacing can be estimated using the following
equation:
PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 6 of 15

Δ𝐻, refer to the spacing between

and may differ successive
to accommodate panels
a certain number or arrays,
of panels. the length
Other parameters, D, L, and of th
∆H, refer to the spacing between successive panels or arrays, the length of the module, and
and the height difference in theinvertical
the height difference projection
the vertical projection of therespectively.
of the module, module, respectively.

ϴtilt ϴelev ΔH

Figure 3. Two-dimensional view of solar

Figure 3. Two-dimensional view ofpanel implementation.
solar panel implementation.

2.2. Multiplier Factor Estimation

2.2. Multiplier Factor Estimation

In this paper, the optimal inter-row spacing factor is generated for a different location
in Saudi Arabia to facilitate determining the optimum spacing between modules. By
implementing this optimum spacing, shading will be minimized, and the utilized area
In this paper, the optimal inter-row spacing factor is generated for a
will also be minimized. The designer can use this multiplier factor directly without going
location in Saudi Arabia to facilitate determining the optimum spacing between
through complicated calculations. The factor can be estimated from the proposed formula,
which is based on the sun elevation and azimuth angles:
By implementing this optimum spacing, shading will be minimized, and the ut
cos θ az
will also be minimized. The designer can use F = this multiplier factor directly
tan θelev
(4) with

through complicated calculations. The factor can be estimated from the

where θ az is the azimuth angle and θ is the elevation angle. This factor can be used by
formula, which is multiplying
based on thethesun
it with heightelevation
of the moduleand
∆H: azimuth angles:

cos 𝛳
D = F × ∆H (5)

𝐹 = area is available, the configuration of solar arrays

angle,𝛳
Moreover, in cases where a limited
might be oriented relative to the azimuthtan 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣
with a certain angle to accommodate the
available area. The inter-row spacing factor will remain the same and is not affected by
where 𝛳 is the azimuth angle
orienting the panel fromand 𝛳 isposition,
the optimal the elevation
based on the new angle. This
azimuth angle. factor
Figure 4 can b
multiplying it with the height of the module Δ𝐻:
shows that the whole triangle is rotating, keeping the distance, D, unchanged, like the
radius of a circle. Thus, the inter-row spacing factor is still applicable.

𝐷 = 𝐹 × ∆𝐻
Moreover, in cases where a limited area is available, the configuration of so
might be oriented relative to the azimuth angle, with a certain angle to accomm
available area. The inter-row spacing factor will remain the same and is not a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 7 of 15
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Figure
Figure
Figure 4. Effect
Effect
4.4.Effect of changing
ofofchanging
changingthe the azimuth
theazimuth
azimuth angle
angle
angle ondistance
onthe
on the the distance
distance (D)the
(D)and
(D) and and
the the inter-row
inter-row
inter-row spacing
spacing
spacing factor. factor.
factor.

2.3.
2.3. Inter-Row
2.3. Inter-Row
Inter-Row Spacing
Spacing
Spacing Considered
Considered
Considered forNon-Flat
for Non-Flat
for Non-Flat Terrain
Terrain
Terrain
Hilly
Hilly sites
sitesare always an anoption for installing PV systems with with
relative ease, ease,
but the
Hilly sites areare
alwaysalways an option option for installing
for installing PV systems
PV systems with relative relative
ease, but thebut the
land
land surface
surface is not
is notalways
always flat. There may be terrain issues or roughness that should be
land surface is not always flat.flat.
ThereThere
maymay be terrain
be terrain issuesissues or roughness
or roughness that should
that should be be
taken
taken into
into consideration
consideration in the shading
in the shading analysis. The
analysis. effect of
The effect these terrain
of these issues might
taken into consideration in the shading analysis. The effect of these terrainterrain
issues issues
might might
increase or decrease the shading phenomenon. Figure 5 illustrates a scenario using a PV
increase
increase or or decrease
decrease the the shading
shading phenomenon.
phenomenon. FigureFigure 5 illustrates
5 illustrates a scenario
a scenario using ausing
PV a PV
system area with non-flat terrain, where the PV station is installed on uneven ground and
system
system area with
area non-flat
with non-flat terrain, where
terrain, the PV
where thestation is installed
PV station on uneven
is installed ground
on uneven and and
ground
is ascending or descending at a certain slope. In this case, arrays are installed either higher
is is
ascending
ascending or or
descending
descending at aatcertain
a slope.
certain In this
slope. In case,
this arraysarrays
case, are installed
are either either
installed
or lower than the previous array, corresponding to the south direction. As shown in this
higher
higher or orlower than the the
previous array, corresponding to thetosouth direction. As shown
figure, arraylower than
(2) is higher thanprevious
array (1),array,
whichcorresponding
results in decreasing thethe
south direction.
shading; As shown
in contrast,
in in
this figure,
this figure,array (2)
array is
(2)higher
is than
higher array
than (1),
array which
(1), results
which in decreasing
results in the
decreasing shading;
the in
shading; in
array (5) is lower than array (4), which requires increasing the distance between them to
contrast,
contrast, arrayarray(5) is
(5)lower
is lower than array
than (4),
array which
(4), requires
which increasing
requires the
increasing distance
the between
distance between
avoid shading.
them
themto avoid
to avoid shading.
shading.

Figure5.5.AAcase
Figure casestudy
studyof
ofaaPV
PVsystem
systemon
onnon-flat
non-flatterrain.
terrain.
Figure 5. A case study of a PV system on non-flat terrain.
To properly address this issue, the first step is to identify the reference line between
every two successiveaddress
To properly arrays, this
which is the
issue, horizontal
the first stepline
is tothat passesthe
identify through the line
reference lowest
between
point. The idea behind drawing a reference line is to calculate the height difference
every two successive arrays, which is the horizontal line that passes through the lowest
point. The idea behind drawing a reference line is to calculate the height difference
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 8 of 15
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

To properly address this issue, the first step is to identify the reference line between
betweentwo
every twosuccessive arrays,
or more bases of which
the PVisarrays.
the horizontal
Once the line thatdifference
height passes through the lowest
(h) is estimated,
point. The idea behind drawing a reference line is to calculate the height difference
the second step is to identify whether the slope is positive or negative. The inter-row between
two or more bases of the PV arrays. Once the height difference (h) is estimated,
spacing between two arrays in an area with a specific terrain will, therefore, be affected the second
step is to identify whether the slope is positive or negative. The inter-row
by the height difference. Therefore, the new formulation can be written to consider this spacing between
twofactor
new arrays asin an area with a specific terrain will, therefore, be affected by the height
follows:
difference. Therefore, the new formulation can be written to consider this new factor
as follows: 𝐷 = 𝐹 × (∆𝐻 ℎ) (6)
D = F × (∆H ± h) (6)
If the slope is positive, as in slope 1, the height difference h1 will be positive (h); if the
slope isIf negative,
the slope is
aspositive, as the
in slope 2, in slope 1, difference
height the height h2difference h1 will
is negative (–h).be positive (h); if the
slope is negative, as in slope 2, the height difference h2 is negative (–h).
3. Methodology of Optimum Area Estimation
3. Methodology of Optimum Area Estimation
The PV system’s area is affected by different factors, which are the dimension of the
The PV system’s area is affected by different factors, which are the dimension of the
module, the tilt angle, and the location on the Earth. The area’s location affects the length
module, the tilt angle, and the location on the Earth. The area’s location affects the length
of the shading and the inter-row spacing accordingly. To minimize the area required for
of the shading and the inter-row spacing accordingly. To minimize the area required for
system installation, the optimal inter-row spacing needs to be estimated, taking into
system installation, the optimal inter-row spacing needs to be estimated, taking into account
account maximizing the energy yield by selecting the optimal tilt angle of the system
maximizing the energy yield by selecting the optimal tilt angle of the system location. The
location. The area estimated is at optimum when shading is completely avoided;
area estimated is at optimum when shading is completely avoided; therefore, the area is
therefore, the area is properly utilized. Figure 6 illustrates the essential factors that are
properly utilized. Figure 6 illustrates the essential factors that are used to estimate the area,
used to estimate the area, assuming certain dimensions of the PV panel and the spacing
assuming certain dimensions of the PV panel and the spacing between arrays.
between arrays.

Geometryofofthe
Figure6.6.Geometry
Figure theessential
essentialfactors
factorstotoestimate
estimatethe
thearea.
area.

If the installed system encompasses the (n) number of vertical modules that have
If the installed system encompasses the (n) number of vertical modules that have
dimensions L × w, per (m) arrays, tilted at a tilt angle of θtilt , the spacing between rows is
dimensions L × w, per (m) arrays, tilted at a tilt angle of 𝛳 , the spacing between rows is
estimated and is equal to D. Thus, in the case of uniformly distributed modules, the whole
estimated and is equal to D. Thus, in the case of uniformly distributed modules, the
system’s occupied area is equal to:
whole system’s occupied area is equal to:
𝐴=
A n×
=𝑛 ×𝑤
w×× (𝑚 × 𝐿L𝑐𝑜𝑠
(m × θtilt +
cos 𝛳 m − 11)
+ ((𝑚 )××D ).
𝐷). (7)
(7)
4. Objective Function
4. Objective Functionsites, the total area will be changed according to the terrain’s nature
In the non-flat
(seeIn the non-flat
Figure 7). Thus,sites, the totalthe
to estimate area will be
overall changed
area, according
the sum to the terrain’s
of the different nature
areas needs to be
(see Figure 7). as
determined, Thus, to estimate the overall area, the sum of the different areas needs to be
follows:
determined, as follows:
R −1 C   C
A = ∑ ∑ wij × Lij cos θtiltij + D + ∑ w j × L j cos θtilt j (8)
𝐴= i = 1 j 𝑤 × (𝐿 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛳
= 1 + 𝐷) + j = 1 𝑤 × 𝐿 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛳 (8)
where R and C are the rows and columns of the PV systems, respectively. In Equation (8),
the areas
where between
R and two
C are the successive
rows modules
and columns in the
of the system are
PV systems, estimated, In
respectively. where each (8),
Equation area
is affected
the by several
areas between two parameters, taking into
successive modules account
in the systemtheare
dimension of where
estimated, the PVeach
panel, the
area
is affected by several parameters, taking into account the dimension of the PV panel, the
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14, x6077
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 915of 16

inter-row
inter-row spacing,
spacing,and
andthe
theterrain
terrainnature.
nature.Since
Sincethere
thereisisno
noself-shading
self-shadingfor
forthe
thefirst
firstrow
row of
of the PV system, the inter-row spacing is not taken into account and the second
the PV system, the inter-row spacing is not taken into account and the second part part of of
Equation (8) is applied.
Equation (8) is applied.

A11
𝑤
𝛳𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑡 𝐷
Figure 7. Geometry of the essential factors to estimate the area of the PV system for non-flat terrain.
Figure 7. Geometry of the essential factors to estimate the area of the PV system for non-flat terrain.
The general formula of the energy produced by the PV system (E) depends on several
parameters, as suggested by the authors of [27]:
The general formula of the energy produced by the PV system (E) depends on
several parameters, as suggested
Eoutby
= the authors
As × r × GR of
× [27]:
PR (9)

where AS is the surface area of the PV = 𝐴r ×

𝐸 panel, is 𝑟the
× solar
𝐺 × panel
𝑃𝑅 efficiency, G is the tilted (9)
R
surface
where Amean solar
S is the radiation,
surface and
area of PRPV
the is the performance
panel, ratio.
r is the solar Knowing
panel this, the
efficiency, energy
GR is the tilted
density
surface ismean
the ratio
solarbetween the and
radiation, generated
PR is energy and the installation
the performance area: this, the energy
ratio. Knowing
density is the ratio between the generated energy
Eout and the installation area:
Ed = (10)
A
𝐸
𝐸 = (10)
𝐴 the energy output in (kWh), and A is
where Ed is the energy density in (kWh/m2 ), Eout is
the total area of the system in (m2 ). If we substitute Equation (8) into Equation (10), then Ed
where
can Ed is the
be written asenergy
follows:density in (kWh/m ), Eout is the energy output in (kWh), and A is
2

the total area of the system in (m2). If we substitute Equation (8) into Equation (10), then
Ed can be written as follows: ∑iR=1 ∑Cj=1 Eoutij
Ed =   (11)
∑iR=−11 ∑Cj=1 wij × Lij cos θ∑tiltij +∑D +𝐸 ∑ C
j = 1 w j × L j cos θ tilt j
𝐸 = (11)
∑ ∑ 𝑤 study
The objective function in this × (𝐿 is 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛳
to maximize + 𝐷) ∑
the+energy𝑤density× 𝐿 𝑐𝑜𝑠 by 𝛳 avoiding the
shading
Theeffect, basedfunction
objective on several
in constraints,
this study isasto
follows:
maximize the energy density by avoiding
Objective function:
the shading effect, based on several constraints, as follows:
Max( Ed ) (12)
Objective function:
Subject to:
Max(𝐸
0≤D≤ Dworst) (13) (12)
Subject to:
0≤𝐷≤𝐷 (13)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 10 of 15

0o ≤ θtilt ≤ 90o (14)

where Dworst is the inter-row spacing under the worst-case scenario (21 December).

5. Case Studies and Validation Process

5.1. Saudi Arabia Case Study
A case study has been developed to evaluate the multiplier factor for all provinces in
KSA. Table 1 summarizes some general information about these provinces. In addition, the
optimum multiplier factors for all provinces are also presented in this table. To validate
the above methodology, a real-life installed system in Saudi Arabia, in Jeddah province, is
tested under different scenarios by varying the tilt angle of the system arrays. This system is
installed using a 15◦ tilt angle in reality. The number of the modules that are studied here is
750, distributed over five roof-tops, as shown in Figure 8. This system will be tested in two
scenarios: uniformly distributed modules when the tilt angle is standardized throughout
all the arrays, and non-uniformly distributed arrays, when more than one tilt angle is used
for system area minimization. In the case of a standardized tilt angle, the above formula is
used to calculate the overall system area.

Table 1. Optimal multiplier factors for all provinces of KSA.

Province Elevation Azimuth Angle Factor

Latitude Longitude
Name Angle (Degree) (Degree) Multiplier
Riyadh 24.774265 46.738586 25 46 1.49
Makkah 21.422510 39.826168 27.5 48 1.29
Dammam 26.551680 49.957581 24 45 1.59
Abha 18.216797 42.503765 29 49 1.18
Jazan 16.909683 42.567902 31 50 1.07
Madinah 24.470901 39.612236 26 46 1.42
Buraidah 26.32599 43.97497 24 45 1.59
Tabuk 28.390393 36.57151 23 45 1.67
Ha’il 27.523647 41.696632 23.5 45 1.63
Najran 17.49326 44.12766 30 49 1.14
Sakaka 29.953894 40.197044 22 44 1.78
Al-Baha 20.01288 41.46767 28 48 1.26
Arar 30.983334 41.016666 21 44 1.87
Jeddah 21.543333 39.172779 28 45 1.33

In this case study, two different scenarios are presented to evaluate the methodology
of minimizing the installation area of the PV system. The first scenario is to use the same
tilt angle for all arrays, while the second scenario is to implement two tilt angles in the
same system, as discussed in a previous study [27]. The area is divided into five areas,
and the estimation in the first scenario is summarized in Table 2; the module length is 2L
because every two modules are mounted together in the installed system. It is found that
the area is reduced by 300 m2 due to the proposed approach of estimating the area, based
on optimal inter-row spacing using the generated multiplier factor.

Table 2. Installation area of the case study and the optimal area of scenario 1 (with a 15◦ tilt angle).

Number of Installation Optimal Area

Roof Number Tilt Angle
Modules Area (m2 ) (m2 )
A1 15◦ 316 786.11 752
A2 15◦ 292 786.11 694
A3 15◦ 50 113.19 119
A4 15◦ 48 172.59 114
A5 15◦ 44 126.43 98
Total 15◦ 750 1984.43 1777
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 11 of 15
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure8.8.The
Figure Thedistribution
distributionofofPV
PVpanels
panelsininfive
fiveareas
areasofofthe
thecase
casestudy.
study.

In this
The case scenario
second study, two is different scenarios
to implement are presented
the system to evaluate
by setting thetilt
different methodology
angles, as
of minimizing the installation area of the PV system. The first scenario
proposed by the authors of [27], setting the tilt angle of the first row to the optimal is to usetilt
theangle,
same
tilt angle
which ◦
is 22forinall arrays,
the studiedwhile
case.theThis
second
row scenario
now has isa to implement
shadow effect two tilt other
on the anglesarrays
in the
same system,
because it is theasfirst
discussed in anorth
one to the previous
of thestudy [27].
area of theThe area isThe
rooftop. divided
optimalinto fiveifareas,
area, this
and the estimation
methodology in the first
is employed, scenario is summarized
is summarized in Table 3; theinarea
Table 2; the module
is reduced by about 122 less
length is 2L
because
than every two modules
the standardized areinevitably,
case, and, mounted thetogether
energyinyield
the installed system.
is maximized whenIt issetting
found thethat
theangle
tilt area of
is reduced
row 1 to by22◦300
, themoptimal
2 due toangle.
the proposed approach of estimating the area, based
on optimal inter-row spacing using the generated multiplier factor.
Table 3. Installation area of the case study and the optimal area of scenario 2.
Table 2. Installation area of the case study and the optimal area of scenario 1 (with a 15° tilt angle).
Number of Installation Area Optimal Area (m2 ) with
Roof Number Tilt Angle
Roof Number Tilt Angle Number ofModules
Modules Installation 15◦ (m2)
(m2 ) at TiltArea ◦ and 22◦ Row-1 2
15Optimal Area (m )
A1
A1 15◦ 15°
and 22◦ , row 1 316 316 786.11
786.11 747752
A2
A2 15◦ 15°
and 22◦ , row 1 292 292 786.11
786.11 690694
A3 15◦ and 22◦ , row 1
A3 15° 50 50 113.19
113.19 118
119
A4 15◦ and 22◦ , row 1 48 172.59 113
A4
A5 ◦ 15° ◦
15 and 22 , row 1 48 44 172.59
126.43 98114
A5
Total 15◦ 15°
and 22◦ , row 1 44 750 126.43
1984.43 176698
Total 15° 750 1984.43 1777
In each scenario, a comparison between two different configurations is presented.
Theconfiguration
The first second scenario is to implement
is designed the system
to standardize by setting
a single tilt angledifferent tilt angles,
for all arrays in theas
proposed by the authors of [27], setting the tilt angle of the first row
system, while the second configuration is for the scenario of using two different tilt angles,to the optimal tilt
angle, which is 22° in the studied case. This row now has a shadow
according to the new configuration proposed by the authors of [27]. The optimal area effect on the other
arrays
that because
should it is the
be used first one toand
is estimated the compared
north of the areathe
with of the
arearooftop.
that theThe optimal
system area, if
occupies
this methodology is employed, is summarized in Table 3; the area is
in reality. The optimal area is calculated using the methodology proposed in this study, reduced by about 122
less than
while the standardized
the installation case,
area is set and,oninevitably,
based a design toolthe that
energy yield
relied is maximized
on the when
areas suggested
setting the tilt angle of row 1 to 22°, the optimal angle.
by the software. The overall percentage error in the first configuration is 11.6%, and the
In each
percentage scenario,
error, a comparison
if the second between
configuration two different
is employed, configurations is presented.
is 12.3%.
The first configuration is designed to standardize a single tilt angle for all arrays in the
5.2. Yemenwhile
system, Case Study
the second configuration is for the scenario of using two different tilt
angles, according
Another case study to the innew
Yemen configuration proposed
has been employed by the the
to extend authors
use ofofthis
[27]. The optimal
mathematical
area that should be used is estimated and compared with
model and provide a wider context for this study. The PV system in this study was the area that the system
installed
occupies in reality. The optimal area is calculated using the methodology proposed in
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

Considering these differences in terrain, the minimum spacing area is calculated using
Equation (8) and is found to be less than the actual spacing area by around 16%.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 12 of 15

Table 5. Estimated parameters for the Yemen case study.

in Dhamar, Al-Hada; Parameter

longitude: 44.41423◦ and latitude: 14.5523◦ . ItValue
was designed by the
Engineering Studies andand
h between (A1 A2, A2
Designs andA3) and was installed by Power
Unit–Tesla 20 cm City for electrical
tools and solar henergy
between (A3 and A4)
systems, under the project name: “Water pump 30 cm
for agricultural
Azimuth angle 50°
watering, using renewable energy sources with a total power capacity of 52 kW”. A photo
Elevation angle 32°
for this project is shown in Figure 9. As illustrated in this figure, the system is installed
Inter-row spacing factor 1.03, (4)
in a non-flat area in a descending order, facing the south direction. From inspection, the
Inter-row spacing between (A1 and A2, A2 and A3) 1.26 m, (6)
shading, in this case, will increase as we descend from array A1 to A4. The shading length
Inter-row spacing between (A3 and A4) 1.36 m, (6)
of the PV arrays of this case study is also clearly shown in Figure 8.
Required area 310.17 m , (8)
2

Figure 9. The PV arrays of the Yemen case study and their shading length.
Figure 9. The PV arrays of the Yemen case study and their shading length.
6. Conclusions
The designer of this project selected the spacing between the PV arrays to prevent
As by
shading solar energythesystems
ignoring effect ofare
the rapidly
slope and proliferating
the non-flat in recentThe
terrain. decades, and area
actual total the
potential dependency on this form of energy resource2 is increased, PV system
of the spacing of the installed PV system is 370 m , as illustrated in Table 4. However, installation
and enhancement
since are beingtogiven
this value is sufficient significant
prevent shading inattention
this caseby researchers
study, it cannotworldwide.
be employed This
in
article introduces
limited-area a mathematical
applications. Therefore,analysis of shading avoidance
the mathematical by the use
model developed of adequate
in this paper is
spacing
used that ensures
to provide maximizing
the optimal the extracted
inter-row energy
spacing factor forand minimizing
limited the area occupied
area applications.
by the PV module. A complete formulation of the spacing factor has been developed and
presented
Table 4. PV for flatdata
panel andinnon-flat
the Yemen terrains. This factor can be generated and generalized to a
case study.
specific geographical location, which could be a city or province.
Parameter Value
In KSA, two specific scenarios were implemented for a flat-terrain PV system. A
comparison of Module width configurations was offered in 1.134
two distinct eachmscenario. The first
Module length 2.274 m
Tilt angle 13◦
Installed inter-row spacing 1.8 m
Actual Total area 370 m2
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 13 of 15

To estimate the optimal inter-row spacing factor between PV arrays, in this case,
Equation (6) has been used with a positive height difference (h). Table 2 provides all the
parameters needed to estimate the optimal inter-row spacing factor using this model. The
estimated minimum spacing area that is sufficient to install this system with the same
power capacity, ensuring avoidance of the worst-case scenario of the shading effect is
310.17 m2 . As shown in Table 2, there are two different inter-row spacing distances between
arrays in this case study. The first one is the inter-row spacing between the distant arrays
A1 and A2, and A2 and A3. The second inter-row spacing is between A3 and A4. The
former is less than the latter because its height difference is less than the latter, being 20 cm
for the former, vs. 30 cm for the latter, as illustrated in Table 5. The optimal inter-row
spacing factor is estimated for this case study, using Equation (4). Then, the spacing is
decided, considering the non-flat terrain, using Equation (6). Considering these differences
in terrain, the minimum spacing area is calculated using Equation (8) and is found to be
less than the actual spacing area by around 16%.

Table 5. Estimated parameters for the Yemen case study.

Parameter Value
h between (A1 and A2, A2 and A3) 20 cm
h between (A3 and A4) 30 cm
Azimuth angle 50◦
Elevation angle 32◦
Inter-row spacing factor 1.03, (4)
Inter-row spacing between (A1 and A2, A2 and A3) 1.26 m, (6)
Inter-row spacing between (A3 and A4) 1.36 m, (6)
Required area 310.17 m2 , (8)

6. Conclusions
As solar energy systems are rapidly proliferating in recent decades, and the potential
dependency on this form of energy resource is increased, PV system installation and
enhancement are being given significant attention by researchers worldwide. This article
introduces a mathematical analysis of shading avoidance by the use of adequate spacing
that ensures maximizing the extracted energy and minimizing the area occupied by the PV
module. A complete formulation of the spacing factor has been developed and presented
for flat and non-flat terrains. This factor can be generated and generalized to a specific
geographical location, which could be a city or province.
In KSA, two specific scenarios were implemented for a flat-terrain PV system. A
comparison of two distinct configurations was offered in each scenario. The first configura-
tion applied a single tilt angle to all arrays in the system, while the second configuration
employed two separate tilt angles to reduce the required area for PV system installation.
The optimal area was determined using the approach given in this study, while the instal-
lation area was determined using the design software tool. Overall, the first setup had
a percentage error of 11.6%, whereas the second configuration had a percentage error of
12.3%. To provide a broader perspective of this model, it was exemplified using a second
case study with a non-flat terrain. This study is a water pump for agricultural watering
using Renewable Energy sources located in Dhamar, Al-Hada, Yemen, which has a non-flat
terrain. The optimal inter-row spacing factor for limited-area applications is estimated in
this case study. The optimal spacing is reduced by around 16% from the actual spacing
applied by the systems designers.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, A.A.-Q. and M.A.-M.; Funding acquisition, A.A.-Q., K.A.,
C.E.-B. and U.E.; Investigation, A.A.-Q. and M.A.-M.; Methodology, A.A.-Q. and M.A.-M.; Project
administration, A.A.-Q.; Software, M.A.-M.; Supervision, A.A.-Q.; Visualization, K.A., C.E.-B. and
U.E.; Writing—original draft, M.A.-M.; Writing—review & editing, A.A.-Q. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 14 of 15

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the Clean Environment Company, especially Engineer
Taha Alasemi. They also acknowledge the Engineers from “Tesla for trading and engineering
services”, Engineer Yahya Alhammadi, and Engineer Mohammed Habeb, for implementing the
Yemen project and providing the required information and data. Yarmouk University and the
University of Jordan are also acknowledged for their support in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
PV photovoltaic
MENA Middle East and South Africa (MENA)
MPPT maximum power point tracking
2-D 2-dimensional
∆H PV panel height from the ground
θ az Azimuth angle
θ elev Elevation angle
θ tilt Tilt angle
X Shading length
D Spacing between rows
L PV panel length
w PV panel width
F Inter row spacing factor
h1 Height difference with positive slope
h2 Height difference with negative slope
A PV system area

References
1. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Qaisi, M. Modelling, Design and Control of a Standalone Hybrid PV-Wind Micro-Grid System. Energies 2021,
14, 4849. [CrossRef]
2. Belaïd, F.; Elsayed, A.H.; Omri, A. Key drivers of renewable energy deployment in the MENA Region: Empirical evidence using
panel quantile regression. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2021, 57, 225–238. [CrossRef]
3. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Masri, H.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Radaideh, A. Power curve modelling of wind turbines—A comparison study. IET
Renew. Power Gener. 2022, 16, 362–374. [CrossRef]
4. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Radaideh, A.; AL-Masri, H. Comparative study between measured and estimated wind energy
yield. Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2020, 28, 2926–2939. [CrossRef]
5. Panigrahi, R.; Mishra, S.K.; Srivastava, S.C.; Srivastava, A.K.; Schulz, N.N. Grid integration of small-scale photovoltaic systems in
secondary distribution network—A review. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2020, 56, 3178–3195. [CrossRef]
6. Tavakoli, A.; Saha, S.; Arif, M.T.; Haque, M.E.; Mendis, N.; Oo, A.M. Impacts of grid integration of solar PV and electric vehicle
on grid stability, power quality and energy economics: A review. IET Energy Syst. Integr. 2020, 2, 243–260. [CrossRef]
7. Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Hannan, M.A.; Jern, K.P.; Alkahtani, A.A.; PGAbas, A.E. Power quality assessment of grid-connected PV system
in compliance with the recent integration requirements. Electronics 2020, 9, 366. [CrossRef]
8. Cornejo-Bueno, L.; Casanova-Mateo, C.; Sanz-Justo, J.; Salcedo-Sanz, S. Machine learning regressors for solar radiation estimation
from satellite data. Sol. Energy 2019, 183, 768–775. [CrossRef]
9. Babar, B.; Graversen, R.; Boström, T. Solar radiation estimation at high latitudes: Assessment of the CMSAF databases, ASR and
ERA5. Sol. Energy 2019, 182, 397–411. [CrossRef]
10. Awasthi, A.; Shukla, A.K.; SR, M.M.; Dondariya, C.; Shukla, K.N.; Porwal, D.; Richhariya, G. Review on sun tracking technology
in solar PV system. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 392–405. [CrossRef]
11. Karafil, A.; Ozbay, H.; Kesler, M.; Parmaksiz, H. Calculation of optimum fixed tilt angle of PV panels depending on solar angles
and comparison of the results with experimental study conducted in summer in Bilecik, Turkey. In Proceedings of the 2015 9th
International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ELECO), Bursa, Turkey, 26–28 November 2015; pp. 971–976.
12. Hong, T.; Lee, M.; Koo, C.; Jeong, K.; Kim, J. Development of a method for estimating the rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) potential
by analyzing the available rooftop area using Hillshade analysis. Appl. Energy 2017, 194, 320–332. [CrossRef]
13. Zhan, T.S.; Lin, W.M.; Tsai, M.H.; Wang, G.S. Design and implementation of the dual-axis solar tracking system. In Proceedings of
the 2013 IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, Kyoto, Japan, 22–26 July 2013; pp. 276–277.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6077 15 of 15

14. Nadia, A.R.; Isa, N.A.M.; Desa, M.K.M. Advances in solar photovoltaic tracking systems: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2018, 82, 2548–2569. [CrossRef]
15. de la Torre, F.C.; Varo-Martinez, M.; López-Luque, R.; Ramírez-Faz, J.; Fernández-Ahumada, L.M. Design and analysis of a
tracking/backtracking strategy for PV plants with horizontal trackers after their conversion to agrivoltaic plants. Renew. Energy
2022, 187, 537–550. [CrossRef]
16. Alrwashdeh, S.S. An energy production evaluation from PV arrays with different inter-row distances. Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res.
Dev. 2019, 9-5. [CrossRef]
17. Saint-Drenan, Y.M.; Barbier, T. Data-analysis and modelling of the effect of inter-row shading on the power production of
photovoltaic plants. Sol. Energy 2019, 184, 127–147. [CrossRef]
18. Joshi, K.; Bora, B.; Mishra, S.; Lalwani, M.; Kumar, S. SPV Plant Performance Analysis for Optimized Inter-Row Spacing and
Module Mounting Structure. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent
Computing Techniques (ICICT), Ghaziabad, India, 27–28 September 2019; Volume 1, pp. 1–3.
19. Jansson, P.M.; Schwabe, U.K. Photodiode sensor array design for photovoltaic system inter-row spacing optimization-calculating
module performance during in-situ testing/simulated shading. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium
(SAS), Limerick, Ireland, 23–25 February 2010; pp. 235–240.
20. Alrwashdeh, S.S. Investigation of the energy output from PV panels based on using different orientation systems in Amman-
Jordan. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021, 28, 101580. [CrossRef]
21. Olczak, P.; Komorowska, A. An adjustable mounting rack or an additional PV panel? Cost and environmental analysis of a
photovoltaic installation on a household: A case study in Poland. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101496. [CrossRef]
22. Kumar, R.; Rajoria, C.S.; Sharma, A.; Suhag, S. Design and simulation of standalone solar PV system using PVsyst Software: A
case study. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 5322–5328. [CrossRef]
23. Dondariya, C.; Porwal, D.; Awasthi, A.; Shukla, A.K.; Sudhakar, K.; SR, M.M.; Bhimte, A. Performance simulation of grid-
connected rooftop solar PV system for small households: A case study of Ujjain, India. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 546–553. [CrossRef]
24. Siregar, Y.; Hutahuruk, Y. Optimization design and simulating solar PV system using PVSyst software. In Proceedings of the 2020
4rd International Conference on Electrical, Telecommunication and Computer Engineering (ELTICOM), Medan, Indonesia, 3–4
September 2020; pp. 219–223.
25. Behura, A.K.; Kumar, A.; Rajak, D.K.; Pruncu, C.I.; Lamberti, L. Towards better performances for a novel rooftop solar PV system.
Sol. Energy 2021, 216, 518–529. [CrossRef]
26. Viana, Z.C.; Costa, J.d.S.; Silva, J.V.; Fernandes, R.M. Accuracy Analysis of Pvsyst Software for Estimating the Generation of
a Photovoltaic System at the Polo de Inovação Campos dos Goytacazes. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE PES Transmission &
Distribution Conference and Exhibition—Latin America (T&D LA), Montevideo, Uruguay, 28 September–2 October 2020; pp. 1–6.
[CrossRef]
27. Al-Quraan, A.; Al-Mahmodi, M.; Al-Asemi, T.; Bafleh, A.; Bdour, M.; Muhsen, H.; Malkawi, A. A New Configuration of Roof
Photovoltaic System for Limited Area Applications—A Case Study in KSA. Buildings 2022, 12, 92. [CrossRef]
28. Ghaleb, B.; Asif, M. Assessment of solar PV potential in commercial buildings. Renew. Energy 2022, 187, 618–630. [CrossRef]
29. Sharma, D.K.; Verma, V.; Singh, A.P. Review and analysis of solar photovoltaic software’s. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 2014, 4,
725–731.
30. Yadav, P.; Kumar, N.; Chandel, S.S. Simulation and performance analysis of a 1kWp photovoltaic system using PVsyst. In
Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Computation of Power, Energy, Information and Communication (ICCPEIC),
Melmaruvathur, India, 22–23 April 2015; pp. 0358–0363.
31. Rekhashree, J.S.; Rajashekar, H. Naganagouda, Study on design and performance analysis of solar PV rooftop standalone and on
grid system using PVSYST. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. (IRJET) 2018, 5, 41–48.
32. Grigoriev, V.; Corsi, C.; Blanco, M. Fourier sampling of sun path for applications in solar energy. In AIP Conference Proceedings;
AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 1734, p. 020008.
33. Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory, University of Oregon, Sun Path Chart Program. Available online: http://solardat.
uoregon.edu/SunChartProgram.html (accessed on 31 January 2022).
34. Kelly, N.A.; Gibson, T.L. Increasing the solar photovoltaic energy capture on sunny and cloudy days. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 111–125.
[CrossRef]
35. Quaschning, V.; Hanitsch, R. Increased energy yield of 50% at flat roof and field installations with optimized module structures.
In Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference and Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, Austria, 6–10 July
1998; pp. 1993–1996.