Differential Power Processing Applied to a
Photovoltaic String with Different Modules
Caio Meira Amaral da Luz Enio Roberto Ribeiro
Federal University of Itajubá Federal University of Itajubá
Itajubá, Brazil Itajubá, Brazil
caiomeiramaral@hotmail.com enio.k@unifei.edu.br
Abstract— The differential power processing (DPP) concept
has been widely used to mitigate the negative effect of temporary
photovoltaic (PV) mismatch that may be caused by shading, for
instance. Permanent mismatch occurs in a PV system when the
cells or modules have different electrical and/or constructive
characteristics, which in turn lead to the reduction of the
extracted power. This subject is an important emerging topic
that has been narrowly addressed by researchers so far. In this
context, this paper presents a study on the application of DPP in
a PV string with permanent mismatch. A four-module string
connected to PV-to-PV architecture employing the bidirectional
buck-boost converter is assessed in detail. The results show that
the use of a DPP converter in a string composed of modules with
different specifications can increase the energy harvesting
significantly.
Keywords— differential power processing, partial shading,
permanent mismatch, photovoltaic systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
Owing to the low voltage of photovoltaic (PV) modules,
PV modules are connected in series so that the its output
voltages reach a desired voltage level [1]. This arrangement,
which is known as a PV string, is highly sensitive to any type
of mismatch among the modules [2]. PV mismatch can arise
from many sources and classified into temporary and
permanent types. Cell aging, manufacturing mistakes,
degradation of PV modules, and connection of modules with
different specifications are sources of permanent mismatch.
On the other hand, the temporary mismatch can be caused by
shading, dust, snow, and bird droppings [3]. These mismatch
conditions lead to the nonidentical performance of the series-
connected PV modules, which in turn leads to one of two
possibilities. First, the PV modules that generate the lowest
currents will operate in the reverse bias region. As a result,
they will behave as a load and consume power instead of
supplying it. In more severe situations, it may create a
phenomenon known as hot spots, which permanently damage
the affected module [4]. In the second situation, the string
current is limited by the PV modules that generate the lowest
currents. In both aforementioned situations, the mismatch
condition leads to a significant reduction of the maximum
available power in the entire PV system.
As a measure to prevent the creation of hotspots in PV
modules and, consequently, avoid damage, bypass diodes are
widely used in practice [5]. However, this is not effective for
a permanent mismatch situation since the bypassed PV
modules are unable to provide any power [6]. In recent years,
significant effort has been dedicated to the development of
new solutions based on power electronic converters. Among
them, one can cite microinverters [7] or dc–dc module-
integrated converters (MICs) [8]. In these approaches, the
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Fernando Lessa Tofoli
Federal University of São João del-Rey
São João del-Rey, Brazil
fernandolessa@ufsj.edu.br
impact of mismatch is reduced by performing module-level
maximum power point tracking (MPPT). Nevertheless, this
solution leads to additional losses and increased cost
associated with the distributed power optimizers necessary to
process the full power of the PV array even when no mismatch
exists [9].
To address these issues, the differential power processing
(DPP) concept has emerged in the last years as a new solution
for the PV mismatch problem. In this approach, dc-dc
converters known as DPP converters are coupled in parallel
with the series-connected PV modules. The way DPP
converters are connected can originate two architectures: PV-
to-PV and PV-to-bus [10]. As the name suggests, the main
advantage of DPP architectures is that they process only the
differential power associated with the mismatch condition.
This allows the reduction of power ratings of DPP converters
to a fraction of the string peak power, thus minimizing the size
and cost of power electronic devices [11].
Although DPP converters show great potential to reduce
the cost and power losses of PV systems, this aspect has not
yet been fully explored, in particular with regard to permanent
mismatch conditions. Most studies involving the DPP concept
give priority to temporary mismatch caused generally by
shading [12]. For distinct reasons, it may be necessary to
replace the PV modules in practice when they no longer
operate properly. However, it is not always possible to find
commercially available PV modules with the very same
specifications as those of the former devices. Therefore, these
new devices may be a source of permanent mismatch.
It is worth mentioning that this problem has not yet been
addressed in the literature. In this context, the aim of this paper
is to present an investigation on the use of a DPP converter in
a PV string with permanent mismatch. It is effectively
demonstrated that the DPP converter can promptly overcome
the harmful effects of mismatch.
II. ANALYSIS OF THE MISMATCH
Fig. 1 (a) shows a PV string composed of two modules
with different power levels so that iPV2<iPV1. From Kirchhoff’s
current law (KCL), it is known that the current that flows
through a loop must be the same in all elements. Hence, there
may be two operating conditions according to the current
drawn by the load in Fig. 1 (b). In the first case represented by
point A in Fig. 1 (b), module PV1 operates at its maximum
power point (MPP). In order to comply with KCL, the
operating point of module PV2 remains in the reverse bias
region. In this condition, the PV module works as a load, i.e.,
it consumes part of the string power that is dissipated on the
form of heat. It leads to the appearance of hot spots. In the
second case represented by point B in Fig. 1 (b), module PV2
operates at its MPP, but it limits the current generated by PV1. equalizer, the switches are driven with a fixed duty ratio of
In either case, there is a reduction on the generated power by 50%.
the PV string. To address this problem, the DPP converter can
be used as explained in the forthcoming section.

(a)
Reverse-biased Forward-biased (a)

PV2
A
iA

PV1
B
iB
Breakdown voltage

Voltage (V)
(b) (b)
Fig. 1 - (a) String PV with different characteristics modules. (b) Current
Fig. 2 - (a) Schematic diagram of DPP structure. (b) I-V characteristic
versus voltage (I-V) characteristics.
curve under mismatch conditions.

III. DPP CONVERTER The current ripple through L1 is represented by ΔiL1, which
Fig. 2 (a) shows the same string, but associated with a DPP can be calculated as (1):
converter. The main concept behind the DPP converter is that
the differential current from the mismatch, that is, iL= iPV2–iPV1 vOC ⋅ D
is diverted by the DPP converter and energy is stored ∆iL1 = (1)
temporarily in a given element. Later on, the energy is
L1 ⋅ fsw
transferred to the output. By doing so, the string voltage is where vOC is the open-circuit voltage of the PV module, and
equalized as shown in Fig. 2 (b), whereas the string current fsw is the switching frequency.
corresponds to the currents associated with two modules. As
a result, PV1 is still able to actively generate power because
its voltage does not become zero. There are several converters
that can be used in this application, but the most common one
is the bidirectional buck-boost (BBB) converter, which will be
considered in this work.
A. Theoretical analysis
Fig. 3 (a) shows the PV string connected to the BBB
converter. Assuming that the maximum power that can
extracted from PV2 is higher than that of PV1, as well as that
both modules have approximately the same voltage at the
MPP, then PV2 will generate a higher current, i.e., iPV2>iPV1.
Thus, the following operation modes result: (a) (b)
• First stage [t0, t1] (Fig. 3 (b)): Switches S1 and S2 are
turned on and turned off, respectively. The mismatch current
iPV2–iPV1=iL1 flows through S1, increasing linearly owing to the
constant voltage across PV1. Part of the energy from the
unshaded PV2 module is temporarily stored in L1.
• Second stage [t1, t2] (Fig. 3 (c)): Switches S1 and S2 are
turned off and turned on, respectively. The energy stored in L1
flows through the body diode of S2 to compensate the current
of the shaded module.
The gating signals applied to the switches as represented
by vG and the current through the filter inductor iL1 are show (c)
in Fig. 4. Assuming that the converter operates as a voltage Fig. 3 - Operation of the BBB converter. (a) Modules PV1 and PV2
connected to the BBB converter. (b) First stage. (c) Second stage.
 D⋅T1 ( D−1) ⋅T1 The string current, istring, can be derived by average current
generated by modules of the string and it can be expressed by
(3).
n

i
i =1
PVi
istring = (3)
n
∆iL1 The current flowing through an individual DPP converter
can be determined substituting (3) into (2) and reorganizing
the expression, resulting in (4).
Fig. 4 - Main theoretical waveforms.
2 n c

iLc =  c ⋅  iPVi − ( n − c ) ⋅  iPVi  (4)
B. Analysis of the PV-to-PV architecture for n PV modules n  i = c +1 i =1 
The equations referent to the PV-to-PV architecture An inspection of (4) reveals that the diverted currents by
connected to a string composed by n PV modules are obtained the DPP converters are dependent on each other. This implies
considering the following premises: the ripple current through that even if a single module of PV string is unbalanced, all
inductors L is small, and the switches are driven with a fixed converters will process power. The converters closest to the
duty ratio of 50%. Consequently, one can assume that the unbalanced module will process the highest amount of power,
average current iSc through each switch is equal to half of the whereas the farthest ones will process a small fraction of the
current that flows through its respective inductor iLc. That is, rated power. This is due to the diverted current accumulation
iSc = iLc ‧D or iSc = iLc/2. In addition, in steady state, the module phenomenon. Besides, for the case that all PV modules have
voltage is constant and, therefore, the average current through equal current values, i.e., IPV1 = IPV2 = ··· = IPVn, the current
all capacitors Cbn is zero. Based on this assumption and that flows through any converter is zero in the absence of
applying KCL to node 1 in Fig. 5, it yields istring –iPV1 – iL1/2= mismatch.
0; iPV1 – iPV2 + iL1 – iL2/2 = 0 for the second node; and so on.
These expressions can be rearranged and generalized for the After determining the currents through the DPP
current iLc that flows through inductor Lc of the cth converter converters, it is possible to calculate the losses. The equivalent
as in (2). resistance Req shown in Fig. 5 models the converter losses and
consists of the sum of the resistances in the current path.
 c
 Therefore, the losses in the whole PV-to-PV architecture can
iLc = 2 ⋅  c ⋅ istring −  iPVi  (2)
 i =1  be calculated by (5).
n −1

−1 = Req ⋅  iLi
2 2
istring Ploss = Req ⋅ iLn (5)
+
iSc iPVn i =1

2 PVn The power provided by PV string connected to PV-to-PV

architecture is given by the sum of the powers of the modules
DPP Req subtracted from the losses in (5), resulting in (6).
converter
Node n-1
#c iLc n
Ptot _ string =  PMPPn − Ploss (6)
iSc iL 3 i =1
iPV 4
2 PV4 2 where PMPP is the power provided by individual PV module at
Node 4 iL 3 Req DPP
standard test condition (STC). Thus, the efficiency is
converter expressed by (7).
#3
iL 2 n

2
iPV 3
PV3
iL 3
P MPPn − Ploss
2 η= i =1
(7)
Req iL 2 n
Node 3
 PMPPn
DPP
converter Bidirectional
#2 Buck-Boost i =1
iL1 Converter
iL 2 iPV 2 IV. EVALUATION OF THE PV-TO-PV ARCHITECTURE FOR A
PV2 2
b S1
b
STRING WITH DIFFERENT MODULES
2 iL1 Req L1
Node 2 DPP
From the previous equations, it is possible to assess the
a converter a
performance of the PV-to-PV architecture connected to a PV
#1
S2
c string composed of modules with different characteristics. In
iPV 1 PV1 iL1 c order to examine these equations, in this study is considered a
2 PV string with four PV modules as shown in Fig. 6. TABLE I
Node 1 shows the electrical characteristics of KM (P) 50 PV by
istring -
Komaes Solar® in STC. One of these modules is supposed to
Fig. 5 - Schematic diagram of PV-to-PV architecture for n PV modules. be replaced with a new device whose output power may vary
between 35 W and 80 W. However, since the voltage at the
maximum power point (MPP) of all string modules must be
approximately the same, that is, about 17.74V, a current 1
variation will be adopted instead of varying the power. Thus, iL3 = − ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew ) (13)
the current of the new module inew may be between 2.0 A and 2
4.5 A. From (5), the power losses can be calculated by (14). It
should be noted that this result is also obtained for the
istring + condition in which module PV4 is replaced with a new one.
iL 3
iPV 4 7
PV4 2 Ploss = ⋅ Req ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew )
2
(14)
2
Node 4 iL 3 Req DPP
converter In the next step, a similar analysis is derived, but
#2
iL 2 considering that module PV2 is replaced with a new one.
iPV 3 iL 3 Thus, one can be assume iPV2=inew and iMPP=iPV1=iPV3=
2 PV3 2 iPV4=2.84 A, resulting in (15), (16), and (17).
DPP Req iL 2 1
converter
#2 Node 3 iL1 = − ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew ) (15)
iL1 2
iPV 2
iL 2 PV2 2 iL2 = ( 2,84 − inew ) (16)
2
Node 2 iL1 Req DPP 1
converter iL3 = ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew ) (17)
#1 2
Considering (5), the power losses are given by (18). Once
New
PV
iPV 1 PV1 iL1
again, it is important to highlight that this very same result will
module 2 be obtained for the case in which PV3 is replaced with a new
Node 1 istring - module.

Fig. 6 - Schematic diagram of PV-to-PV architecture with four modules. 3 2

Ploss = ⋅ Req ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew ) (18)
2
TABLE I. Characteristics of PV module KM (P) 50 PV by Komaes
Solar®. From the two previous cases, one can conclude that the
Parameter Module
position of the new module has an important effect on the
operation of the DPP converters. In the second case, the power
Open-circuit voltage vOC = 21.56 V
losses are 2.33 times smaller. This behavior is valid for any
Short-circuit current iSC = 3.04 A value of the output current of a PV module and can be better
Voltage at the MPP vMPP = 17.74 V understood by representing the equations graphically.
Current at the MPP iMPP = 2.84 A Considering the specifications of the components in TABLE
Maximum power PMPP = 50 W II, the equivalent resistance of the converter is approximately
Req = 0.4 Ω. Expanding (6), the total power available from the
string can be determined from (19).
For the PV-to-PV architecture composed by four modules,
as shown in Fig. 6, three DPP converters are required. By (4) Ptot _ strin g = PP V 4 + PP V 3 + PP V 2 + Pnew − Ploss (19)
it is possible to determine the current that flow through each
DPP converter. Its expanded forms for converters DPP1, In both situations, three modules of the string have the
DPP2, and DPP3 are expressed by (8), (9), and (10) same power, i.e., 50 W according TABLE I. The remaining
respectively. module has a fixed voltage vnew=17.74 V and can assume any
current value between 2.0 A and 4.5 A. Thus, one can rewrite
1 (19) as (20).
iL1 = ⋅ ( −3 ⋅ iPV 1 + iPV 2 + iPV 3 + iPV 4 ) (8)
2 TABLE II. Specifications of the DPP converter.
1 Parameter Specification
iL 2 = ⋅ ( −2 ⋅ iPV 1 − 2 ⋅ iPV 2 + 2 ⋅ iPV 3 + 2 ⋅ iPV 4 ) (9)
2 Switching frequency fs = 50 kHz
1 Maximum value of the average
iL3 = ⋅ ( −iPV 1 − iPV 2 − iPV 3 + 3 ⋅ iPV 4 ) (10) input current ii (max.) = 2.84 A
2
Considering the operating condition in Fig. 6, in which Maximum voltage across the
vS (max.) = 43.12 V
switch
module PV1 is replaced with a new one, one can assume
iPV1=inew and, from TABLE I, iMPP = 2.84 A, resulting in L1 = 1.5 mH, ferrite core NEE
Inductor Lc 55/28/21-1 by Thornton,
iPV2=iPV3= iPV4= 2.84A. Thus, one can write (11), (12), and
3×AWG26, 156 turns
(13). Electrolytic capacitor 100 µF/60 V
Capacitor Cb
by Vishay
3 MOSFET IRF640 by International
iL1 = ⋅ ( 2.84 − inew ) (11) Switch
2 Rectifier

iL 2 = ( 2.84 − inew ) (12)

 Ptot _ string = 150 + 17.74 ⋅ inew − Ploss (20) In the first situation, module PV1 is replaced with module
SGM-80W by Solar Thailand®, whose main characteristics
Fig. 7 shows the behavior of the output power of the PV- in STC are listed in TABLE III. In the second situation, the
to-PV architecture for two distinct positions, whereas Fig. 8 same model is used, but to replace PV2 instead. Therefore, in
represents the efficiency expressed by (7). When the PV-to- both situations, the string is composed of four modules and
PV architecture is connected to a string, one can state that the can provide a maximum output power of 230 W in STC.
position of the new module influences the output power. It is Besides, it is important to note that the voltage at the MPP is
worth mentioning that, in PV strings composed of many approximately equal to that of module KM (P) 50. This
modules, the energy recovery becomes more evident. This is assumption leads to results that are in good agreement with the
because of the diverted current accumulation phenomenon as ones obtained in previous section.
reported in [13]. Moreover, according to Fig. 8, when the TABLE III. Characteristics of PV module SGM-80W by Solar Thailand®.
current of the new module matches the one through the
remaining modules of the string, no power is processed by the Parameter Module
DPP converters and, consequently, the efficiency is maximal. Open-circuit voltage vOC = 22.3 V
Short-circuit current iSC = 4.85 A
230 maximum theoretical Voltage at the MPP vMPP = 17.8 V
225 power
Current at the MPP iMPP = 4.49 A
220 Maximum power PMPP = 80 W
215
210
205
200 postion of the new
module at PV2 or PV3
195
postion of the new
190 module at PV1 or PV4

185
180
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Current (A)
Fig. 7 - Output power of the string associated with the PV-to-PV
architecture for four distinct positions.

100
99.5
99 postion of the new
module at PV2 or PV3
98.5
postion of the new
98 module at PV1 or PV4

97.5
97
96.5
96
95.5 Fig. 9 - Simulation schematic for architecture PV-to-PV with BBB
95 converters.
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Current (A) The results for the PV string without the PV-to-PV
Fig. 8 – Efficiency of the string associated with the PV-to-PV architecture
for four distinct positions.
architecture, as well as for the two aforementioned situations
considering the DPP approach are shown in Fig. 10. The
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION maximum power that can be extracted without the PV-to-PV
architecture is 206 W in case #1, resulting in an efficiency of
To validate the mathematical analysis presented in 89.6%. On the other hand, it is observed that the output power
previous sections, simulations in Matlab/Simulink® provided by PV string associated with the DPP architecture is
environment employing the circuit shown in Fig. 9 are carried higher. However, the output power is higher for the case #3,
out. All parameters of the DPP converters are listed in TABLE in which the new module is replaced at position PV2 or PV3,
II. In order to determine the maximum power that can be when compared with case #2, in which the new module is
extracted in every condition, a boost converter is connected to replaced at position PV1 or PV4. More specifically, regarding
the output of the PV string to perform MPPT. In this case, the the power string without the PV-to-PV architecture, an
well-known algorithm perturb-and-observe (P&O) was amount of power corresponding to 14 W can be recovered in
adopted for simplicity, this being the most popular approach the case #2, resulting in an increase of 6.8%. On the other
used by commercial PV systems [14]. The switching hand, an amount of power corresponding to 20 W can be
frequency of the DPP topology and the boost converter is recovered in case #3, resulting in an increase of 9.7%.
fs=50 kHz.

Fig. 10 - Power extracted from the PV string without and with the PV-to-
PV architecture for two distinct situations.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a solution based on the DPP
concept to mitigate problems caused by permanent mismatch.
The derived analysis demonstrated that the DPP concept can
be applied in a PV string composed of modules with different
specifications. This solution has several prominent
advantages. Among them, it is worth mentioning that only the
differential power is processed by the DPP converter.
Therefore, it enables the PV system to achieve higher
efficiency with low component count and cost. A simple BBB
topology was used as the DPP converter and simulation tests
evidenced that the mismatch problem can be completely
eliminated. Hence, there is an increase in the energy harvested
from the PV string. Furthermore, from this study, one can
conclude that the position of the new module in the PV string
connected to PV-to-PV architecture has a remarkable
influence on the output power.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge CAPES, CNPq, FAPEMIG,
INERGE, UFSJ and UNIFEI for the support to this work.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Linares, R. W. Erickson, S. MacAlpine, and M. Brandemuehl,
"Improved energy capture in series string photovoltaics via smart
distributed power electronics," in 2009 Twenty-Fourth Annual IEEE
Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, 2009, pp. 904-
910.
[2] T. S. Wurster and M. B. Schubert, "Mismatch loss in photovoltaic
systems," Solar Energy, vol. 105, pp. 505-511, 2014.
[3] K. Lappalainen and S. Valkealahti, "Photovoltaic mismatch losses
caused by moving clouds," Solar Energy, vol. 158, pp. 455-461, 2017.
[4] M. Dhimish and G. Badran, "Current limiter circuit to avoid
photovoltaic mismatch conditions including hot-spots and shading,"
Renewable Energy, vol. 145, pp. 2201-2216, 2020.
[5] K. A. Kim and P. T. Krein, "Reexamination of photovoltaic hot spotting
to show inadequacy of the bypass diode," IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, vol. 5, pp. 1435-1441, 2015.
[6] K. A. Kim and P. T. Krein, "Photovoltaic hot spot analysis for cells
with various reverse-bias characteristics through electrical and thermal
simulation," in 2013 IEEE 14th Workshop on Control and Modeling for
Power Electronics (COMPEL), 2013, pp. 1-8.
[7] E. Kabalci, A. Boyar, and Y. Kabalci, "Design and analysis of a micro
inverter for PV plants," in 2017 9th International Conference on
Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), 2017, pp. 1-
6.
[8] Z. Liang, R. Guo, J. Li, and A. Q. Huang, "A high-efficiency PV
module-integrated DC/DC converter for PV energy harvest in
FREEDM systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26,
pp. 897-909, 2011.
[9] S. K. Das, D. Verma, S. Nema, and R. Nema, "Shading mitigation
techniques: State-of-the-art in photovoltaic applications," Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 78, pp. 369-390, 2017.
[10] P. S. Shenoy, K. A. Kim, B. B. Johnson, and P. T. Krein, "Differential
power processing for increased energy production and reliability of
photovoltaic systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol.
28, pp. 2968-2979, 2012.
[11] S. Qin, S. T. Cady, A. D. Dominguez-Garcia, and R. C. N. Pilawa-
Podgurski, "A distributed approach to maximum power point tracking
for photovoltaic submodule differential power processing," IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, pp. 2024-2040, 2014.
[12] M. Badawy and Y. Sozer, "Differential power processing of
photovoltaic systems for high energy capture and reduced cost," in
2017 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE),
2017, pp. 475-481.
[13] M. Kasper, S. Herden, D. Bortis, and J. W. Kolar, "Impact of PV string
shading conditions on panel voltage equalizing converters and
optimization of a single converter system with overcurrent protection,"
in 2014 16th European Conference on Power Electronics and
Applications, 2014, pp. 1-10.
[14] J. J. Nedumgatt, K. Jayakrishnan, S. Umashankar, D. Vijayakumar, and
D. Kothari, "Perturb and observe MPPT algorithm for solar PV
systems-modeling and simulation," in 2011 Annual IEEE India
Conference, 2011, pp. 1-6.