*4.2. Power and Voltage at GMPP*

GMPP's power evaluation results are given in Figure 17. The I-SDK arrangement delivered the greatest power at GMPP of 143.5 W, 141.7 W, 128.3 W and 129.3 W.

Power distribution to the load side involves many factors, including voltage at GMPP. The voltage at GMPP has distinct values in the MATLAB/Simulation research for SP, TCT, SDK, I-SDK and SM setups under shading case-I (60.35 V, 59.82 V, 8.82 V, 58.81 V and 59.73 V), case-II (50.15 V, 49 V, 58.71 V, 57.81 V and 58.73 V), case-III (37.6 V, 37.6 V, 58.18 V, 58.17 V and 58.10 V) and case-IV (50.55 V, 61 V, 59.08 V, 58.43 V and 59.04 V).

#### *4.3. PL and FF Analysis*

Power losses due to shade on PV systems such as SP, TCT, SDK, SM and I-SDK configurations were observed in the MATLAB/Simulink study. In order to do this, the I-SDK configuration had a minimum PL of 20.36%, 21.36%, 23.36% and 28.24% under shading cases I–IV, respectively.

Deviation in the FF due to different shadowing scenarios are given in Figure 18 when comparing SP, TCT, SDK, SM and I-SDK layouts. Shade instances I-IV in the MAT-LAB/Simulink study, according to I-SDK, demonstrated the greatest gains in shading efficiency in terms of FF at 74.61%, 76.10%, 79.4% and 75.72%, respectively.

**Figure 18.** (**a**) PL (**b**) FF analysis for case I-IV.

#### *4.4. PR and PE Analysis*

The PR and PE analysis was performed using MATLAB/Simulink, as illustrated in Figure 19. When compared to SP, TCT, SDK and SM arrangements, I-SDK had the highest PR of 79.63%, 78.63%, 76.63% and 71.75% in shading patterns I-IV.

In addition to this, the PE was investigated under shading scenarios I-IV, though MATLAB/Simulink analysis was observed to be highest as 32.62%, 25.17%, 36.32% and 19.61% compared to TCT (11.59%, 2.38%, 2.07% and 0.64%), SDK (28.17%, 22.87%, 32.37%, 15.44%) and SM (25.39%, 20.93%, 31.58%, 13.87%) configurations.

**Figure 19.** (**a**) PR (**b**) PE analysis for case I-IV.

*4.5. Experimental Study: P-V and I-V Curves under Shading Case-IV*

This research investigated the effect of shading on the electrical performance of typical SP, TCT, SDK, SM and I-SDK puzzle-based designs. The P-V curve for each of the four PV

array installations is given in Figure 20a,b for shading scenarios I–IV. The presence of numerous power maximum points on P-V curves defined the position of the GMPP. In terms of shading case-IV, the GMPP for the SP, TCT, SDK and SM models were 104.2 W, 105 W, 122.1 W and 120.3 W, respectively. The I-SDK-based setup outperformed the other PV topologies in terms of power at GMPP (127.9 W) due to its shade dispersion capabilities.

I-V characteristics of the I-SDK configuration were smoother than those of the SP, TCT, SDK and SM puzzle-based setups. Under the scrutiny of shading scenario-IV, the ISC values were discovered to be 2.61 A for the I-SDK configuration. Furthermore, the *ISC* values for all PV arrays based on SP, TCT, SDK and SM configurations were 2.8 A, 2.8 A, 2.62 A and 2.62.A, respectively. In addition, the quantitative observation during experimentation is reported in Table 7.

**Figure 20.** (**a**,**b**) I–V curves for SP, TCT, SDK, I-SDK and SM models under shading scenarios-IV.


**Table 7.** Quantitative analysis with experimental shading study- IV.

A transient analysis of electrical performance characteristics was monitored during experimental activities to verify the results. Under shading pattern-I, the maximum current, voltage and power were settled from ideal/rated power (180 W) to 104.2 W (SP), 105 W (TCT) and 122.1 W (SDK), 127.9 W (I-SDK) and 120.3 W (SM), respectively, and are shown in Figure 21 as

**Figure 21.** *Cont*.

**Figure 21.** (**a**–**e**) Steady-state analysis of PV array configurations under shading case-IV.
