Maximum Power Point Tracking using Model

Predictive Control of a Flyback Converter for

Photovoltaic Applications
Mohammad Shadmand1, Student Member, IEEE, Robert S. Balog2, Senior Member, IEEE, and Haitham Abu Rub3, Senior
Member, IEEE
Renewable Energy & Advanced Power Electronics Research Laboratory1&2
Dept of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA1&2
Dept of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar3
mohamadshadmand@gmail.com1, robert.balog@ieee.org2, haitham.abu-rub@qatar.tamu.edu3
Abstract Due to the variable, stochastic behavior of the solar
energy resource, Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) of
photovoltaic (PV) is required to ensure continuous operation at
the maximum power point to generate the most electrical energy.
This paper presents a Model Predictive Control (MPC) MPPT
technique. Extracting the maximum power from PV systems has
been widely investigated within the literature; the main
contribution of this paper is improvement of the Perturb and
Observe (P&O) method through a fixed step predictive control
under measured fast solar radiation variation. The proposed
predictive control to achieve Maximum Power Point (MPP)
speeds up the control loop since it predicts error before the
switching signal is applied to the flyback DC/DC converter.
Comparing the developed technique to the conventional P&O
method indicates significant improvement in PV system
performance. The proposed MPC-MPPT technique for a flyback
converter is implemented using the dSpace CP 1103.

[14], Perturb-and-Observe (P&O) [15], fractional Open-Circuit

Voltage (Voc) [16], and Best Fixed Voltage (BFV) [17]. Each
approach has certain advantages and disadvantages for the
present application. INC is a well-known technique with
relatively good performance; however, INC method cannot
always converge to the true maximum power point.
P&O is a well-known technique with relatively good
performance; however, P&O method cannot always converge
to the true maximum power point. Also, P&O is relatively
slow, which limits its ability to track transient insolation
conditions. The main contribution of this paper is to improve
the P&O method performance by predicting the error one step
Transformer

Snubber
Circuit

IPV

1:n

Is
+

Many MPPT methods have been suggested over the past few
decades; the relative merits of these various approaches are
discussed in [13]. The critical operating regime is low
insolation. Capturing all of the available solar power during
low insolation periods can substantially improve system
performance. An effective MPPT controller and converter can
use available energy to significantly reduce the amount of
installed PV.
Considering the MPPT methods discussed in [13], candidate
techniques considered include Incremental Conductance (INC)

978-1-4799-4881-9/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

Lm

Vc
-

PV Module

+
Vpv
Switch

Switching
Signal

Vpv

Model
Predictive
Control

Ipv

P&O

Fig. 1: Flyback converter with snubber circuit for PV application.

Power [W]

The reduction in the cost of photovoltaic cells has further

increased interest in renewable energy source, which continues
to gain popularity with 60% annual growth in the installed
capacity of photovoltaic (PV) systems from 2004 to 2009, and
80% in 2011 [1]. However the low conversion efficiency of PV
cells is a significant obstacle to their wide spread use [2].
Therefore Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) is required
to ensure the maximum available solar energy is harnessed
from the solar panel [3-8]. The PV array can feed power to the
system through a DC/DC converter boosting the output voltage
[7, 9-11]. A maximum power point tracking (MPPT) control
technique is required for the PV system to operate at the
maximum power point [12].

Load

I. INTRODUCTION

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

4998 W
Daily Energy
17.4 kWh

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Hour

Fig. 2: Output power of one the PV arrays during a partially cloudy day.

ahead in horizon through model predictive control technique.

The proposed method has faster response than conventional
P&O under rapidly changing atmospheric conditions.

X * (K + 1)

II. PRINCIPLE OF MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL

Early applications of the ideas of Model Predictive Control
(MPC) in power electronics can be found from the 1980s
considering high-power systems with low switching frequency
[18]. The use of higher switching frequencies was not possible
at that time due to the large calculation time required for the
control algorithm. However, with the development of fast and
powerful microprocessors, interest in the application of MPC
in power electronics has increased considerably over the last
decade [19-23].
The main characteristic of MPC is predicting the future
behavior of the desired control variables [19] until a predefined
step ahead in horizon of time. The predicted variables will be
used to obtain the optimal switching state by minimizing a cost
function. The model used for prediction is a discrete-time
model which can be presented as state space model [24]. The
MPC for power electronics converters can be designed using
the following steps [19]:

Modeling of the power converter identifying all possible

switching states and its relation to the input or output
voltages or currents.
Defining a cost function that represents the desired
behavior of the system.
Obtaining discrete-time models that allow one to predict
the future behavior of the variables to be controlled.

The designed controller should consider the following tasks:

Predict the behavior of the controlled variables for all

possible switching states.
Evaluate the cost function for each prediction.
Select the switching state that minimizes the cost
function.

The general scheme of MPC for power electronics

converters is illustrated in
Fig. 3 [19]. In this scheme
measured variables, X (K ) , are used in the model to calculate
~

predictions, X ( K + 1) , of the controlled variables for each one of

the n possible actuations, that is, switching states, voltages, or
currents. Then these predictions are evaluated using a cost
function which considers the reference values, X * ( K + 1) ,
design constraints, and the optimal actuation, S, is selected and
applied in the converter. The general form of the cost function,
g, subject to minimization can be formulated as
~

g = X 1 (K + 1) X 1* (K + 1) + 1 X 2 (K + 1) X 2* (K + 1)

(1)

~
+ + n X n (K + 1) X n* (K + 1)

where is the weighting factor for each objective. To select the

switching state which minimizes the cost function g, all

X (K )
~

X1 (K + 1)
~

X 2 (K +1)

X (K )

X n (K + 1)

Fig. 3. MPC general schematic for power electronics converters.

possible states are evaluated and the optimal value is stored to

be applied next.
The power converter can be from any topology and number
of phases, while the generic load shown in
Fig. 3 can
represent an electrical machine, the grid, or any other active or
passive load. In this paper the flyback topology with snubber
circuit illustrated in Fig. 1 has been selected for the proposed
MPPT technique.
III. MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING USING MODEL
PREDICTIVE CONTROL
The low conversion efficiency of PV systems is a significant
obstacle to their growth [2], therefore Maximum Power Point
Tracking (MPPT) is required to ensure the maximum available
solar energy is harnessed from the solar panel [3-5].
Many MPPT methods have been suggested over the past few
decades; the relative merits of these various approaches are
discussed in [13]. The critical operating regime is low
insolation. Capturing all of the available solar power during
low insolation periods can substantially improve system
performance. An effective MPPT controller and converter can
use available energy to significantly reduce the amount of
installed PV.
Considering the MPPT techniques listed in [13], candidate
techniques include Incremental Conductance (INC) [14],
Perturb-and-Observe (P&O) [15], fractional Open-Circuit
Voltage (Voc) [16], and Best Fixed Voltage (BFV) [17]. Each
approach has certain advantages and disadvantages for the
present application.
P&O is a well-known technique with relatively good
performance; however, P&O method cannot always converge
to the true maximum power point. Also, P&O is relatively
slow, which limits its ability to track transient insolation
conditions. The main contribution of this section is to improve
the P&O method performance by predicting the error one step
ahead in horizon through model predictive control technique.

By deriving the discrete time set of equations, the behavior

of control variable can be predicted at next sampling time k.
The proposed methodology is based on the fact that the slope
of the PV array power curve is zero at the predicted MPP,
positive on the left and negative on the right of the predicted
MPP.

i = iPV (k ) iPV (k 1)
v = v PV (k ) v PV (k 1)

v (k )
v
= PV
iPV (k )
i

i = 0

The discrete time set of equations of the flyback converter

shown in Fig. 1 is given by (2) and (3) when switch is ON
and (4) and (5) when switch is OFF [25]:
TS
(2)
v PV ( k ) + iPV ( k )
L
T
(3)
vC (k + 1) = 1 S vC (k )
RC
T
(4)
i PV (k + 1) = iPV ( k ) S vC (k )
Ln
T
T
(5)
vC (k + 1) = S iPV (k ) + 1 S vC (k )
nC
RC
Now after determination of the reference current using the
procedure shown in Fig. 4, the cost function can be obtained as
following
iPV (k + 1) =

v (k )
v
> PV
iPV (k )
i

v > 0

v = 0

iref = iPV (k )

iref = iPV (k ) +

iref = iPV (k )

Fig. 4. MPC procedure to determine reference current using P&O

(6)

g S = 0 ,1 = i PVS = 0 ,1 ( k + 1) iref

The objective is to minimize the cost function g. The final

switching state for MPPT can be determined using procedure
illustrated in Fig. 5.
However in this paper the MPC-MPPT is done for one step
ahead in horizon, but the discrete time equation can be
extended to n-step in horizon as following

v PV (k ), i PV (k ) , iref

i PV , s =0,1 (k + 1)

g s =0 < g s =1

T
TS
v PV (k ) + (1 S ) S vC (k + n)
L
Ln
TS
TS
vC (k + n + 1) = S 1
vC (k ) + (1 S ) iPV (k + n)
Cn
RC

i PV ( k + n + 1) = iPV ( k + n) S

g s = 0 ,1 = i PV , s = 0 ,1 ( k + 1) i ref

s=0

(7)
(8)

1 kW/m2

Current (A)

s =1
10

0.75 kW/m2
0.5 kW/m2

0.25 kW/m2

Fig. 5. MPC-MPPT procedure

0
0

The proposed method has faster response than conventional

P&O under rapidly changing atmospheric conditions.

20

30
40
Voltage (V)

50

60

70

1 kW/m2

600
Power (W)

A flyback converter is chosen as a DC/DC converter. P&O

determines the reference current for the MPC which
determines the next switching state. This technique predicts the
error of the next sampling time and based on optimization of
the cost function g, illustrated in Fig. 5, the switching state will
be determined. The inputs to the predictive controller are the
PV system current and voltage, and the reference current.

10

0.75 kW/m2

400

0.5 kW/m2

200
0
0

0.25 kW/m2

10

20

30
40
Voltage (V)

50

Fig. 6. I-V and P-V characteristics of the array.

60

70

Ipv P&O MPPT

10

0.9
0.8

Duty Cycle

Ipv(A)

8
6
4
2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Time(s)
Ipv MPC MPPT

10

1.2

1.4

1.6

Ipv(A)

6
4
2
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ipv P&O MPPT

1
Time(s)

Ipv(A)

10

Ipv(A)

10

4
2
0
1.4

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Time (s)
800
700
600
500
400

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Time (s)

Fig. 8. Solar irradiance level of the case study and the duty cycle.

Ipv MPC MPPT

4
2

1.45

1.5

1.55
1.6
Time(s)
Ipv P&O MPPT

1.65

0
1.7 1.4

10

10

Ipv(A)

0.5

1.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Irradiance level (W/m 2)

0.7

0
0.1

0.2

0.3
Time(s)

0.4

1.45

0
0.1

0.5

1.5

1.55
1.6
Time(s)
Ipv MPC MPPT

1.65

1.7

Fig. 9. PV current, voltage, and power of MPC-MPPT.

0.2

0.3
Time(s)

0.4

0.5

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Vpv P&O MPPT

65

Vpv(V)

60
55
50
45
40

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Time(s)
Vpv MPC MPPT

Fig. 10. PV current, voltage, and power response to step change in the
irradiance from 500 W/m2 to 750 W/m2.

65

Vpv(V)

60

where S is the switching state and Ts is the sampling time. By

increasing the number of steps to two or three, the computation
time will be increased but better control performance expected
to be achieved.

55
50
45
40

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Time(s)

65

65

60

60
Vpv(V)

Vpv(V)

Vpv P&O MPPT

55
50
45
40
1.4

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Vpv MPC MPPT

55
50
45

1.45

1.5

1.55
1.6
Time(s)

1.65

1.7

40
1.4

1.45

1.5

1.55
1.6
Time(s)

1.65

1.7

Fig. 7. Comparison of proposed MPC MPPT to conventional P&O MPPT

The I-V and P-V characteristic of the PV systems used in

this paper for different irradiance levels are illustrated in Fig. 6.
In this paper the model predictive control for MPPT is
compared to the commonly used perturb and observed method.
Fig. 7 illustrates the simulation results of the proposed MPC
and conventional P&O method. The system is tested under
three irradiance level changes. As shown in Fig. 7 the
performance of the MPC method is better than the
conventional P&O method. More specifically by applying a

step change in the irradiance at time 1.5 s, when using the

proposed MPC method the MPP is tracked at time 1.52 s, but
when using the P&O method the MPP is tracked at time 1.60 s.
The detail descriptive plots are illustrated in Fig. 7.
Matlab/Simulink and dSPACE CP1103 is used for the
experimental results. The real time implementation of the
MPC-MPPT is illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10. It confirms the
simulation results as shown.
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper presents an improved MPPT technique by
predicting the error at next sampling time before applying the
switching signal using MPC. The proposed predictive MPPT
technique is compared to commonly used P&O method to
show the benefits and improvements in the speed and
efficiency of the MPPT. The results show that the MPP is
tracked much faster by using the MPC technique than P&O
method. The dSpace CP1103 is used for implementing the
control technique experimentally.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication was made possible by NPRP grant # 4-0772-028 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of
Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
V. REFRENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]

[7]

[8]

Z. Peng, W. Yang, X. Weidong, and L. Wenyuan, "Reliability

Evaluation of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Power Systems,"
IEEE Trans on Sustainable Energy, vol. 3, pp. 379-389, 2012.
M. Kasper, D. Bortis, T. Friedli, and J. W. Kolar,
"Classification and comparative evaluation of PV panel
integrated DC-DC converter concepts," in IEEE Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conference (EPE/PEMC),
2012, pp. LS1e.4-1-LS1e.4-8.
L. Zhigang, A. Q. Huang, and G. Rong, "High efficiency
switched capacitor buck-boost converter for PV application," in
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition
(APEC), 2012, pp. 1951-1958.
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, 2013.
J. Wei and B. Fahimi, "Maximum solar power transfer in Multiport Power Electronic Interface," in IEEE Applied Power
Electronics Conference and Expo (APEC), 2010, pp. 68-73.
R. Ahmadi, A. Kashyap, A. Berrueta Irigoyen, A. Rayachoti, C.
Wright, and J. Kimball, "Selective source power converter for
improved photovoltaic power utilization," in IEEE Power and
Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), 2013, pp. 247-252.
A. R. Kashyap, R. Ahmadi, and J. W. Kimball, "Input voltage
control of SEPIC for maximum power point tracking," in IEEE
Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), 2013, pp. 3035.
M. Hamzeh, S. Farhangi, and B. Farhangi, "A new control
method in PV grid connected inverters for anti-islanding
protection by impedance monitoring," in IEEE Workshop on
Control and Modeling for Power Electronics (COMPEL), 2008,
pp. 1-5.

[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]

H. Behjati and A. Davoudi, "A Multiple-Input Multiple-Output

DC-DC Converter," IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 49, pp. 1464-1479, 2013.
H. Keyhani and H. A. Toliyat, "A new generation of buck-boost
resonant AC-link DC-DC converters," in IEEE Applied Power
Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), 2013, pp.
1383-1390.
B. Farhangi and S. Farhangi, "Comparison of z-source and
boost-buck inverter topologies as a single phase transformerless photovoltaic grid-connected power conditioner," in IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conf (PESC), 2006, pp. 1-6.
H. Keyhani and H. A. Toliyat, "Single-Stage Multi-String PV
Inverter with an Isolated High-Frequency Link and SoftSwitching Operation," IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. PP, pp. 1-1, 2013.
T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, "Comparison of photovoltaic
array maximum power point tracking techniques," IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, pp. 439-449, June
2007 2007.
A. Bidram, A. Davoudi, and R. S. Balog, "Control and Circuit
Techniques to Mitigate Partial Shading Effects in Photovoltaic
Arrays," IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 2, pp. 532-546,
2012.
N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli,
"Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point
tracking method," IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,
vol. 20, pp. 963-973, 2005.
K. A. Kim, R. M. Li, and P. T. Krein, "Voltage-offset resistive
control for DC-DC converters in photovoltaic applications," in
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition
(APEC), 2012, pp. 2045-2052.
D. Sera, T. Kerekes, R. Teodorescu, and F. Blaabjerg,
"Improved MPPT Algorithms for Rapidly Changing
Environmental Conditions," in IEEE Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conf (EPE-PEMC), 2006, pp. 1614-1619.
J. Holtz and S. Stadtfeld, "A predictive controller for the stator
current vector of AC machines fed from a switched voltage
source," in International Power Electronics Conference (IPEC),
1983, pp. 16651675.
J. Rodriguez, M. P. Kazmierkowski, J. R. Espinoza, P.
Zanchetta, H. Abu-Rub, H. A. Young, et al., "State of the Art of
Finite Control Set Model Predictive Control in Power
Electronics," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol.
9, pp. 1003-1016, 2013.
H. Abu-Rub, J. Guzinski, Z. Krzeminski, and H. A. Toliyat,
"Predictive current control of voltage-source inverters," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 51, pp. 585-593,
2004.
P. Cortes, A. Wilson, S. Kouro, J. Rodriguez, and H. Abu-Rub,
"Model Predictive Control of Multilevel Cascaded H-Bridge
Inverters," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.
57, pp. 2691-2699, 2010.
J. D. Barros, J. F. A. Silva, and E. G. A. Jesus, "Fast-Predictive
Optimal Control of NPC Multilevel Converters," IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Elec, vol. 60, pp. 619-627, 2013.
M. B. Shadmand, M. Mosa, R. S. Balog, and H. A. Rub, "An
Improved MPPT Technique of High Gain DC-DC Converter by
Model Predictive Control for Photovoltaic Applications," in
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference & Exposition
(APEC), 2014.
J. Rodriguez and P. Cortes, Predictive control of power
converters and electrical drives vol. 37: Wiley. com, 2012.
R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of power
electronics: Kluwer Academic Pub, 2001.