See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352818779

A novel UV sensor-based dual-axis solar tracking system: Implementation and

performance analysis

Article in Applied Energy · October 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117295

CITATIONS READS
46 2,127

6 authors, including:

Chaowanan Jamroen Chanon Fongkerd

King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
29 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wipa Krongpha Preecha Komkum

King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
2 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 205 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chaowanan Jamroen on 01 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A novel UV sensor-based dual-axis solar tracking system: Implementation and
performance analysis

Chaowanan Jamroena,b,∗, Chanon Fongkerda , Wipa Krongphaa , Preecha Komkuma , Alongkorn Pirayawaraporna ,
Nachaya Chindakhama
a Division
of Instrumentation and Automation Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand
b The Plasma and Automatic Electric Technology Research Group, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok,

Rayong Campus, Thailand

Abstract
The application of photovoltaic (PV) systems has been increasing rapidly worldwide in the field of sustainable
electricity generation. However, the efficiency of PV systems depends significantly on the orientation of solar
PV modules. To enhance the efficiency of PV systems, previous studies focused mainly on the development of
sensor-based solar tracking systems using sun position sensors. In particular, they used light-dependent resistors
(LDRs), which detect the visible light spectrum. However, LDRs have significant limitations (e.g., saturation of light
intensity and ineffectiveness under low-visibility conditions) that can adversely affect the solar tracking performance.
Utilization of ultraviolet (UV) spectrum captured by UV sensors displays the potential for overcoming the limitations
of LDRs. This is owing to the enhancement of UV radiation by the cloud effect during overcast conditions and the
capability of UV sensors. Considering this, we propose a novel UV sensor-based dual-axis solar tracking system to
improve tracking movements and PV energy generation by utilizing the advantages of UV radiation enhancement
and UV sensor capability. Four intensity signals of UV radiation obtained by UV sensors are compared and employed
as inputs to the solar tracking system after it is implemented on a pseudo-azimuthal mounting structure, which is
capable of following the sun trajectory through daily and elevation angles. A comparative analysis is performed
to evaluate the solar tracking performance of the proposed solar tracking system with respect to that of a fixed
flat-plate system and conventional LDR-based solar tracking system. The experimental results reveal that our
tracking system increases energy generation (after accounting for the operational energy consumption) by 19.97%
and 11.00% compared with the fixed flat-plate system and LDR-based solar tracking system, respectively. Moreover,
the proposed solar tracking system performs effectively in terms of movement tracking under the tested conditions.
Finally, the economic performance evaluation demonstrates that the proposed tracking system is profitable.
Keywords: Energy generation, Photovoltaic (PV) system, Solar tracking system, Solar energy, Ultraviolet (UV)
sensor

BIPV Building Integrated Photovoltaic

CdS Cadmium Sulfide
Nomenclature
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
Acronyms DPBP Discounted Payback Period (years)
3D 3-Dimension EMA Exponential Moving Average
AI Artificial Intelligence E–W East–West
ANFIS Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference System IoT Internet of Things
IR Infrared
∗ Corresponding author at: Division of Instrumentation and
Automation Engineering Technology, Faculty of Engineering and IRR Internal Rate of Return (%)
Technology, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North
Bangkok, Thailand LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh)
Email address: chaowanan.j@eat.kmutnb.ac.th (Chaowanan
Jamroen) LDR Light Dependent Resistor

Preprint submitted to Elsevier July 1, 2021

MQTT Message Queuing Telemetry Transport 1. Introduction

NPV Net Present Value ($) The urgent need for a transition to clean and sustain-
able energy is significantly accelerating renewable energy
N–S North–South (RE) development for worldwide electricity production.
O&M Operation and Maintenance Several countries have set their targets for achieving net-
zero emissions by 2050 [1]. In particular, the RE used in
PETG Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol the energy sector (e.g., wind, solar, biomass, and geother-
mal) is increasing dramatically, aided by the reduction
PI Profitability Index (-) in production costs and policies that encourage a shift to
lower-carbon energy sources. The share of RE in pri-
PM Particulate Matter
mary energy is likely to increase from 5% in 2018 to
PV Photovoltaic approximately 45% by 2050 [2]. The global RE capac-
ity attained 2,537 GW by the end of 2019, i.e., an in-
RE Renewable Energy crease of 176 GW from that in 2018 [3]. The growth
in RE is dominated by wind and solar power (approx-
SPB Solar Photovoltaic Blind imately 90% of the world’s newly added RE capacity),
UV Ultraviolet which is underpinned by the continuous reductions in de-
velopment costs. Although the use of RE is increasing
Notations rapidly, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted RE de-
ployment and temporarily constrained RE growth [4, 5].
∆E Percentage relative difference of energy (%) Nonetheless, RE is still being used continuously and in
∆Enet Percentage relative difference of energy consider- increasing quantities. China, where is leading the oth-
ing the operational energy consumption (%) ers in this effort, is performing remarkably in the global
renewable landscape with a rapid increase in the deploy-
C0 Investment cost ($) ment of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems [6]. It
is noteworthy that a dramatic increase in solar capacity
Ct Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost in the has placed China in a position where it can become the
year t ($) largest installer of solar power systems [7]. This is ow-
ing to a substantial reduction in installation cost and the
Cin,t Cash in-flow in the year t ($)
rapid advances in solar energy technology. In addition,
Cout,t Cash out-flow in the year t ($) the installed capacity of solar power has been increasing
over time in the United States [8]. As a consequence,
d Degradation rate (%) the development of solar PV industries can improve the
energy-supply security by a shift from fossil fuel to RE
Efixed,con Operational energy consumption for the fixed sources and promote sustainable development by reduc-
flat-plate system (Wh) ing carbon emissions [9].
Efixed,net Net energy generated by the fixed flat-plate
system considering the operational energy con- 1.1. Overview
sumption (Wh) Nevertheless, the electrical power generated by PV sys-
tems involves different controllable and uncontrollable
Efixed Energy generated by the fixed flat-plate system variables [10, 11], e.g., environmental conditions, mod-
(Wh) ule characteristics, and module orientation. In general,
harsh environmental conditions decrease PV energy pro-
Etracking,con Operational energy consumption for the
duction and efficiency. Soiling, snow deposition, corro-
tracking system (Wh)
sion, or the delamination of composite structure reduces
Etracking,net Net energy generated by the tracking system the exposure of PV modules to solar radiation [12]. The
considering the operational energy consumption PV conversion efficiency can be enhanced by installing
(Wh) additional components such as cooling systems, maxi-
mum power point tracking systems, and solar tracking
Etracking Energy generated by the tracking system (Wh) systems [13]. Essentially, PV generation depends on the
solar radiation contained in the sunlight and orientations
Et Annual energy generated by the PV system in of PV modules corresponding to the diurnal and seasonal
the year t (Wh) movements of the earth [14, 15]. The power produced by
n Lifetime of the project (years) PV systems is maximized when the incident sunlight is
perpendicular to the surface of the PV modules. Typ-
r Discount rate (%) ically, PV modules are aligned by pre-defined optimal

2
values of orientation angles as indicated in [16], i.e., el-
evation and azimuth angles. This is called a fixed flat-
plate system. Although fixed flat-plate systems produce
electrical power throughout their service life, the power
generation is significantly less than its capability. As a
result, the efficiency of fixed flat-plate systems is rela-
tively low.
1.2. Literature review
Solar tracking systems have gained research interest
for increasing PV generation and have been proposed in
recent literature. Solar tracking systems can be classified
into two main systems based on the degrees of freedom:
single-axis and dual-axis tracking systems [17, 18]. Fur-
thermore, each type of tracking system can be divided
into two categories based on the control strategy: open-
loop and closed-loop controls [19]. However, this study
describes the current literature on solar tracking systems
based on their driving methods, as reported in [20, 21],
including sensorless and sensor-based tracking systems.
1.2.1. Sensorless tracking system
Recent studies have focused on the development of sen-
sorless solar tracking systems based on open-loop con-
trol Zhu et al. [22] presented a single-axis solar tracking
structure, which was numerically designed by employing
a tracking algorithm based on the sun-earth geometric
relationships and the prediction of solar radiation. Sim-
ilarly, Kuttybay et al. [23] proposed a single-axis solar
tracking system based on open-loop control using a track-
ing schedule. The tracking schedule utilized weather con-
dition data and astronomical calculations of the sun’s
position (azimuth angle) in the sky, relying on date and
time. The study revealed that the tracker based on a
schedule obtained by astronomical calculations was bet-
ter than a photoresistor-based tracker by 4.2%, particu-
larly on cloudy days. Fernández-Ahumada et al. [24] de-
veloped rational models of the movement of solar track-
ing systems. These considered only the sun’s position
or the equations of astronomical movement. The study
recommended iterative numerical methods for achieving
higher accuracy of trackers. In addition, Fernández-
Ahumada et al. [25] implemented an optimal tracking
strategy based on a backtracking approach to prevent
the creation of shadows on dual-axis solar tracking sys-
tems. The energy production by plants installed with
this tracking method was 1.31% higher than that by PV
installations with astronomical tracking. Cruz-Peragón
et al. [26] introduced an alternative method for deter-
mining the tracking energy advantage using a combina-
tion of the geographical locations and astronomical ap-
proach. It displayed a relevant energy advantage of over
20% with respect to the fixed system. Batayneh et al.
[27] considered a discrete single-axis solar tracking sys-
tem that moves three times on the azimuth angle within
a day. The tracking angle was based on the site loca-
tion and weather data. The actuator life obtained using
3
the tracking system was longer than that achieved with
continuous tracking systems. Fathabadi [28] proposed a
novel, highly accurate sensorless dual-axis solar tracking
system controlled by the maximum power point track-
ing units of PV systems. The maximum power point
tracking controller continuously calculated the maximum
output power of the PV module, whereas the altitude
and azimuth angles deviations were considered to track
the sun’s position. The energy efficiency increased by
28.8%–43.6% depending on the season. Kang et al. [29]
introduced a smart solar PV blind (SPB) for building
integrated PV (BIPV) system applications. The solar
tracking strategy was implemented with SPBs, includ-
ing direct and indirect methods, to increase electricity
generation. The direct method was used to monitor and
evaluate the real-time current and voltage data to ob-
tain the optimal slat angles, whereas the indirect method
was used to calculate the altitude and azimuth angles
based on the installation location, day, time, and season.
The smart SPB could improve the performance by up to
24.8%. Furthermore, Kang et al. [30] combined direct
and indirect methods (so-called hybrid method) in con-
junction with data mining techniques to follow the sun’s
position. They demonstrated that the hybrid method
performed better than the direct and indirect methods
by 8.5% and 47.8%, respectively. However, these meth-
ods relied on the key external climatic factors with com-
putational complexity for training and validation. AL-
Rousan et al. [31] applied artificial intelligence (AI) us-
ing an adaptive neural fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)
to enhance the solar tracking performance. This algo-
rithm employed month, day, and time as input variables
to predict the optimal orientation angles.
1.2.2. Sensor-based tracking system
A sensor-based solar tracking system does not neces-
sarily require a prior determination of the sun’s position
using additional offline data. Therefore, sensor-based so-
lar tracking systems have been conventionally installed
in many countries and continue to be active [32]. Diaz
et al. [33] developed a filtered sun sensor. The data
captured by it were used as inputs to a single-axis solar
tracking system based on east–west rotation using photo-
diodes to detect the sun’s path. The sensor was equipped
with four photo-diodes with infrared (IR) and linear po-
larizing optic filters. Although the sensor with IR filter
provided superior performance, this tracking system re-
quired a custom-made sensor that was unavailable in the
market. Batayneh et al. [34] used four small PV cells as
photo-sensors mounted on a PV module at four locations.
The inputs retrieved by the PV cells were processed in
a fuzzy logic system to follow the sun’s path. Numerous
studies have employed light-dependent resistors (LDRs)
to capture the sun’s position [35]. Chin et al. [36] pre-
sented a single-axis solar tracking system employing two
LDRs to detect sunlight. Meanwhile, Seme et al. [37]
designed a dual-axis solar tracking using four LDRs to
track the trajectory of the sun. Similarly, Hoffmann et Total radiation Direct radiation Diffuse radiation
al. [38] proposed a dual-axis solar tracker using LDRs 2.0
for identifying the direction of the sun’s movement and
adjusting the panel orientation according to the control

Radiation (W/m2/nm)
1.5
performed by electronic devices. The study also showed Infrared (IR)
UV
that irradiation with the tracking system yielded aver-
age monthly gains of 17.20%–31.10%. Motahhir et al. 1.0
[39] developed an open hardware/software test bench for Visible
a dual-axis solar tracker. Here, LDRs were installed in
0.5
the PV module to detect the sun’s position. In addi-
tion, Jamroen et al. [40] designed, developed, and im-
plemented an automatic dual-axis solar tracking system 0.0
that was based on a digital logic design and employed 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
LDRs. The tracking strategy considered the combina- Wavelength (nm)
tion of directions of the sunlight incident on the LDRs
for tracking the sun’s trajectory. The energy generation Figure 1: Estimation of sun radiation versus wavelength in Rayong
achieved with the tracking system was higher than that province, Thailand under clear sky conditions for 200–1200 nm.
achieved with the fixed flat-plate system by 44.89%.
LDR UV sensor
1.3. Limitations and research gaps 1200 450

Analog signal of UV sensor

The literature survey indicates that although sensor-

Analog signal of LDR

less solar tracking systems have shown improved PV
power production, these are typically based on open-loop
control. This requires offline estimated data of the sun’s
path and their geographical information. Hence, these
operated independently based on their geographical loca-
tion, but the need for calibration procedures is required
for new installation locations [28]. In addition, intelli-
gent method-based tracking systems (such as AI) involve
substantial historical data and computational complexity
because of the training and validation processes. These
issues have been encountered by practitioners while im-
plementing sensorless solar tracking systems in practice.
Meanwhile, the deficiency in the literature is with re-
gard to the development of sensor-based solar tracking
systems. Specifically, most of the sensor-based solar
tracking systems are based on closed-loop control, partic-
ularly using LDRs, which are commonly cadmium sulfide
(CdS) type and detect visible light spectrum, as inputs
to tracking algorithms. Nevertheless, the limitations of
LDR (such as saturation of light intensity and ineffec-
tiveness during low-visibility conditions) can deteriorate
the solar tracking performance. LDR saturation occurs
when the light exposure of LDRs reaches a certain sat-
uration level. Consequently, the saturated LDRs return
almost constant voltage values to the tracking algorithm.
This results in the maintenance of the position of the
first point of saturation (rather than in motions to face
the sun) and causes error in tracking movements, as re-
ported by Grace Reeseman [41]. The main disadvantage
of LDR-based tracking systems related to the ineffective-
ness during low-visibility conditions was addressed effec-
tively by Kuttybay et al. [23] and discussed further by
[16, 40]. Kuttybay et al. [23] described that a PV module
may be directed opposite to the position of the sun dur-
ing cloudy days because of strong visible light scattering
corresponding to weather conditions.
960 400
LDR saturation
720 350
480 300
240 250
0 200
06.00 08.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
Time (h)
Figure 2: Comparison of analog signals of LDR and UV sensor
collected during the field experiment in Rayong province, Thailand
under clear sky conditions.
In addition, most previous works in the literature ex-
amined only the technical aspects of solar tracking sys-
tems with the objective of developing new designs or dif-
ferent tracking control strategies. According to Vaziri
Rad et al. [42], although solar tracking systems have
demonstrated their effectiveness for increasing PV en-
ergy productivity, the energy gains are not always cost-
effective or profitable because of the high cost of tracking
systems. Moreover, the performance quantification with
regard to the economic viability of PV technology when
the solar tracking system is installed is still limited, as
discussed by Talavera et al. [43]. Therefore, this work
attempts to address this research deficiency associated
with the economic viability of solar tracking systems in
terms of cost-competitiveness and profitability.
1.4. Challenge and opportunity
Considering the limitations and research deficiencies,
this study is aimed at exploring an alternative sun posi-
tion sensor. It can overcome the LDR limitations and im-
prove the tracking performance. In this study, we focus

4
primarily on solar radiation (total radiation) exposure to
the earth’s surface, which generally contains both direct
and diffuse radiations (see Fig. 1) and can be separated
into three major spectra: ultraviolet (UV), visible light,
and infrared (IR) [44]. An important characteristic of
visible light is that it can be attenuated by environmental
conditions. On a clear day, visible light straightforwardly
reaches the earth’s surface with high radiation contained
in the sunlight. In contrast, clouds reflect, absorb, and
transmit incoming solar radiation, thereby modifying the
amount and spectral quality of solar radiation reaching
the earth’s surface [45]. The level of visible light radi-
ation decreases significantly on a cloudy day because of
scattering and refraction by clouds. Furthermore, a high
level of visible light scattering can result in a brighter
sky in directions other than that of the sun’s position.
However, the exposure of the earth’s surface to UV
rays depends on astronomical factors, ozone, and cli-
matic conditions [46]. Similarly, clouds tend to reduce
the effect of both UV and visible light. Although UV ra-
diation is decreased by clouds, certain patterns of clouds
can significantly enhance UV radiation. Badosa et al.
[47] verified that clouds reduce total radiation more than
it reduces UV radiation. This is particularly so for ob-
scured sun conditions, low cloud fraction, and large solar
zenith angle. It is noteworthy that a significant number
of works report an enhancement effect of clouds on UV
radiation [48, 49]. It is called UV radiation enhancement
by cloud effects [50]. For this reason, this study focuses
on utilizing UV radiation for improving solar tracking
performance during cloudy conditions.
As shown in Fig. 1, LDRs (which effectively capture
visible light spectrum in the range of 500–700 nm) are
vulnerable to saturation under high light intensity and
ineffectiveness under low-visibility conditions. Consider-
ing this, this study aims to improve solar tracking perfor-
mance by using UV sensors rather than LDRs. With a
focus on optical sensors for measuring those radiations, a
comparison of the analog signals of an LDR and UV sen-
sor measured during clear sky in Rayong province, Thai-
land, is illustrated in Fig. 2. It is evident that the LDR
signal changes abruptly at the beginning and end of the
day. During the day, the LDR is saturated, and the out-
put signal remains almost constant or varies marginally
within a narrow range. Consequently, error may occur in
the tracking movement during this period. Meanwhile, a
UV sensor is used for detecting the intensity of incident
UV radiation. Fig. 2 demonstrates that the UV sensor
can remain sensitive to high intensities of incident UV
radiation without attaining saturation. Thereby, it pro-
vides an output signal that varies as the day progresses.
According to the above discussion, UV sensors can po-
tentially be used to improve solar tracking performance.
1.5. Scientific contributions
Based on the limitations and research deficiencies pre-
sented in this study, we have identified the challenges
5
and opportunities in addressing the research deficien-
cies of previous solar tracking studies. We achieved
this by developing a novel sensor-based dual-axis solar
tracking system that utilizes the advantages of UV ra-
diation enhancement and UV sensor capability. Unlike
LDRs, which are vulnerable to saturation during high
light intensity and ineffectiveness during low-visibility
conditions [51], UV sensors have key advantages that
enable these to overcome the issues in LDRs explained
earlier. In this paper, a novel UV sensor-based dual-axis
solar tracking system is proposed to simultaneously im-
prove the smoothness of solar tracking movements and
PV energy generation. Signals (of UV radiation) of four
intensity levels obtained by UV sensors are compared
and employed as inputs to the solar tracking system im-
plemented on a pseudo-azimuthal mounting structure,
which is capable of following the sun’s trajectory through
daily and elevation angles. Our experiment is conducted
over 60 days in Thailand to validate the proposed track-
ing system under various weather conditions. A compar-
ative analysis is performed to evaluate the performance
of the proposed solar tracking system with respect to that
of a fixed flat-plate system and conventional LDR-based
solar tracking system. The effect of different weather
conditions on the performance of the proposed tracking
system is analyzed in terms of energy generation and
operational consumption. The energy generation perfor-
mance is evaluated by considering the operational energy
consumption to improve its accuracy. In addition, to ad-
dress the research deficiency with regard to the economic
aspect, the economic performance of the proposed solar
tracking system project is evaluated in terms of its cost-
competitiveness and profitability compared with those of
the fixed flat-plate system and conventional LDR-based
solar tracking system.
2. Proposed solar tracking system
In this section, the novel UV sensor-based solar track-
ing system is proposed. An overview of the system is
illustrated in Fig. 3. Furthermore, it is described in
the following subsections: (i) Tracking system, (ii) Data
collection and monitoring system, and (iii) Prototype.
2.1. Tracking system
2.1.1. Tracking mechanism
The pseudo-azimuthal mounting structure is imple-
mented in the proposed solar tracking system. The main
advantage of this mounting type is the stability of the
structure, which is the best option for orientating the
platforms of PV module strings as reported by Cătălin
Alexandru [16]. However, a disadvantage of using the
pseudo-azimuthal mounting structure is that the rotat-
ing speed to achieve solar tracking varies considerably
for both primary and secondary axes, as investigated by
 Sensor data

PV current

PV voltage

Data collecting
PV power
Remote Monitoring
System operation
current
System operation Cloud
Solar radiation voltage Platform
System operation
power

Date/time
Database - MySQL

MQTT
Obtain data from tracking system

Intensity of UV radiation signals Arduino MEGA NodeMCU V2

Voltage and current of PV module
2560 R3 ESP8266
Voltage and current of
system operation

E–W direction EMA

Actuator 1 Data smoothing

N–S direction
L298N Motor Tracking
Actuator 2 Drive Module Strategy

Figure 3: Overview of proposed solar tracking system.

Yao et al. [52]. To adopt the pseudo-azimuthal mount- Primary axis of rotation
E–W rotation (daily angle: e )
ing structure on the proposed solar tracking system, the
representative axes of rotation (including primary and
-e +e
secondary axes) are illustrated in Fig. 4. As shown in
Secondary axis of rotation UV Sensor 1
Fig. 4, the daily angle () can be adjusted by the primary N–S rotation (elevation angle: r )
axis, and the elevation angle (ρ) can be adjusted by the UV Sensor 4
secondary axis. In Fig. 5, a PV module is placed on the +r

mounting structure to facilitate the solar tracking sys- -r

UV Sensor3

tem, including the two axes of rotation. Two motorized

N
linear actuators (Actuators 1 and 2) are installed on the UV Sensor 2

platform to execute the rotational axes as shown in Fig.

5. Actuator 1 is used to rotate the PV module around
the primary axis (N–S direction) for east–west rotation,
W E
i.e., the daily angle (). Actuator 2 is used to rotate the
PV module around the secondary axis (E–W direction)
for north–south rotation, which is the adjustment of the
elevation angle (ρ). For this study, a motorized linear ac-
S
tuator with a stroke of 200 mm is used for both the axes
of rotation. The selected actuator has a load capacity of
800 N and a speed of 20 mm/s. A set of limit switches in- Figure 4: Representation of axes of rotation and UV sensor instal-
side the actuator enables automatic disconnection of the lation.
power source. This is to ensure that the actuator does
not extend or retract beyond its mechanical dimensions.
Using these actuators, the angular field of  and ρ is 110◦ , 2.1.2. Sun position sensor
i.e., ±55◦ relative to the solar noon position ( = 0 and Considering the potential advantage provided by the
ρ = 0). In practice, the speed of the actuators is re- UV radiation enhancement and UV sensor capability as
duced from the rated speed to ensure higher accuracy of explained in Section 1, this work employs a commercial
tracking of the sun’s position and to prevent excessive GY-8511 UV sensor to measure the intensity of UV radi-
movements when the PV module is perpendicular to the ation exposure on the PV module. The intensity values
sunlight, whereby the energy required to achieve tracking are used as inputs to the solar tracking strategy to in-
is reduced. terpret and track the sun’s position. This sensor uses a
UV-A (320–400 nm) and UV-B (280–320 nm) sensitive

6
 Primary axis
Secondary axis
Actuator 2
for N–S rotation
Actuator 1
for E–W rotation
for E–W rotation
Figure 5: Structure of proposed solar tracking system.
photodiode in line to detect the intensity of UV radia-
tion. The sensor is effective for measuring UV radiation
with a spectral responsivity in the range of 300–380 nm.
However, its effectiveness reduces considerably for spec-
tral responsivity above 380 nm. Ozone largely absorbs
UV-B radiation, whereas UV-A radiation is transmitted
to the earth’s surface. Hence, it is suitable to consider
UV-A, which can be measured at the earth’s surface.
It is also integrated with an embedded operational am-
plifier to convert photocurrent to voltage based on UV
radiation intensity. A low operational current of 300 µA
is required, whereas the standby current of the sensor is
0.1 µA. This results in low operational consumption of
the proposed tracking system.
2.1.3. Solar tracking strategy
Recalling the tracking mechanism of the pseudo-
azimuthal mounting structure and the capability of the
UV sensor, four UV sensors are installed corresponding
to the axes of rotation as shown in Fig. 4. The analog
data obtained by the UV sensors are transmitted to an
Arduino Mega 2560 R3 microcontroller board. The ana-
log UV sensor data are processed and used to make deci-
sions on the solar tracking system based on the tracking
strategy (described subsequently) via the Arduino Mega
2560 R3 microcontroller board. However, the measured
UV radiation intensity data occasionally contain noise
or errors caused by malfunctioning of measuring devices.
In this study, the measured data are processed prior to
the tracking strategy to eliminate noise caused by elec-
tronic devices or environmental conditions. The expo-
nential moving average (EMA) technique, which is es-
sentially used for data smoothing in various applications
[11, 53], is applied in this study for noise elimination.
This prevents unintentional movements caused by noise
and errors. In addition, the effect of rapid and temporary
transitions of clouds can be minimized using the EMA
technique. The number of data points used for the EMA
technique is 10, which is obtained by trial and error.
Secondary axis
Primary axis
Actuator 2
for N–S rotation
Actuator 1
Actuator 1 for E–W rotation
Actuator 2
for N–S rotation
Side view Back view
Subsequently, the processed data are transmitted to
the tracking strategy as presented in Fig. 6 to track the
sun’s position. The tracking strategy is based on com-
parisons of pairs of UV sensors, which are located as
shown in Fig. 4. For rotations around the axes of rota-
tion, UV sensors 1 and 2 (UV1 and UV2, respectively)
control the rotation of the primary axis (daily angle) via
Actuator 1, whereas UV sensors 3 and 4 (UV3 and UV4,
respectively) are compared for controlling the rotation of
the secondary axis (elevation angle) via Actuator 2. For
each pair of UV sensors, the actuator is activated when
a difference between the UV radiation intensities is de-
tected. Meanwhile, the rotation is stopped when there
is no difference between the UV radiation intensities. In
addition, it is essential to have a safety margin for the
difference between UV sensor data for activating track-
ing decisions. This is to prevent oscillating movements
around the sun’s position [38]. Therefore, this study de-
fines a threshold (of the difference between intensities
measured by UV sensors) of 10 for both axes of rotation.
When the difference is less than the defined threshold,
the system would retain its position. When the difference
is equal to or larger than the defined threshold, the sys-
tem would adjust its position to the sun’s position based
on the tracking strategy. Using the proposed strategy,
tracking signals are released to operate the motorized
linear actuators through an L298N motor drive board.
Although the axes of rotation are triggered by the track-
ing strategy, the proposed solar tracking system cannot
rotate beyond the angular fields when the limit switches
are triggered.
2.2. Data collection and monitoring system
In addition to the tracking system, a data collection
and remote monitoring system is developed as illustrated
in Fig. 3. The intensity of UV radiation and electrical
information are measured by sensors and are processed
by the Arduino MEGA 2560 R3 board. This board is re-
sponsible for the main microcontroller and a data aggre-
7
 Start

Receive sensor data

from UV sensors

Data Pre-processing
(Noise elimination
and data smoothing)

UV sensors 3 and 4 UV sensors 1 and 2

for daily angle for elevation angle

No Yes Yes No
UV3 = UV4 UV1 = UV2

No Yes Yes No
UV3 > UV4 UV1 > UV2
Maintain position
for elevation angle

Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes

|UV3 - UV4|  10 |UV3 - UV4|  10 Maintain position |UV1 – UV2|  10 |UV1 – UV2|  10
for daily angle

Rotate W to E Rotate N to S
Maintain position Maintain position
for daily angle for elevation angle
Rotate E to W Rotate S to N

Figure 6: Flowchart of proposed solar tracking strategy.

gator. A NodeMCU ESP8266 board is used in this study
as an interconnecting device (gateway) between the Ar-
duino MEGA 2560 R3 board and an Internet of Things
(IoT) service. The measured data are accessed and trans-
mitted to a cloud service using a standard IoT messag-
ing protocol, namely, message queuing telemetry trans-
port (MQTT). These data are collected in a database
provided by a cloud service provider. This study em-
ploys the MySQL database (an open-source database)
for database management and remote data access appli-
cations. Finally, the collected data is accessed and used
in the performance evaluation.
Most importantly, two sets of electrical measuring de-
vices (where each set consists of voltage and current sen-
sors) are separately installed in the proposed system to
measure the PV power generation and operational energy
consumption:
1. The first set is used to measure the voltage and cur-
rent from the PV module. These voltage and current
are used to calculate the PV power, which is subse-
quently used to calculate the PV energy generation.
2. The other set is installed in the incoming power sup-
ply (which supplies both tracking system and data
collection/monitoring system) to measure the volt-
age and current of system operation. Similarly, the
power consumption and energy consumption during
system operation can be determined. In the fol-
lowing section, this operational energy consumption
would be considered for a more accurate evaluation
of the performance of the proposed tracking system.
2.3. Prototype
The prototype of the proposed solar tracking system
is shown in Fig. 7. The PV module is mounted on the
platform as indicated by Number 1 in Fig. 7. The UV
sensors are installed on the PV module in four directions
(as indicated by Number 2 in Fig. 7) corresponding to
the axes of rotation in Section 2.1. Number 3 in Fig. 7
indicates that the actuators are placed at the axes of ro-
tation. The center of E–W rotation is indicated by Num-
ber 4 in Fig. 7, and that of N–S rotation is indicated by
Number 5 in Fig. 7. The assembly tracking controller is
contained in a weather-proof plastic container as shown
by Number 6 in Fig. 7. The resistive load supplied by
the PV module is mounted on a heat-sink as indicated
by Number 7 in Fig. 7. Furthermore, the accelerome-
ter is used to measure the daily and elevation angle as
shown by Number 8 in Fig. 7. The Arduino Mega 2560
R3 board and ESP8266 NodeMCU board are placed at
Number 9 and 10 in Fig. 7, respectively. Number 11 in
Fig. 7 indicates an L289N motor drive board, whereas
the current and voltage sensors are installed at Number
12 in Fig. 7. To install the UV sensors on the PV mod-
ule, a commercial GY-8511 UV sensor is mounted in a
3-dimension (3D) printed sensor case using polyethylene
terephthalate glycol (PETG) filament as shown in Fig. 8.

8
 1
8
2 10 9

5
4

12

11
3

7
6

Figure 7: Prototype of proposed solar tracking system.

Microscope slide

Covering cap

Sensor case

UV Sensor installed in
Complete assembly
the sensor case

Figure 8: UV sensors installation.

A covering cap and a microscope slide are equipped and electrical data were collected at 10 s intervals from 06:00
installed on the sensor case for protection from weather, to 18:00 (12 h) throughout the experimental period. A
as shown in Fig. 8. comparative study was performed to examine the perfor-
mance of the proposed solar tracking system compared
with those of a fixed flat-plate system and conventional
3. Materials and methods LDR-based solar tracking system. All the studied sys-
tems used the same PV module. Its specifications are
3.1. Experimental setup listed in Table 1. The experimental setup is shown in Fig.
The field experiment was conducted at King 9. The systems studied in the experiment were placed in
Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok an open area on the terrace of the building of the Faculty
(KMUTNB), Rayong campus, Thailand. Here, the lat- of Engineering and Technology, King Mongkut’s Univer-
itude and longitude are 12.824342 and 101.216274, re- sity of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB), Rayong
spectively, and elevation above sea level is 7 meters, as campus, Thailand. The studied systems were arranged
determined using the global positioning system. The in the N–S direction to prevent shading between systems
experiment was conducted over 60 days (September to during sunrise and sunset as shown in Fig. 9. Further-
November 2020). Certain days were not considered ow- more, the distance between systems was considered to
ing to equipment malfunction, maintenance shutdowns, prevent shading caused by the variation in the earth’s
or electricity and internet connection deficiencies. The orbit around the sun.

9
 Table 1: Specifications of PV module.
Specifications
Material
Maximum power
Open-circuit voltage
Short-circuit current
Maximum power voltage
Maximum power current
Dimensions
Weight
LDR-based solar tracking system
UV sensor-based solar tracking system
Figure 9: Setup of experimental site.
In addition to PV energy, the operational energy con-
sumption was considered to increase the accuracy of eval-
uation of energy performance as recommended by [40].
It is to be noted that the operational energy consump-
tion mentioned in this study was measured at the incom-
ing power supply, which supplied the tracking system
and data collection/monitoring system as described pre-
viously. Hence, the configurations of the studied systems
are as follows:
1. The fixed flat-plate system was positioned based on
the optimal annual angles in Rayong province, Thai-
land. It was configured with a tilt angle of 15◦ and
azimuth angle of 180◦ (due south) according to [40].
Because the system did not have a tracking sys-
tem, the operational energy consumption required
by the fixed system was only for the data collec-
tion/monitoring system.
2. The LDR-based solar tracking system was set up
identically as the proposed tracking system by us-
ing four LDRs. The LDR configuration was based
on a typical configuration available in the literature
[37, 39]. Although the system was custom-made,
it represents a common configuration of LDR-based
tracking systems. For this system, the operational
energy consumption was for the tracking system and
Values the data collection and monitoring system.
Monocrystalline silicon
The main electrical information on the generation and
79.98 W
operational energy consumption for each system are sum-
22.80 V
marized in Table 2. It would be used to evaluate the
4.65 A
performance of the tracking systems.
18.60 V
4.30 A
770 × 665 × 30 mm 3.2. Daily weather classification
5.70 Kg. The experiment was conducted over 60 days (Septem-
ber to November 2020), thereby addressing the rainy and
winter seasons in Thailand. The sun’s path at the loca-
tion of the experiment (obtained from SunCalc [54]) is
shown in Fig. 10. The figure shows that the experimen-
tal period covers most parts of the annual path of the sun
W
at the experimental site [54]. Among the three seasons
S N
in Thailand, in the rainy season (May to October), PV
E
generation is influenced by the weather conditions such
as clouds and rainfall. Hence, the rainy season was the
target season to evaluate the performance of the track-
ing systems under low-visibility conditions. Although
the weather conditions play a significant role during this
season, particularly on sunny days, it is also the period
when the largest amount of solar radiation reaches the
earth’s surface. This is because the sun’s altitude is lo-
cated almost at the zenith. Furthermore, winter (Novem-
Fixed flat-plate system ber to February) was focused upon because the earth tilts
away from the sun, whereby the sun’s altitude above the
earth’s horizon in winter is less than that in the other
seasons. In this regard, it was a challenge to evaluate
the performance of the studied tracking systems during
this season.
In this study, the experimental days were separated to
clearly explain the results in accordance with the weather
conditions. The weather conditions during the exper-
iment were categorized into four based on a combina-
tion of sky condition, rainfall, and dust concentration:
(i) sunny day, (ii) cloudy day, (iii) dusty day, and (iv)
rainy day. The sky conditions in this study were modi-
fied based on [55] and thus divided into two main cate-
gories: clear condition (0–37.5% clouds) and cloudy con-
dition (> 37.5% clouds). The sky conditions and rainfall
were obtained from the Thai Meteorological Department
[56]. Furthermore, the dust concentration (including par-
ticulate matter with diameter less than 2.5 and 10 µm
(PM2.5 and PM10, respectively)) represented by the air
quality index (AQI) was selected. It was obtained from
real-time air quality information provided by IQAir [57].
The definitions of the four weather profiles are provided
below.
1. Sunny day: 0–37.5% of the sky is covered by clouds,
no rainfall, AQI < 100.
2. Cloudy day: > 37.5% of the sky is covered by clouds,
no rainfall, AQI < 100.
10
 Table 2: Generation and operational energy consumption of each studied system.

System Generation (Wh) Operational energy consumption (Wh)

Fixed flat-plate system PV module Data collection and monitoring system
LDR-based tracking system PV module Tracking system
Data collection and monitoring system
UV sensor-based tracking system PV module Tracking system
Data collection and monitoring system

Pattaya Pattaya
KMUTNB, Rayong Campus KMUTNB, Rayong Campus

Rayong Province Rayong Province

September November

Figure 10: Sun’s path at the experimental site during the selected months, obtained from SunCalc [54].

3. Dust day: > 37.5% of the sky is covered by clouds, percentage relative difference considering the operational
AQI ≥ 100. energy consumption is expressed as follows:
4. Rainy day: > 37.5% of the sky is covered by clouds, Etracking,net − Efixed,net
rainfall, AQI < 100. ∆Enet = × 100% (2)
Efixed,net

3.3. Evaluation of energy generation performance Etracking,net = Etracking − Etracking,con (3)

In the literature, a quantitative analysis of energy gain
is commonly used to evaluate the performance of track-
Efixed,net = Efixed − Efixed,con (4)
ing systems. The energy gain can be determined as the
percentage relative difference between the energy gener- where ∆Enet is the percentage relative difference
ated by a studied tracking system and that by the fixed considering the operational energy consumption (%).
flat-plate system: Etracking,net is the net energy generated by the studied
tracking system considering the operational energy con-
Etracking − Efixed
∆E = × 100% (1) sumption (Wh). Efixed,net is the net energy generated by
Efixed the fixed flat-plate system considering the operational en-
where ∆E is the percentage relative difference (%). ergy consumption (Wh). Etracking,con is the operational
Etracking is the energy generated by the studied track- energy consumption of the studied tracking systems, and
ing system (Wh), and Efixed is the energy generated by Efixed,con is the operational energy consumption of the
the fixed flat-plate system (Wh). fixed flat-plate system.
As mentioned earlier, for the studied systems, the op-
erational energy consumption comprises the energy con- 3.4. Evaluation of economic performance
sumed by the tracking and data collection/monitoring In addition to the evaluation of energy generation
systems. For the fixed flat-plate system, the operational performance, the economic performance evaluation is
energy consumption comprises the energy consumed by a necessary component of the decision-making pro-
the data collection and monitoring systems. In this cess. It is essential for the successful implementa-
study, the operational energy consumption is considered tion of RE projects. Based on the current litera-
to improve the accuracy of energy performance. The ture, the economic performance is evaluated in terms

11
of cost-competitiveness and profitability. The cost-
competitiveness is based on the levelized cost of energy
(LCOE), whereas the economic profitability is evalu-
ated based on net present value (NPV), payback period
(PBP), internal rate of return (IRR), and profitability
index (PI).
3.4.1. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
The LCOE is commonly employed as an economic in-
dicator to evaluate the cost-competitiveness of energy
projects in $/kWh [58]. The LCOE interprets the unit
price of energy by considering the present value of the to-
tal cost incurred over the project’s lifetime. Hence, the
LCOE can be expressed as follows:
Pn Ct
C0 + t=1 (1+r) t
LCOE = Pn E (1−d)t (5) The PI of an investment project is defined as the ratio
t
t=1 (1+r)t
where C0 is the investment cost, and Ct is the operation the system’s life and the initial investment cost [43]. The
and maintenance (O&M) cost in the year t. Et is the PI can be expressed as follows:
energy generated by the PV system in the year t. n is
the lifetime of the project. r is the discount rate, and d
is the degradation rate.
3.4.2. Net present value (NPV)
The concept of NPV is evaluated based on the antici-
pated cash flows associated with an energy project (the
value of the cash flows into and out of an investment),
discounted by the capital cost [59]. Hence, the NPV can
be used to compare the profitability of different energy
projects. It can be expressed as follows:
n and consumption
X Cin,t − Cout,t
NPV = −C0 + (6)
t=1
(1 + r)t
where Cin,t and Cout,t are the cash in-flow and cash
out-flow, respectively, in the year t. The energy project
is profitable if the NPV is positive. The investment in
the energy project exceeds the cash flows generated if the
NPV is negative.
3.4.3. Discounted payback period (DPBP)
The discounted payback period (DPBP) of a project
is the time required (expressed in years) to recover an in-
vestment considering the time value of money, which the
cumulative cash flow of a project becomes positive [60].
The DPBP can be identified when the NPV is greater
than or equal to zero. Hence, the DPBP can be expressed
as follows:
n=DPBP
X Cin,t − Cout,t
= C0 (7)
t=1
(1 + r)t
3.4.4. Internal rate of return (IRR)
The IRR is the profitability (%). It represents the de-
sirability of an investment in terms of the annual growth
12
rate expected from a project. IRR can be defined as the
discount rate at which the present value of all the future
cash flows is equal to the initial investment. That is, it
is the rate at which an investment breaks even [61]. The
IRR can be expressed as follows:
n
X Cin,t − Cout,t
NPV = −C0 + (8)
t=1
(1 + IRR)t
A positive IRR implies that an investment is expected
to return a certain value. In addition, a large positive
IRR indicates that the investment is secure, whereas a
negative IRR implies that the investing entity would ex-
perience a negative return on its investment.
3.4.5. Profitability index (PI)
between the present values of the net cash flow during
Cin,t − Cout,t
PI = (9)
C0
A PI higher than one indicates that the investment is
acceptable, whereas a higher value of PI indicates higher
viability. In contrast, a PI lower than one indicates that
the investment should be rejected.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Effect of weather conditions on energy generation
To evaluate the effect of weather conditions on the
generation and consumption for the studied systems, the
PV energy generation and the operational energy con-
sumption during the experimental period of 60 days are
plotted separately in Fig. 11, according to the weather
classification as defined in Section 3.2. During the exper-
iment, there were 24 sunny days, 21 cloudy days, 2 dusty
days, and 13 rainy days. The daily average PV gener-
ation with the proposed tracking, LDR-based tracking,
and fixed flat-plate systems were 361.35 Wh, 321.11 Wh,
and 281.32 Wh, respectively, for the sunny days (clouds
< 37.5%, no rainfall, AQI < 100); 246.94 Wh, 220.32 Wh,
and 206.80 Wh, respectively, for the cloudy days (clouds
> 37.5%, no rainfall, AQI < 100); 242.16 Wh, 198.99
Wh, and 211.11 Wh, respectively, for the dusty days
(clouds > 37.5%, no rainfall, AQI ≥ 100); and 123.52
Wh, 108.45 Wh, and 104.75 Wh, respectively, for the
rainy days (clouds > 37.5%, rainfall, AQI < 100).
Fig. 11 shows that the PV energy generation for all
the studied systems showed a decreasing tendency ow-
ing to the influence of weather conditions. Evidently,
the energy generation with the proposed tracking system
was higher than that with the other systems. On sunny
days, both the tracking systems effectively followed the
 Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system
500 Experimental period (60 days)
Dusty day (2 days)

Sunny day (24 days) Cloudy day (21 days) Rainy day (13 days)

400
Energy generation (Wh)

300

200

100

1
4
8

22
23
31
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
7
9
2
3
5

38
42
45
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
20
21
24
25
26
10
13
18
6

58
59
60
53
54
55
56
57
48
49
50
51
52
41
43
44
46
47
27
28
29
39
40

Day
(a)
Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system
50 Experimental period (60 days)
Dusty day (2 days)

Sunny day (24 days) Cloudy day (21 days) Rainy day (13 days)

40
Energy consumption (Wh)

30

20

10

0
1
4
8
2
3
5
7
9

23
31
11
12
14
15
16
17
19
22
38
42
45
30
32
6

33
34
35
36
37
10
13
18
20
21
24
25
26
58
59
60
53
54
55
56
57
48
49
50
51
52
41
43
44
46
47
27
28
29
39
40

Day
(b)

Figure 11: Experimental results considering the tested weather conditions: (a) PV energy generation; (b) operational energy consump-
tion.

sun’s position owing to the capability of its sensors, i.e., pability of the UV sensors to measure the intensity of
UV sensors and LDRs. Apparently, the proposed track- UV radiation without saturation. It enabled the pro-
ing system generated more energy than the LDR-based posed tracking system to track the sun’s position con-
tracking system. This was mainly because of the ca- tinuously. Meanwhile, the LDR-based tracking system

13
experienced saturation of visible light intensity when the
LDRs were exposed significantly to visible light. There-
fore, the tracking movement of the LDR-based tracking
system varied as a stepping movement. Furthermore,
the energy generation with the fixed flat-plate system
was reduced because the PV module was fixed based on
the optimal annual angles. The PV energy generated
by the studied systems reduced significantly because the
weather conditions played a predominant role in the en-
ergy generation capability. During low-visibility condi-
tions, the proposed tracking system continued to effec-
tively follow the sun’s position. Meanwhile, the LDR-
based tracking system was occasionally ineffective com-
pared with the fixed flat-plate system because it caused
the PV module to be directed opposite to the sun’s po-
sition. To clarify the above further, the variations in
daily angle on two selected days (high-visibility and low-
visibility conditions) are provided to indicate the advan-
tages of the proposed tracking system over the LDR-
based tracking system. First, the daily angle variations
on Day 39 were selected to represent high-visibility con-
dition. It is evident that the proposed solar tracking sys-
tem smoothly adjusted tracking movements on the axes
of rotation as illustrated in Fig. 12(a). This is owing to
the capability of the UV sensor as described in Section 1.
However, because of LDR saturation as described in Sec-
tion 1, the angle varied rapidly or maintained their level
rather than face the sun. This resulted in a large decrease
in PV power generation. Second, Day 23 was selected as
a representative day for low-visibility conditions (high
level of visible-light scattering), the LDR-based tracking
system allowed to change the daily angle in the opposite
direction of the sun as indicated in Fig. 12(b). This was
owing to the ineffectiveness of LDRs during low-visibility
conditions. In contrast, the proposed tracking system
smoothly tracked the sun’s direction owing to the UV
radiation enhancement by the cloud effect.
On the other hand, the effect of weather conditions
on energy consumption was determined as follows. The
daily average operational energy consumptions for the
proposed tracking, LDR-based tracking, and fixed flat-
plate systems were 33.82 Wh, 23.42 Wh, and 20.00 Wh,
respectively, for the sunny days; 30.41 Wh, 26.83 Wh,
and 19.04 Wh, respectively, for the cloudy days; 27.11
Wh, 21.17 Wh, and 19.65 Wh, respectively, for the dusty
days; and 29.70 Wh, 23.78 Wh, and 18.60 Wh, respec-
tively, for the rainy days.
Although the proposed tracking system effectively
tracked the sun’s position, it required higher electrical
energy for consumption by the actuators in response to
continuous tracking movements. Thus, Fig. 11 shows
that the proposed tracking system consumed higher op-
erational energy during the experimental period. Nev-
ertheless, the energy consumption tended to decrease
during the low-visibility conditions because the intensity
of UV radiation was low, and the intensity signals did
14
not exceed the defined thresholds. Hence, the extent
to which the actuators were activated by the tracking
strategy was less than that for the high-visibility condi-
tion. In contrast, the operational energy consumption by
the LDR-based tracking system displayed an increasing
tendency, particularly on dusty, cloudy, and rainy days.
This was owing to the ineffectiveness of LDRs during the
low-visibility conditions: the LDR-based tracking system
occasionally caused the PV module to face the direction
opposite to that of the sun’s position, which caused ex-
cessive tracking movements and increased energy con-
sumption. Meanwhile, the daily energy consumption for
the fixed flat-plate system varied narrowly (an average
of approximately 19.35 Wh). This was because the fixed
flat-plate system consumed relatively constant power to
drive the data collection and monitoring system and did
not require additional energy for tracking movements.
A comparison of PV generation for the selected days
according to the weather conditions is presented in Fig.
13. On a sunny day (Day 39), the PV power genera-
tion attained 40 W from 09.00 to 14.00 for all systems as
shown in Fig. 13(a). However, the studied LDR-based
and UV sensor-based tracking systems achieved substan-
tially higher PV power generation during the beginning
and end of the day because of the tracking capability. It
can be observed from Fig. 13(a) that the proposed so-
lar tracking system outperformed the other systems. In
particular, the increase in power generated by the PV
module was indicated at the end of the day. The en-
ergy generation and gain are presented in Table 3. On
that day, the proposed solar tracking system generated
PV energy of 326.32 Wh, whereas the LDR-based solar
tracking system and fixed flat-plate system produced PV
energy of 262.74 Wh and 230.65 Wh, respectively. Thus,
on that day, the energy gain achieved using the proposed
tracking system with respect to the fixed flat-plate sys-
tem was 41.48%, whereas the energy gain for the LDR-
based solar tracking system was 13.92%. Accounting for
the operational energy consumed by the studied track-
ing systems, the energy gains were 36.67% and 12.94%
for the proposed tracking system and LDR-based track-
ing system, respectively.
Fig. 13(b) shows the PV variations on a cloudy day
(Day 13). It is observed that clouds covered the sky at
the beginning of the day and the period of 14.00. The
PV power decreased significantly during these periods
because of clouds. Although clouds covered the sky, the
proposed solar tracking system effectively enhanced PV
power generation, followed by the LDR-based solar track-
ing system and fixed flat-plate system. However, the
power production with the LDR-based tracking system
was only marginally higher than that with the fixed flat-
plate system. On that day, the proposed solar tracking
system generated PV energy of 207.13 Wh, whereas the
LDR-based solar tracking system and fixed flat-plate sys-
tem produced PV energy of 182.73 Wh and 177.57 Wh,
 100 100
Day 39 UV sensor-based tracking system Day 23
The angle varied to
LDR-based tracking system the direction opposite
to that of the sun.
50 The angle varied 50

Daily angle (ε)

Daily angle (ε)

gradually according
to the sun's poistion.

0 0

-50 -50
The angle varied rapidly
or maintained its position. UV sensor-based tracking system

LDR-based tracking system

-100 -100
06.00 08.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 06.00 08.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
Time (h) Time (h)
(a) (b)

Figure 12: Comparison of daily angle variations: (a) high-visibility condition (Day 39); (b) low-visibility condition (Day 23).

Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system

UV sensor-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system

50 50
Day 39 Clear sky Day 13 Cloudy day

40 40
Output power (W)
Output power (W)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
06.00 09.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 06.00 09.00 12.00 15.00 18.00
Time (h) Time (h)

(a) (b)
Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system

UV sensor-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system

50 50
Day 32 Day 4 Rainy day
Dusty day

40 40
Output power (W)
Output power (W)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
06.00 09.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 06.00 09.00 12.00 15.00 18.00
Time (h) Time (h)
(c) (d)

Figure 13: Comparison of PV power variations: (a) sunny day; (b) cloudy day; (c) dusty day; (d) rainy day.

respectively. Thus, on that day, the energy gain achieved fixed flat-plate system was 16.65%, whereas the energy
using the proposed tracking system with respect to the gain for the LDR-based solar tracking system was 2.91%.

15
 Table 3: Comparison of energy generation and gain for the representative days.

Day Tracking system Generation ∆E (%) Net Energy ∆Enet (%)

(Wh) (Wh)
Sunny day Fixed flat-plate system 230.65 - 211.66 -
LDR-based tracking system 262.74 13.92 239.05 12.94
UV sensor-based tracking system 326.32 41.48 289.28 36.67
Cloudy day Fixed flat-plate system 177.57 - 158.27 -
LDR-based tracking system 182.73 2.91 154.08 –2.65
UV sensor-based tracking system 207.13 16.65 169.34 7.00
Dusty day Fixed flat-plate system 172.36 - 152.97 -
LDR-based tracking system 167.65 –2.73 148.01 –3.24
UV sensor-based tracking system 219.00 27.66 187.84 22.80
Rainy day Fixed flat-plate system 60.43 - 43.52 -
LDR-based tracking system 54.21 –10.29 37.19 –14.55
UV sensor-based tracking system 74.93 24.01 50.72 16.55

However, considering the operational energy consump-
tion, the energy gains were 7% and –2.65% for the pro-
posed tracking system and LDR-based tracking system,
respectively.
The proposed tracking system outperformed the LDR-
based tracking system and fixed flat-plate system on a
cloudy day with high dust concentration (Day 32) as well.
The energy gain for the proposed tracking system con-
sidering the operational energy consumption was 22.80%
considering the fixed flat-plate system as the reference.
Meanwhile, the gain considering the operational energy
consumption was observed to be negative (–3.24%) for
the LDR-based tracking system. In particular, on a rainy
day (Day 4), the PV power generation with the pro-
posed tracking system was the highest, followed by the
fixed flat-plate system and LDR-based tracking system.
The energy gains were 24.01% and –10.29% for the pro-
posed tracking system and LDR-based tracking system,
respectively. Hence, the gains for the proposed tracking
system and LDR-based tracking system were 16.55% and
–14.55%, respectively, considering the operational energy
consumption.
Table 3 reveals the following decreasing order of energy
generation for the fixed flat-plate system and LDR-based
tracking system: sunny > cloudy > dusty > rainy. How-
ever, this was not observed for the proposed tracking
system, wherein the energy generation on the dusty day
was higher than that on the cloudy day. Although the
weather condition on the dusty day (Day 32) appeared
to be worse than that on the cloudy day (Day 13) owing
to the high concentration of dust, certain factors caused
the proposed tracking system to achieve a higher per-
formance on the dusty day than on the cloudy day, as
reported in Table 3. On Day 13, low-visibility conditions
(sky covered by clouds) occurred at the beginning of the
day. Then, the sky condition gradually became clearer
by midday. Based on these variations in sky condition,
a marginal energy gain was observed at the beginning of
the day as shown in Fig. 13(b). Subsequently, the energy
generation for all the studied systems increased owing to
the clear sky condition. At this point, the PV modules of
the tracking systems were positioned almost horizontally
to receive solar radiation during midday, whereas the PV
module for the fixed flat-plate system was tilted from
the horizontal plane. Therefore, the proposed tracking
system outperformed the others, although there was no
significant difference in energy generation between the
tracking systems and fixed system. However, on Day
32, a clear sky condition was observed at the beginning
of the day. Then, clouds gradually covered the sky by
midday. Because the tracking systems performed effec-
tively during the beginning and end of the day as de-
scribed earlier, significant improvement was achieved by
the tracking systems in this period compared with the
fixed system. As clouds covered the sky during midday,
there was no significant gain for the proposed tracking
system with respect to the fixed system. However, the
LDR-based tracking system underperformed in this pe-
riod because of the ineffectiveness of LDRs during low-
visibility conditions as mentioned earlier. This accounts
for the variation in energy generation with the proposed
tracking system wherein the energy generation on the
dusty day was higher than that on the cloudy day.
4.2. Energy generation performance result
In Fig. 14, the daily energy generated by the studied
systems is shown as positive values, whereas their op-
erational energy consumption is shown as the negative
values under the shaded area. The gains of the proposed
tracking system and LDR-based tracking system were
determined daily considering the fixed flat-plate system
as the reference, as shown in Fig. 15. It is evident from
Figs. 14 and 15 that throughout the analysis period,
the PV generation and gains tended to increase because

16
 Table 4: Summary of energy generation and gain for the experiment.

Tracking system Generation ∆E (%) Net Energy ∆Enet (%)

(Wh) (Wh)
Fixed flat-plate system 12,878.47 - 11,717.76 -
LDR-based tracking system 14,141.04 9.80 12,664.12 8.08
UV sensor-based tracking system 15,948.23 23.84 14,057.62 19.97

September October

R C C R C S C R C C R R C R R R R C R C C R R C C C S S S D
500
Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system

400
Energy (Wh)

300

200

100

-100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Day
October November

R D C C C C C C S S S C S S C S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
500
Fixed flat-plate system LDR-based tracking system UV sensor-based tracking system
400
Energy (Wh)

300

200

100

-100
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
S: sunny day C: cloudy day D: dusty day R: rainy day Day

Figure 14: Experimental results showing PV energy generation (positive value) and operational energy consumption (negative value).

the predominance of rainy or cloudy days was lower. In
September and October, the PV generation was most
vulnerable to the influence of weather conditions. In
these months, cloudy and rainfall conditions were pre-
dominant and more frequent, whereas sunny days were
infrequent. The LDR-based tracking system performed
poorly in that negative energy gains were observed fre-
quently. However, the energy gains by the proposed
tracking system remained positive. In contrast, during
November, there were a large number of sunny days and a
few cloudy days without rainfall. The frequency of dusty
days was low during the experimental period. Notwith-
standing the shorter daytime duration in November ow-
ing to the approach of the winter solstice in Thailand,
the studied tracking systems performed highly effectively
compared with the fixed flat-plate system. The PV en-
ergy and gain of the studied systems are summarized in
Table 4. It is observed that the proposed tracking system
improved the gain substantially: up to 23.84% when the
operational energy consumption is omitted and 19.97%
when it is considered. Meanwhile, the LDR-based track-
ing system achieved lesser energy gain: 9.80% when the

17
 September October

R C C R C S C R C C R R C R R R R C R C C R R C C C S S S D
50
Percentage difference (%)

25

-25
LDR-based tracking UV sensor-based tracking
system system
-50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Day

October November

R D C C C C C C S S S C S S C S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
50
Percentage difference (%)

25

-25
LDR-based tracking UV sensor-based tracking
system system
-50
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
S: sunny day C: cloudy day D: dusty day R: rainy day Day

Figure 15: Percentage difference in net energy accounting for operational energy consumption.

operational energy consumption is omitted and 8.08% according to the weather conditions. In this work, the
when it is considered. historical weather data of 2019 and 2020 are averaged
and used to estimate the number of days with regard to
4.3. Economic performance result the weather conditions.
Prior to the economic performance evaluation, it is The results of economic performance evaluation are
necessary to perform a cost analysis of the studied sys- provided in Table 7. It is evident that the LCOE values
tems. The cost of the proposed solar tracking system is of the proposed tracking system and LDR-based tracking
presented in Table 5. It shows that the initial investment system are higher than that of the fixed flat-plate system
cost of the proposed tracking system is 194.40 $. For by 20.00% and 24.94%, respectively. Based on the LCOE
the LDR-based tracking system, LDRs are used rather results, it is apparent that the fixed flat-plate system is
than UV sensors. Therefore, the initial investment cost cost-competitive for PV system projects in terms of the
of this system is 182.00 $. The initial investment cost cost of energy because it does not require the higher in-
of the fixed flat-plate system, which excludes the com- vestment cost associated with the additional components
ponents for the tracking mechanism, is 133.00 $. The for achieving the tracking mechanism. The results also
relevant economic parameters listed in Table 6 based on indicate that the LCOE of the proposed tracking sys-
the literature survey are used to perform the economic tem is lower than that of the LDR-based tracking system
performance evaluation. Referring to the previous anal- notwithstanding the higher investment cost. This is ow-
yses, the average energy generation and consumption are ing to the effectiveness of energy generation as discussed
considered to estimate the annual net energy generation in the previous analyses. In this regard, the proposed

18
 Table 5: Cost of the solar tracking system.

No. Item Quantity Unit cost ($) Cost ($)

1 PV module (80 W) 1 43.00 43.00
2 Arduino Mega 2560 R3 board 1 16.00 16.00
3 NodeMCU ESP8266 board 1 6.00 6.00
4 Plastic container 1 2.00 2.00
5 Connectors 8 1.00 8.00
6 Wire 1 6.00 6.00
7 Platform material 1 40.00 40.00
8 Switching power supply 1 5.00 5.00
9 Voltage sensor 2 1.00 2.00
10 Current sensor 2 2.50 5.00
11 GY-8511 UV sensor 4 3.60 14.40
12 Motorized-linear actuator 2 22.00 44.00
13 L298N motor drive board 1 2.00 2.00
14 Limit switch 2 0.50 1.00
Total 194.40

tracking system is more cost-competitive than the LDR- LCOE increases with the implementation of solar track-
based tracking system. ing systems, the economic indicators show that the in-
vestment would be adequately profitable and would yield
It is noteworthy that although the proposed tracking
the highest return on investment.
system is less cost-competitive than the fixed flat-plate
system, the NPV of the proposed tracking system is the
highest among the three systems. This is because of its 5. Conclusions
significant energy gain as demonstrated in the previous
analyses. This implies that the proposed tracking system This paper mainly presents the design and implemen-
is more economically feasible than the other systems over tation of a novel UV sensor-based solar tracking system.
the project’s life. With regard to the DPBP results, the It utilizes the advantages of UV radiation enhancement
investment cost of the fixed system can be recovered in and UV sensor capability to increase the performance in
approximately 9.43 years, which is slightly shorter than terms of tracking movement and energy gain. The solar
those with tracking systems less than 3 years. Although tracking system was implemented on a pseudo-azimuthal
a lower DPBP value is more favorable, it omits the cash mounting structure, which was capable of following the
inflows from the project after the payback period. Thus, sun’s trajectory through daily and elevation angles. The
a lower DPBP value does not guarantee a higher return proposed tracking system considered the comparisons of
from the project investment over the project’s life. Simi- UV sensor signals obtained by UV sensors mounted on
larly, the profitability presented by IRR indicates that all the axes of rotation to track the sun’s position. A com-
the studied systems are profitable, i.e., the IRR is higher parative analysis was performed to evaluate the solar
than the discount rate. Furthermore, there is no signifi- tracking performance of the proposed solar tracking sys-
cant difference (less than 3%) between the fixed system tem with respect to those of a fixed flat-plate system
and the tracking systems. Moreover, the PI values for all and conventional LDR-based solar tracking system. The
the studied systems are higher than one, which implies experiment was conducted from September to Novem-
that the investment is acceptable. Similar to the IRR ber 2020. In addition to the PV energy, the operational
values, the differences in PI among the studied systems energy consumption was considered to increase the accu-
are marginal. racy of energy performance evaluation.
Most of the economic indicators (except the NPV) Based on the experimental results in Section 4, the en-
accord priority to the installation of the fixed system. ergy gain achieved by the proposed tracking system was
However, Talavera et al. [43] reported that economic in- higher on sunny days. In the other conditions, this gain
dicators such as LCOE, PBP, IRR, and PI are relative was observed to be lower for all the studied tracking sys-
measures of the return on investment, whereas NPV is tems, although the gain was positive for the proposed
an absolute measure of the return on investment. There- tracking system. In contrast, the LDR-based tracking
fore, the results of the economic evaluation presented in system was ineffective during the low-visibility condi-
this work reveal a clear advantage of the proposed track- tions, which resulted in higher operational energy con-
ing system in terms of economic viability. Although the sumption. Therefore, the gain achieved by the LDR-

19
 Table 6: Economic parameters.

Description Value Reference

Life span 25 [62, 63]
O&M cost (% investment cost) 1% [59]
Discount rate 2.1% [58]
Degradation rate 0.5 %/year [64]
Electricity price 0.2 $/kWh [28]
Escalation rate of the electricity price 2 %/year [43]

Table 7: Results of economic performance evaluation.

Tracking system LCOE NPV ($) DPBP IRR (%) PI (-)

($/kWh) (years)
Fixed flat-plate system 0.107 209.75 9.43 9.42 2.58
LDR-based tracking system 0.134 186.40 12.00 6.52 2.02
UV sensor-based tracking system 0.129 216.86 11.46 7.02 2.12

based tracking system was occasionally marginally neg-
ative during this period. According to the experimental
results, our tracking system successfully achieved signif-
icant improvement in PV energy generation. The ex-
perimental results also verified that the tracking system
effectively improved tracking movements for the condi-
tions tested in Thailand.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the novel UV
sensor-based solar tracking system was remarkably supe-
rior in terms of solar tracking performance, followed by
the LDR-based tracking system and fixed flat-plate sys-
tem. It is highlighted that the development of the UV
sensor-based solar tracking system represents a signifi-
cant milestone in the research on solar tracking systems.
The observations of the proposed tracking system can
aid studies for enhancing solar energy generation with
single- or dual-axis tracking systems. Furthermore, it
can be extended and utilized for various applications of
solar energy.
Finally, the economic performance was evaluated to
obtain the cost-competitiveness and profitability. With
regard to the cost-competitiveness, the LCOE results
show that the proposed tracking system is less cost-
competitive than the fixed flat-plate system and more
cost-competitive than the LDR-based tracking system.
However, a better result in terms of LCOE does not en-
sure project profitability. With regard to the profitabil-
ity, the economic indicators such as PBP, IRR, and PI are
relative measures of the return on investment, whereas
the NPV is an absolute measure of the return on invest-
ment. The results of the economic performance evalu-
ation presented in this work yield the conclusion that
the proposed tracking system is economically viable and
feasible with the highest profitability.
In the current study, we focused mainly on the devel-
opment of a novel solar tracking system using UV sen-
sors. Notwithstanding the aforementioned contributions
of this study, a techno-economic optimization should be
considered to maximize the energy generation gain of the
proposed tracking system and minimize the operational
energy consumed by the configuration of tracking compo-
nents and tracking strategy, while the economic feasibil-
ity can be ensured, having the highest profitability with
acceptable cost-attractiveness. Furthermore, for general-
ization purposes, the accuracy with which the proposed
tracking system tracks the sun’s actual position in all the
seasons and across regions should be analyzed.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Chaowanan Jamroen: Conceptualization, Data cu-
ration, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investiga-
tion, Methodology, Project administration, Validation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Chanon Fongkerd: Investigation, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Validation, Visualization. Wipa Krongpha: In-
vestigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visual-
ization. Preecha Komkum: Resources, Supervision.
Alongkorn Pirayawaraporn: Writing - review & edit-
ing. Nachaya Chindakham: Writing - review & edit-
ing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.

20
Acknowledgment [11] C. Jamroen, E. Usaratniwart, S. Sirisukprasert, PV
power smoothing strategy based on HELES using
This research was funded by King Mongkut’s Uni- energy storage system application: a simulation
versity of Technology North Bangkok. Contract no. analysis in microgrids, IET Renewable Power Gen-
KMUTNB-64-KNOW-09. eration 13 (2019) 2298–2308.
The authors would like to thank Automated Monitor-
ing, Inspection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems lab- [12] A. P. Gonzalo, A. P. Marugán, F. P. G. Márquez,
oratory for setting up the prototype and for their facili- Survey of maintenance management for photovoltaic
ties during the experiment. Also, the authors would like power systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
to express special thanks for the constructive comments Reviews 134 (2020) 110347.
from the editor and anonymous reviewers, leading to sig- [13] P. Ocloń, P. Cisek, E. Kozak-Jagiela, J. Taler,
nificant and substantial improvements to the manuscript. D. Taler, D. Skrzyniowska, M. Fedorczak-Cisak,
Modeling and experimental validation and thermal
References performance assessment of a sun-tracked and cooled
PVT system under low solar irradiation, Energy
[1] World Energy Outlook 2020, OECD, 2020. URL: Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113289.
https://doi.org/10.1787/557a761b-en. doi:10.
1787/557a761b-en. [14] H. Mousazadeh, A. Keyhani, A. Javadi, H. Mobli,
K. Abrinia, A. Sharifi, A review of principle and
[2] Energy Outlook 2020 Edition, BP, 2020. URL: sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/ output, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
energy-economics/energy-outlook.html. 13 (2009) 1800–1818.

[3] IRENA, Renewable capacity statis- [15] C. Alexandru, Optimization of the bi-axial track-
tics 2020, 2020. URL: https://www. ing system for a photovoltaic platform, Energies 14
irena.org/publications/2020/Mar/ (2021) 535.
Renewable-Capacity-Statistics-2020. [16] C. Alexandru, Optimal design of the dual-axis track-
[4] EIA, Post covid-19, further reform is neces- ing system used for a PV string platform, Jour-
sary to accelerate china’s clean energy future, nal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 11 (2019)
2020. URL: https://www.iea.org/articles/ 043501.
post-covid-19-further-reform-is-necessary-to-accelerate-china-s-clean-energy-future.
[17] W. Nsengiyumva, S. G. Chen, L. Hu, X. Chen, Re-
[5] EIA, Sustainable recovery, 2020. URL: https:// cent advancements and challenges in solar tracking
www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery. systems (STS): A review, Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 250–279.
[6] EIA, International energy outlook 2020, 2020. URL:
[18] A. Hafez, A. Yousef, N. Harag, Solar tracking sys-
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/.
tems: Technologies and trackers drive types – a re-
[7] J. Li, J. Huang, The expansion of china’s solar en- view, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
ergy: Challenges and policy options, Renewable and 91 (2018) 754–782.
Sustainable Energy Reviews 132 (2020) 110002. [19] S. Seme, B. Štumberger, M. Hadžiselimović, K. Sre-
[8] Y. Heng, C.-L. Lu, L. Yu, Z. Gao, The hetero- denšek, Solar photovoltaic tracking systems for elec-
geneous preferences for solar energy policies among tricity generation: A review, Energies 13 (2020)
US households, Energy Policy 137 (2020) 111187. 4224.

[9] L. Cheng, F. Zhang, S. Li, J. Mao, H. Xu, W. Ju, [20] N. AL-Rousan, N. A. M. Isa, M. K. M. Desa, Ad-
X. Liu, J. Wu, K. Min, X. Zhang, M. Li, Solar vances in solar photovoltaic tracking systems: A re-
view, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
energy potential of urban buildings in 10 cities of
82 (2018) 2548–2569.
china, Energy 196 (2020) 117038.
[21] A. Awasthi, A. K. Shukla, M. M. S.R., C. Don-
[10] C. Jamroen, A. Pannawan, S. Sirisukprasert,
dariya, K. Shukla, D. Porwal, G. Richhariya, Re-
Battery energy storage system control for volt-
view on sun tracking technology in solar PV system,
age regulation in microgrid with high penetra-
Energy Reports 6 (2020) 392–405.
tion of PV generation, in: 2018 53rd Interna-
tional Universities Power Engineering Conference [22] Y. Zhu, J. Liu, X. Yang, Design and performance
(UPEC), IEEE, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/ analysis of a solar tracking system with a novel
10.1109/upec.2018.8541888. doi:10.1109/upec. single-axis tracking structure to maximize energy
2018.8541888. collection, Applied Energy 264 (2020) 114647.

21
[23] N. Kuttybay, A. Saymbetov, S. Mekhilef, M. Nur- [34] W. Batayneh, A. Owais, M. Nairoukh, An intelli-
galiyev, D. Tukymbekov, G. Dosymbetova, A. Mei-
irkhanov, Y. Svanbayev, Optimized single-axis
schedule solar tracker in different weather condi-
tions, Energies 13 (2020) 5226.
[35] S. Yilmaz, H. R. Ozcalik, O. Dogmus, F. Dincer,
[24] L. Fernández-Ahumada, F. Casares, J. Ramı́rez-Faz,
R. López-Luque, Mathematical study of the move-
ment of solar tracking systems based on rational
models, Solar Energy 150 (2017) 20–29.
[25] L. Fernández-Ahumada, J. Ramı́rez-Faz, R. López- [36] C. Chin, A. Babu, W. McBride, Design, modeling
Luque, M. Varo-Martı́nez, I. Moreno-Garcı́a, F. C.
de la Torre, A novel backtracking approach for two-
axis solar PV tracking plants, Renewable Energy
145 (2020) 1214–1221.
[26] F. Cruz-Peragón, P. J. Casanova-Peláez, F. A. Dı́az,
R. López-Garcı́a, J. M. Palomar, An approach to
evaluate the energy advantage of two axes solar
tracking systems in spain, Applied Energy 88 (2011)
5131–5142.
[27] W. Batayneh, A. Bataineh, I. Soliman, S. A. Hafees,
Investigation of a single-axis discrete solar tracking
system for reduced actuations and maximum energy
collection, Automation in Construction 98 (2019)
102–109.
[28] H. Fathabadi, Novel high accurate sensorless dual-
axis solar tracking system controlled by maximum
power point tracking unit of photovoltaic systems,
Applied Energy 173 (2016) 448–459.
[29] H. Kang, T. Hong, M. Lee, Technical performance
analysis of the smart solar photovoltaic blinds based
on the solar tracking methods considering the cli-
mate factors, Energy and Buildings 190 (2019) 34–
48.
[30] H. Kang, T. Hong, M. Lee, A new approach for
developing a hybrid sun-tracking method of the in-
telligent photovoltaic blinds considering the weather [42] M. A. V. Rad, A. Toopshekan, P. Rahdan,
condition using data mining technique, Energy and
Buildings 209 (2020) 109708.
[31] N. AL-Rousan, N. A. M. Isa, M. K. M. Desa, Effi-
cient single and dual axis solar tracking system con-
trollers based on adaptive neural fuzzy inference sys-
tem, Journal of King Saud University - Engineering [43] D. Talavera, E. Muñoz-Cerón, J. Ferrer-Rodrı́guez,
Sciences 32 (2020) 459–469.
[32] L. Salgado-Conrado, A review on sun position sen-
sors used in solar applications, Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2128–2146.
[33] A. Diaz, R. Garrido, J. J. Soto-Bernal, A filtered sun
sensor for solar tracking in HCPV and CSP systems,
IEEE Sensors Journal 19 (2019) 917–925.
22
gent fuzzy based tracking controller for a dual-axis
solar PV system, Automation in Construction 29
(2013) 100–106.
O. Akgol, M. Karaaslan, Design of two axes sun
tracking controller with analytically solar radiation
calculations, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-
views 43 (2015) 997–1005.
and testing of a standalone single axis active solar
tracker using MATLAB/simulink, Renewable En-
ergy 36 (2011) 3075–3090.
[37] S. Seme, G. Srpčič, D. Kavšek, S. Božičnik,
T. Letnik, Z. Praunseis, B. Štumberger,
M. Hadžiselimović, Dual-axis photovoltaic tracking
system – design and experimental investigation,
Energy 139 (2017) 1267–1274.
[38] F. M. Hoffmann, R. F. Molz, J. V. Kothe, E. O. B.
Nara, L. P. C. Tedesco, Monthly profile analysis
based on a two-axis solar tracker proposal for pho-
tovoltaic panels, Renewable Energy 115 (2018) 750–
759.
[39] S. Motahhir, A. E. Hammoumi, A. E. Ghzizal,
A. Derouich, Open hardware/software test bench
for solar tracker with virtual instrumentation, Sus-
tainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 31
(2019) 9–16.
[40] C. Jamroen, P. Komkum, S. Kohsri, W. Himananto,
S. Panupintu, S. Unkat, A low-cost dual-axis solar
tracking system based on digital logic design: De-
sign and implementation, Sustainable Energy Tech-
nologies and Assessments 37 (2020) 100618.
[41] G. Reeseman, Overcoming ldr saturation in a sun
tracking solar panel system (2020).
A. Kasaeian, O. Mahian, A comprehensive study
of techno-economic and environmental features of
different solar tracking systems for residential pho-
tovoltaic installations, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 129 (2020) 109923.
P. J. Pérez-Higueras, Assessment of cost-
competitiveness and profitability of fixed and track-
ing photovoltaic systems: The case of five specific
sites, Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 902–913.
[44] Y. Zhou, X. Meng, J. H. Belle, H. Zhang,
C. Kennedy, M. Z. Al-Hamdan, J. Wang, Y. Liu,
Compilation and spatio-temporal analysis of pub-
licly available total solar and UV irradiance data in
 the contiguous united states, Environmental Pollu- [56] Thai meteorological department, 2021. URL:
tion 253 (2019) 130–140. https://www.tmd.go.th/en/.

[45] M. E.-N. Adam, E. A. Ahmed, Comparative anal- [57] IQAir, Airvisual, 2021. URL: https://www.iqair.
ysis of cloud effects on ultraviolet-b and broadband com/.
solar radiation: Dependence on cloud amount and
solar zenith angle, Atmospheric Research 168 (2016) [58] P. E. Campana, L. Wästhage, W. Nookuea, Y. Tan,
149–157. J. Yan, Optimization and assessment of floating and
floating-tracking PV systems integrated in on- and
[46] H. Lee, W. Kim, Y. G. Lee, J. Kim, H. K. Cho, At- off-grid hybrid energy systems, Solar Energy 177
mospheric transmission of ultraviolet and total so- (2019) 782–795.
lar radiation by clouds, aerosols, and ozone in seoul,
[59] J. Kong, S. T. Kim, B. O. Kang, J. Jung, Deter-
korea: a comparison of semi-empirical model pre-
mining the size of energy storage system to maxi-
dictions with observations, Asia-Pacific Journal of
mize the economic profit for photovoltaic and wind
Atmospheric Sciences 55 (2018) 165–175.
turbine generators in south korea, Renewable and
[47] J. Badosa, J. Calbó, R. Mckenzie, B. Liley, J.-A. Sustainable Energy Reviews 116 (2019) 109467.
González, B. Forgan, C. N. Long, Two methods for
[60] Y. Zhang, T. Ma, P. E. Campana, Y. Yamaguchi,
retrieving UV index for all cloud conditions from
Y. Dai, A techno-economic sizing method for grid-
sky imager products or total SW radiation measure-
connected household photovoltaic battery systems,
ments, Photochemistry and Photobiology (2014)
Applied Energy 269 (2020) 115106.
n/a–n/a.
[61] G. Liu, M. Li, B. Zhou, Y. Chen, S. Liao, Gen-
[48] J. Calbó, Empirical studies of cloud effects on UV
eral indicator for techno-economic assessment of re-
radiation: A review, Reviews of Geophysics 43
newable energy resources, Energy Conversion and
(2005).
Management 156 (2018) 416–426.
[49] C. F. Bohren, The Optics Encyclopedia: Atmo- [62] Y. F. Nassar, M. J. Abdunnabi, M. N. Sbeta,
spheric Optics, Wiley-VCH, 2007. URL: https:// A. A. Hafez, K. A. Amer, A. Y. Ahmed, B. Bel-
doi.org/10.1002/9783527600441.oe004. doi:10. gasim, Dynamic analysis and sizing optimization
1002/9783527600441.oe004. of a pumped hydroelectric storage-integrated hybrid
[50] J. Sabburg, J. Calbó, Five years of cloud enhanced PV/wind system: A case study, Energy Conversion
surface UV radiation measurements at two sites (in and Management 229 (2021) 113744.
the northern and southern hemispheres), Atmo-
[63] B. A. Bhayo, H. H. Al-Kayiem, S. I. Gilani, As-
spheric Research 93 (2009) 902–912. sessment of standalone solar PV-battery system for
[51] G. Maranhão, A. Brito, A. Leal, J. Fonseca, electricity generation and utilization of excess power
W. Macêdo, Using LDR as sensing element for for water pumping, Solar Energy 194 (2019) 766–
an external fuzzy controller applied in photovoltaic 776.
pumping systems with variable-speed drives, Sen- [64] D. C. Jordan, S. R. Kurtz, Photovoltaic degrada-
sors 15 (2015) 24445–24457. tion rates-an analytical review, Progress in Photo-
voltaics: Research and Applications 21 (2011) 12–
[52] Y. Yao, Y. Hu, S. Gao, G. Yang, J. Du, A mul-
29.
tipurpose dual-axis solar tracker with two tracking
strategies, Renewable Energy 72 (2014) 88–98.

[53] C. Jamroen, P. Komkum, C. Fongkerd, W. Krong-

pha, An intelligent irrigation scheduling system us-
ing low-cost wireless sensor network toward sustain-
able and precision agriculture, IEEE Access 8 (2020)
172756–172769.

[54] SunCalc, Suncalc sun position and sunlight phases

calculator, 2020. URL: http://suncalc.org/, ac-
cessed: 2020-11-12.

[55] National weather service, 2021. URL: https://

www.weather.gov/bgm/forecast_terms, accessed:
2021-02-7.

23

View publication stats