www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Power Electronics
Received on 23rd May 2013
Revised on 15th November 2013
Accepted on 28th November 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

ISSN 1755-4535

Maximum power point tracking architectures for

photovoltaic systems in mismatching conditions:
a review
Juan David Bastidas-Rodriguez1, Edinson Franco1, Giovanni Petrone2,
Carlos Andrés Ramos-Paja3, Giovanni Spagnuolo2
1
Escuela de Ingeniería Eléctrica y Electrónica, Universidad del Valle, Colombia
2
Dip. di Ingegneria Elettronica e Ingegneria Informatica, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Italy
3
Departamento de Energía Eléctrica y Automática, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia
E-mail: juan.d.bastidas@correounivalle.edu.co

Abstract: In practical photovoltaic (PV) installations the operating conditions of the panels the PV array is made of are different
owing to different factors. Such irregular conditions are known as ‘mismatching conditions’ and produce multiple maxima in the
power-voltage curves of any PV array. The traditional maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques are able to track one of
those maxima, but they cannot guarantee the extraction of the maximum power the PV array would be able to deliver. To
overcome this problem, many techniques have been presented in the literature: they use one converter for the entire array
(centralised MPPT), one converter for each part of the array (distributed MPPT) or they reconfigure the PV array (RMPPT).
This paper presents the general architectures used by 61 different MPPT techniques, by discussing their main advantages and
disadvantages, in order to give to the reader a comprehensive view of both the control strategies and the architectures for
extracting the maximum power from a mismatched PV field. Moreover, the widely adopted techniques for each hardware
structure are presented in a structured and compact way, thus providing to the reader some guidelines regarding the
technique’s operation principle and hardware requirements.

1 Introduction having a fast tracking response during the environmental

Photovoltaic (PV) systems are one of the most important
renewable energy sources since solar energy is
inexhaustible, free and clean. Moreover, the PV cells do not
have mobile parts, can coexist with other energy sources,
have a lifetime longer than 20 years and their modularity
allows them to implement PV installations from a few
hundreds of W to MW.
To extract the maximum energy from a PV array it is
necessary to implement a control strategy to identify the PV
operating point characterised by the maximum power
(maximum power point – MPP); such a control strategy is
named maximum power point tracking (MPPT). The
traditional MPPT techniques most widely used in
commercial products are Perturb and Observe (P&O) [1]
and incremental conductance (IC) [2]. Those techniques
guarantee satisfactory performances [3] provided that the
values of their parameters are suitably designed.
Nevertheless, those algorithms are effective only when all
the modules of the PV array have the same parameters and
their irradiance and temperature conditions are uniform. Even
if in these conditions the MPP is unique, its position depends
strongly on the irradiance and the temperature variation, so
that the traditional MPPT algorithms are optimised for
variations and a high efficiency under the stationary
conditions. Unfortunately, many factors can introduce
differences in the operating conditions of each module and
multiple local MPPs can appear in the PV array
characteristic, thus making the tracking process more complex.
The manufacturing tolerances (e.g. in [4] the datasheet
reports ±10%), the shadows produced by the surrounding
objects (trees, antennas, buildings etc.), dirt, and/or passing
clouds are some of the most important causes of the
performance degradation of a PV installation [5]. Such
factors are cumulative and are very penalising, especially in
building integrated PV arrays. Indeed, in urban contexts, it
is almost impossible to find a large space without shadows
or, even worse, the shadow could appear because of a new
building realised after the installation of the PV system.
Therefore, many real PV systems can be rarely assumed in
uniform conditions, even by part of the day. On the other
side, the PV systems for residential applications are the
most important PV market [6], thus the problems related to
the non-uniform operating conditions, which are defined as
the ‘mismatched conditions’, must be properly mitigated.
In general, the effects of mismatching on the power
production of the PV generator can be reduced by
performing one or some of the following three actions:

1396 IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
 www.ietdl.org
(1) Modifying the MPPT algorithm by controlling the according to their structure. Moreover, the operation
converter(s) used in the system architecture (e.g. [7]). principle and the main hardware requirements of the 61
(2) Modifying the power system architecture, that is, using MPPT solutions are presented without proposing
multiple converters instead of a single one (e.g. [8]), comparisons among them. In fact, as seen in this paper,
modifying the interconnection among such converters (e.g. there is no unique MPPT strategy that always provides the
[9]) and/or changing the converters type itself (buck, boost, best results for any operating condition of the PV generator.
Cuk etc.) (e.g. [10]). Instead, the designer has to select the most appropriate
(3) Changing the electrical connection of the panels into the solution on the basis of the PV installation objective, the
PV field, that is, exchanging dynamically the position of the cost, the energy production and the complexity of the
panel in the array (e.g. [11]) or the type of connection from practical implementation.
series–parallel (SP) to total cross-tied, bridge-linked or other. The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a
brief description of the mismatching problems and some
Theoretically, the optimal results can be obtained by static solutions acting on the PV configuration. Section 3
performing the three actions simultaneously; however, such introduces a basic classification of the power architectures
an approach would result in a PV system that requires a and the MPPT strategies applied in the PV arrays operating
large amount of hardware and complex control algorithms. in the mismatching conditions. In particular, they have been
Hence, different MPPT strategies implement one of the divided into three classes identified with the acronyms
three actions and the other ones try to find trades offs CMPPT, DMPPT and RMPPT, respectively, and the
between them, thus resulting in a large number of solutions characteristics of those approaches have been highlighted.
with different characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. Sections 4–6 are devoted to describe and comment on the
Considering the large variety of MPPT techniques, it is not classified CMPPT, DMPPT and RMPPT techniques,
possible to compare them in terms of energy production only. respectively. Each section includes a table resuming the
In fact, it depends on the specific mismatching conditions, the main architectural characteristics as well as the hardware
hardware requirements, the implementation and the resources required by each reviewed method. The
maintenance complexity, the implementation costs and so conclusions close the paper.
on; therefore a general rule for selecting the best strategy
does not exist.
2 Static approach for mitigating the
For such a reason, this paper is mainly aimed at classifying
and organising different approaches for performing the MPPT mismatching problems
in the PV system operating in the mismatching conditions.
The maximum output voltage of a PV cell, that is the
The techniques are divided into the following three classes
open-circuit voltage, is lower than one volt, so that several
according to the hardware structure of the system:
cells are connected in series in order to form modules. Each
module has one diode connected in antiparallel [by-pass
(1) Centralised MPPTs (CMPPT): use one power stage to
diode (BD)]: it protects the module [19] from damages
track the maximum power available in the PV array.
occurring in the mismatching conditions by providing an
(2) Distributed MPPTs (DMPPT): divide the PV array into
alternative path for the string current when it cannot flow
subarrays and track the maximum power available in each
through the PV module [19, 20] because of the
subarray.
mismatching conditions. Typically, the PV modules are
(3) Reconfiguration MPPTs (RMPPT): modify the
connected in series to form panels and strings to obtain the
connections between the modules or the panels of the PV
voltage levels required by the practical applications,
array to increase the maximum power available.
whereas multiple strings are connected in parallel to reach a
This paper also highlights the main characteristics of the
selected techniques by describing their operation principles
and hardware requirements. In this way, an overview of the
state-of-the-art in this field is given and some issues that
could be the subject of further research activities are
pointed out.
In the literature, some comparisons among the MPPT
techniques for the PV arrays in the uniform conditions (e.g.
[2, 12–14]), as well as the general comparisons between
the CMPPT and the DMPPT strategies [15, 16] and the
overviews of the MPPT techniques for the PV arrays in the
mismatching conditions have been found [17, 18]. In some
cases, a qualitative description of the reviewed algorithms
and of the circuit topologies is given separately, but a
comprehensive discussion on the interactions between the
architectures and the algorithms for the MPPT in the
mismatching conditions has not been given yet. Moreover,
some of the papers mentioned above do not discuss the
hardware requirements and they cover only part of the
Fig. 1 PV field configurations
techniques presented in a wide literature.
Instead, the aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive SP: black lines, TCT: black lines + dashed lines + dot lines, BL: black lines +
dashed (or dot) lines
survey of the different approaches proposed in the literature Clouds dimensions identify the percentage of the shade: a big cloud means
for extracting the maximum power from a mismatched PV that the PV module is shaded at 50%. Small cloud means that the PV
field by classifying some widely adopted solutions module is shaded at 25%

IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413 1397

doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
given power. Such a system is denominated a PV array in SP
configuration [21–23] and is illustrated in Fig. 1 with the
connection represented by black lines. Fig. 1 also shows the
BDs.
There are other methods to interconnect the modules that
add electrical links among the strings of an SP array. Two
widely adopted PV array configurations are total-cross tied
(TCT) and bridge link (BL). The additional
interconnections implemented in a TCT array with respect
to an SP array are represented in dashed and dot lines in
Fig. 1, whereas the additional connections used by the BL
arrays are represented by the dashed (or dot) lines only.
In a PV system, independent of the array configuration, it is
quite frequent that the PV panels in the string have
mismatched parameters [24] along with the irradiance and
the temperature conditions, producing power against voltage
(P−V ) curves with irregular shapes. However, the effects of
the mismatching in the P−V characteristics depend on the
array configuration because different interconnections of the
modules produce different distributions of the array current
over the PV field.
To illustrate such a concept, two arrays of nine PV modules
are considered. One of them connected in the SP
configuration and the other one in the TCT configuration
according to Fig. 1. Fig. 2a presents the equivalent P−V
curves of both the arrays. In this example, the assumptions
are that the irradiance and the temperature are 1 kW/m2 and
25°C, respectively, and that the PV modules work in one of
three different shadowing conditions: 50%, 25% and 0%,
Fig. 2 Modules and array power against voltage curves
a Power against voltage curve of the 3 × 3 array in the SP and the TCT
configurations under the uniform (SP: black continuous line, TCT: grey
dashed line) and the mismatching (SP: black dashed line, TCT: grey
continuous line) conditions
b Power against voltage curve of the unshaded (continuous line), mid shaded
(dashed line) and large shaded (dot line) modules
1398
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
represented by a big, small and no cloud, respectively, in
Fig. 1. The P−V curves of a module in each shadowing
condition are presented in Fig. 2b.
Under uniform conditions, all the modules have the same
P−V curve marked as 0% shadowed in Fig. 2b. The
equivalent P−V curve of the array in both the SP and the
TCT configurations, corresponds to the sum of the P−V
curves of each module (see Fig. 2a).
In the mismatching conditions, the P−V curves of the SP
and the TCT arrays are different since the SP configuration
shows three maximums, two local (local MPP in the SP
configuration – LMPPSP) at 18 V and 36 V, approximately,
and one global (global MPP in the SP configuration –
GMPPSP) at around 57 V; whereas the TCT configuration
has only two maximums, one local (local MPP in the TCT
configuration – LMPPTCT) around 36 V and one global
(global MPP in the TCT configuration – GMPPTCT) around
56 V. For the mismatching conditions selected in this
example, it is clear that the TCT configuration has more
benefits than the SP configuration, since the maximum
available power in the TCT array is higher (PGMPPTCT >
PGMPPSP) and the number of the local maximums is
lower. In general, the power improvement obtained with the
TCT configuration (ηTCT) can be expressed as (1), which in
this case is 30.53%


PGMPPTCT − PGMPPSP


hTCT =

PGMPPSP %


533.5W − 408.7W


=
= 30.53% (1)
408.7W %
However, it is worth noting that only one pattern of the solar
irradiance has been considered, thus the improvement
introduced by the TCT connection does not ensure that this
configuration is the best one in the other mismatching
conditions. Moreover, the TCT requires more cabling with
an increase in the installation cost; hence, the designer of
the PV system should evaluate the specific application to
determine the viability of this array configuration. In any
case, the TCT and the BL solutions do not remove the
multiple power peaks; therefore, they must be completed
with a suitable MPPT algorithm able to track the GMPP.
Traditional MPPT techniques are able to track only one
MPP in a P−V curve [2]. Therefore, if such techniques are
used in a PV array in the mismatching conditions they
might be trapped in an LMPP, thus causing a drop in the
energy extracted from the PV array. For example, if a
traditional MPPT is trapped in the lower LMPPSP of
Fig. 2a, only 61.12% of the power available at the GMPPSP
would be extracted.
Moreover, it is worth noting that, for a PV array with N
modules in a given mismatched condition, the maximum
power extracted from the PV array is lower than (or at most
equal to) the sum of the maximum powers (PMPP) that can
be delivered by each module (named SMPP power) as
illustrated in Fig. 2a.

N
SMPP = PMPPi
i=1
(2)
SMPP ≥ PGMPPTCT
SMPP ≥ PGMPPSP
Such conditions are generated by the electrical connections
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

used in any PV array configuration, which introduce
constraints that can activate some of the BDs. Thus, the
corresponding PV modules are short-circuited by reducing
the maximum power at the PV array terminals. This means
that the maximum power available in any mismatched array
(e.g. PGMPPSP and PGMPPTCT) does not correspond to the
maximum power available in the modules (SMPP), even if
the MPPT technique applied to the PV array is able to track
the GMPP; therefore, in a PV array operating in the
mismatching conditions part of the energy transformed from
light to electricity, will be lost.
3 Classification of the MPPT architectures
The following classification takes into account the solutions
able to perform the MPPT in the PV array operating in the
mismatched conditions. The techniques are grouped on
the basis of the hardware architecture used to extract the
maximum power from the PV array. According to the
number of the power converters used in the solutions and to
the way they are connected with the PV modules, they can
be classified into the three groups described in the
following sub-sections.
3.1 CMPPT architectures
In these architectures, the PV array, typically exhibiting an SP
or a TCT configuration, is connected to one power converter,
which performs the tracking of the GMPP by executing an
algorithm that modifies the voltage or the current of the PV
array. The CMPPT architectures are commonly based on
the scheme shown in Fig. 3, where the current and the
voltage sensors (placed at the input and/or at the output of
the power converter) as well as the environmental sensors,
are used to calculate the PV power. This information is
elaborated by the MPPT algorithm and used to modify the
operation point of the power stage. Depending on the
specific power stage implementation, the MPPT technique
can act on the duty cycle of the converter, or on the
reference of a controller devoted to regulate the PV array
voltage or the current.
It is worth noting that the MPPT techniques operating on
the voltage reference give some advantages because they
reduce both, the settling time of each step of the MPPT
algorithm, and the PV voltage oscillations induced by the
Fig. 3 General structure of the CMPPT architecture
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 4 Characteristic curves for a PV array of 2 × 2 operating in
the uniform conditions with a 1 kW/m2 (continuous line) and a
0.7 kW/m2 (dashed line)
inverters in the grid-connected PV systems [25]. On the
other side, an MPPT method operating on the current
reference, although it improves the dynamic response, is
more sensible to the irradiance changes and it may produce
large power drops when fast irradiance changes occur [26].
Fig. 4 illustrates a 30% reduction in the irradiance over a
2 × 2 SP array. In such a case, if the system is operating in
Impp1 and the irradiance changes rapidly between two
consecutive action instants of the perturbative MPPT, in the
time between the irradiance change and the next action
instant of the MPPT algorithm, the PV current loop has the
initial reference value (Impp1). Owing to the fact that the
Isc2 is lower than the Impp1, the current control loop will
saturate the duty-cycle of the converter by trying to follow
the reference. Such a saturation drives the system to
operate, temporarily, on a current value close to Isc2, which
produces an output power close to zero (power drop close
to 100%). Such a drawback can be avoided by combining
the current loop with an external voltage loop controller as
in [27, 28].
In general, the CMPPT techniques have three main
advantages:
† The use of a single converter, thus the switching losses and
the cost of the implementation are lower compared with the
other MPPT architectures.
† The harvested energy can be higher than the one ensured
by the other architectures when there are shallow
mismatching conditions [15, 16].
† Few sensors are used since the PV array is considered as a
single PV generator.
The main drawback of this architecture concerns the fact
that it is not able to track the SMPP; moreover, to ensure
convergence towards the GMPP, the MPPT algorithm
might be much more complex than the well consolidated
MPPT techniques such as P&O and IC.
3.2 DMPPT architectures
In this type of architectures, the PV array is divided into
sub-sections (string, panel, module etc.) and each
sub-section is connected to a power converter, which is
devoted to perform the MPPT on it. By assuming that each
sub-section operates in uniform conditions, a simple MPPT
1399
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
tracking algorithm (e.g. P&O or IC) can be used on each
power converter.
Fig. 5a shows the basic unit of a DMPPT architecture
(DMPPT-U), which is similar to the CMPPT architecture,
except for the fact that it works on smaller sub-sections and
not on the whole PV array. Moreover, such units can be
considered as totally independent or they can interact with
the other units. Fig. 5b shows the typical connection of the
multiple DMPPT-Us. They are usually connected in series
and parallel according to the voltage and the power
constraints. Such a configuration reproduces the SP
connection of the PV modules (as in Fig. 1), by connecting
the converters outputs of each DMPPT-U.
The DMPPT architectures can, theoretically, track the
SMPP since each sub-section should operate at its MPP, but
some limitations arise in this configuration. The first
limitation is related to the voltage constraint of the DMPPT
unit, because the output voltage of each unit is:
Fig. 5 General structure of the DMPPT architectures
a Basic DMPPT unit
b Basic DMPPT architecture
1400
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
Pj
vo,j = vbus · N (3)
i=1 Pi
where vbus is the voltage of the DC-bus (see Fig.
5b), Pj is the
power delivered by the jth DMPPT unit and Ni=1 Pi is the
total power delivered by all the N DMPPT units connected
in series.
Such a voltage constraint is especially critical in
applications where the bus voltage is regulated to a fixed
value (such as in grid-connected systems). In such a case
(3) implies that, in the presence of the deep mismatched
conditions, the output voltages of the DMPPT-Us are not
well distributed and the converter output voltage rating can
be violated. Thus, to protect the sub-sections delivering
higher power, they are forced to work far from the MPP, so
that the SMPP cannot be tracked [25, 29].
For example, if a string of two DMPPT-Us, where each
DMPPT-U is composed of one BP585 panel and one boost
converter, is connected to a regulated DC bus of 90 V, the
output voltages of the DMPPT-Us (vo1 and vo2) under the
uniform conditions are the same (45 V for an irradiance of
1 kW/m2), as shown in Ramos-Paja et al. [30]. However, if
a shadowing of 50% appears on the panel connected to the
second DMPPT-U, then vo1 and vo2 are different (vo1 = 60
V and vo2 = 30 V). In such a case, the output capacitor and
the MOSFET of the boost converter of the first DMPP-U
may be damaged if they have been selected by taking into
account the operation in regular conditions (e.g. 50 V) [30].
Instead, if each DMPPT-U is directly connected to the DC
bus voltage, the unbalancing because of the series connection
is avoided. This configuration requires that the output voltage
range of each DMPPT-U matches with the voltage levels of
the bus, but such a voltage depends on the application. For
the grid connected applications, the bus voltage is high,
thus the converter of each DMPPT-U must be designed for
having a high boosting factor.
High boosting factor DC/DC converters are also frequently
used in PV microinverter solutions, where each panel is
straightforwardly connected to the grid by means of a
cascade of a DC/DC converter and a DC/AC stage. In this
case, the DMPPT architecture is easily scalable since each
PV module is a plug-in system that can be integrated in any
electrical power plant. However, those systems are complex,
not only for the high-voltage gain needed, but also because
each DMPPT-U needs to manage the grid connection
(synchronisation, protections etc.), which leads to an
increase of the implementation costs.
Another limitation of the DMPPT architecture concerns the
switching losses introduced by the power stage of each
DMPPT-U, which does not always operate at its own
maximum efficiency since the operating points vary in a
wide range of voltage and currents along the day. This
aspect is especially important in those cases when the
mismatch occurs for a limited time period (e.g. a shadow
that covers part of the PV array only for a few hours). In
fact, if the converters are permanently connected even if
they are not necessary, the energy they dissipate during this
period may counterbalance the increased energy harvested
(over the CMPPT architectures) when the DMPPT
architecture operates in the mismatched condition. This
problem can be solved by disconnecting the DMPPT units
(pass-through configuration) when they are not needed [31, 32].
MPPT techniques that combine some benefit of the
CMPPT and the DMPPT concepts are also available. Such
solutions have been classified as CU-DMPPT when a
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

central unit (CU) works as a supervisor system. Here, each
PV sub-section is equipped with a switching converter but
the MPPT algorithm runs on the CU. In that way, the
information coming from each module can be used for a
global optimisation of the power produced. Moreover, such
a solution is suitable for implementing monitoring and
diagnostic functionalities at the PV sub-section level.
3.3 RMPPT architectures
In this architecture, each PV module can be interconnected
dynamically with the other ones by means of multiple
switches connected to the positive and the negative
terminals. Fig. 6 shows a conceptual scheme of such an
approach. The connections among the modules are
performed by means of a matrix relay box controlled by a
PV-reconfiguration algorithm (PV-RA), which selects the
best electrical configuration of the PV modules. It is worth
noting that, as explained in the previous sections, a specific
PV array connection which is able to eliminate the effects
of any mismatching conditions does not exist, thus the
solution must be identified in real time by exploring the
space of all the possible solutions.
The PV-RA periodically measures the voltage and the
current of each PV module, as well as the environmental
conditions; on the basis of the results of such measurements
the algorithm determines the new configuration. To set the
new configuration, the PV array is disconnected from the
load by the PV switch (see Fig. 6) to guarantee the safety
of the system by avoiding the commutation of the matrix
relay when the current is still flowing inside it. The PV
array configuration obtained by the PV-RA can show
multiple LMPPs, thus the RMPPT requires a power
converter at the output of the matrix relay. The operating
principle of such a converter is the same as that of the
CMPPT architecture and it is equipped with an MPPT
technique for tracking the GMPP.
The main advantage of such an architecture concerns the
fact that the dynamic reconfiguration can reduce the
distance between the GMPP and the SMPP by producing
higher power than the CMPPT architectures. An additional
benefit is the increased system safety because, for example,
this architecture allows us to disconnect the PV panel if a
failure such as an electric arc is detected, thus avoiding
such a failure may produce a permanent damage in the
panel or even trigger a fire [33, 34]. Moreover, the
Fig. 6 General structure of the RMPPT architecture
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
installation is simplified because the best PV array
configuration is selected automatically and, as in the
DMPPT architectures, the monitoring and the diagnostic
functionalities can be performed at the module level.
The drawbacks of the RMPPT approach are the increase of
the cabling connection and the fact that the PV array must be
periodically disconnected to perform reconfiguration.
Moreover, the re-configuration produces energy losses for at
least two reasons. The first one because when the PV array
is disconnected it does not produce energy and the duration
of such a phase depends significantly on the PV-RA
capability of selecting the new connection. The second one
is because the relay performing the reconfiguration requires
a power supply.
4 Literature survey of the CMPPT-based
solutions
The aim of this paper is to classify the widely adopted
solutions, proposed in the scientific literature, for mitigating
the mismatched effects. In this way, the reader can have a
personal opinion on which solution should be used in a
specific case. The approaches have been organised on the
basis of the hardware resources required to implement each
CMPPT technique.
The presentation of the different solutions follows the order
given in Table 1, whose columns were defined to represent
the main parts of the CMPPT architecture presented in
Fig. 3. The techniques were divided into the following three
subclasses specified in the first column of Table 1:
A. Techniques in which the GMPP is tracked by sampling the
P−V curves and by using hill climbing algorithms.
B. The GMPP tracking is performed by using computational
intelligence approaches.
C. The GMPP is tracked with approaches not falling into the
categories listed above.
Columns 2–4 show the variables sensed for evaluating the
MPP, and specify the power stage topology and the load,
respectively. Columns 5–7 give more details concerning the
MPPT algorithm: in particular, the variable on which the
algorithm acts, the tracking method and the hardware used
for implementing the algorithm have been also reported.
1401
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Table 1 CMPPT techniques
Subclass Measurements Power Load CMPPT algorithm Ref.
stage
Manipulated Tracking Implemented in Design
variable method process

A iPV, vPV NS NS vPV ESC NS no [35]

iPV, vPV boost battery D fuzzy µC yes [36]
iPV, vPV boost R vPV P&O µC yes [7]
iPV, vPV 3P DC/AC inverter + vPV P&O DSP yes [37]
grid
iPV, vPV NS DC load iPV P&O PC yes [38]
iPV, vPV buck battery D P&O µC yes [39]
iPV, vPV boost inverter + vPV IC DSP no [40]
grid
B iPV, vPV buck R vPV chaos RT-LAB no [41]
iPV, vPV boost R vPV fibonacci µC yes [42]
iPV, vPV boost DC load D fibonacci DSP yes [43]
iPV, vPV boost NS D PSO DSC yes [44]
iPV, vPV buck– R D PSO DSP [45] and NS no [45, 46]
boost [46]
iPV, vPV and G 1 buck NS vPV ANN + fuzzy PC no [47]
C vPV boost battery + R vPV k × Voc DSP yes [48]
iPV, vPV, io and buck R D optimum NS yes [49]
vo control
iPV, vPV buck NS D P&O NS yes [50]

vPV: PV array voltage, iPV: PV array current, vo: converter output voltage, io: converter output current, G: irradiance, D: converter duty
cycle, NS: not specified, 3P: three phase, R: resistive, µC: microcontroller, DSP: digital signal processor, DSC: digital signal controller
and PC: personal computer
1
It requires one irradiance sensor for each group of four modules

Column 8 specifies if in the literature the parametric design
procedure is explained or not. The names shown in those
columns are directly related to the variables and the blocks
introduced in Fig. 3.
Table 1 shows that about 44% of the CMPPT techniques
belong to subclass A and 38% belong to subclass B;
therefore, it can be deduced that there is no clear
dominance of a specific subclass. Moreover, all the CMPPT
techniques use the measurement of the array voltage and
more than 90% of the techniques use the array current.
Only the technique presented in [38] uses irradiance sensors
to feed an artificial neural network (ANN) that estimates the
location of the GMPP.
To track an LMPP or a GMPP, 50% of the CMPPT
techniques manipulate the PV array voltage and 40%
manipulates the duty cycle of the converter, while the
converters more used are the boost (44%) and the buck
(31%), respectively. The percentages presented before the
readers show that there is noclear trend in the selection of
the manipulated variable and of the power converter used in
the CMPPT techniques.
Although there are different CMPPT methods to track the
GMPP of the PV array, most of them can be implemented
in digital signal processors (30%) or microcontrollers
(25%): the selection of one or the other depends on the
complexity of the algorithm.
4.1 Sampling P−V curves + Hill climbing
Basically, such techniques perform a partial or a total scan of
the P−V curve to find some or all the LMPPs and set the
operation point at the GMPP.
The MPPT algorithms proposed by Lei et al. [35] and
Alajmi et al. [36] tracked all the LMPPs in the P−V curve
and save the values of the power and the manipulated
variable of each LMPP. Then, the algorithms set the
operation point of the array in the GMPP. The difference
between those two MPPT algorithms is that Alajmi et al.
[36] proposed to scan the entire P−V curve by manipulating
the duty cycle of the DC/DC converter to track the GMPP
with a fuzzy control system; whereas Lei et al. [35]
proposed to only scan parts of the P−V curve because
the algorithm sets the starting voltage reference close to the
next LMPP to reduce the LMPP tracking time of the
extremum seeking control (ESC) technique.
The techniques presented in [7, 37–40] propose methods to
find the GMPP of the array without scanning all the LMPPs in
the P−V curve. They propose to take a few samples of the
P−V curve in order to determine the location of the GMPP
or a point close to it. Afterward, they use a P&O [7, 37–39]
or an IC [40] technique to keep the array operating point
close to the GMPP. Unlike [37–39], Patel and Agarwal [7]
and Ji et al. [40] proposed a method to detect a significant
change in the irradiance to run the GMPP tracking
algorithm. This procedure avoids the unnecessary samples
of the P−V curve while the conditions are within a given
range. In addition, Koutroulis and Blaabjerg [39] proposed
a new method to generate the PWM signal for the DC/DC
converter by comparing a reference value with the inductor
current. With such a method, a control strategy to manage
the DC/DC converter as a constant input-power load
controlled by the reference value is proposed. On the other
hand, an equation to calculate a voltage close to the GMPP
is proposed in [40]. The equation is based on the
open-circuit voltage and on the short-circuit current of the
array: unfortunately, it may fail for arrays with multiple
LMPPs because the algorithm is designed for a P−V curve
with three LMPPs only.
4.2 Computational intelligence
Different kinds of global optimisation techniques for tracking
the GMPP of a PV array by making multiple samples of the
P–V curves have been used.

1402 IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

The authors [41–43] used methods that measure the power
in a wide range of the P−V curve: according to the results of
such an analysis, the search range of the GMPP is tightened.
Zhou et al. [41], Ramaprabha et al. [42] and Ahmed and
Miyatake [43] used different procedures to calculate the
voltages where the system has to measure the power. Zhou
et al. [41] used a double carrier Chaos algorithm, whereas
Ramaprabha et al. [42] and Ahmed and Miyatake [43] used
the Fibonacci series. Both, Zhou et al. [41] and Ahmed and
Miyatake [43] proposed different methods to detect a
change in the irradiance conditions in order to avoid
unnecessary tracking of the GMPP.
The MPPT algorithms proposed in [44–46] are based on
the particle swarm optimisation (PSO) method, which is a
meta-heuristic global optimisation technique. The system
has multiple agents sampling the P−V curve and,
depending on the power obtained from the different agents,
the algorithm determines the next position of the agents
themselves. The three papers propose methods to detect
significant changes in the irradiance conditions to start the
GMPP procedure. Liu et al. [44] proposed a different
method to adjust the MPPT depending on the size of the
PV array, and it also proposes an equation to calculate the
values of the parameters of the equations used by the PSO.
Meanwhile, Ishaque et al. [46] proposed equations to find
the minimum and the maximum duty cycle imposed on the
DC/DC.
In [47], the authors proposed an ANN for predicting the
GMPP voltage (Vgmpp) from the irradiance and the
temperature measurements of the PV array. The ANN
calculates the Vgmpp and delivers it as a reference to a fuzzy
controller for ensuring that the PV array reaches the desired
value.
4.3 Other CMPPT techniques
There are other CMPPT techniques that use different concepts
to track the GMPP or to reduce the effects of the mismatching
conditions over the PV array.
In [48], the authors compare the energy extracted by one
array with more rows than columns and one array with
more columns than rows, both connected to a DC/DC
converter operating at a fixed voltage, that is, the nominal
value of the MPP voltage (Vmpp). Such a method is defined
as a fractional open-circuit voltage (k × Voc) as shown in
[2]. The experimental results presented in [48] show that
the energy extracted with the parallel connection is the
highest in all the experiments.
A feedback controller for tracking the MPP in a PV
system operating in the uniform conditions is proposed in
[49], it is assuming that the PV array is a time-variant
voltage source connected to a buck converter. The authors
show that the controller works for a small array in the
uniform and the shallow mismatching conditions: the
control design is developed by considering the PV
generator in the uniform conditions, so that the algorithm
may fail for the medium and the large arrays operating in
the mismatching conditions.
Karatepe and Hiyama [50] used the TCT configuration to
mitigate the mismatching effect over the array GMPP being
tracked with a DC/DC converter controlled by a traditional
P&O. The authors compare the performance of the
proposed system with the same array connected in the SP
configuration to show the advantage of the TCT under a set
of mismatching conditions.
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
5 Literature survey of the DMPPT-based
solutions
The main objective of this section is to collect the basic
information about the hardware resources and the operating
principle of the DMPPT techniques, and to group the
techniques based on such information. By taking into
account which part of the PV array is connected to each
DMPPT-U and the way in which the DMPPT-Us are
connected to each other, the techniques are classified into
four subclasses:
A. Techniques that interconnect the DMPPT-Us by following
the SP configuration (Fig. 5). Some commercial products
based on this solution are now available in the market [51,
52].
B. Techniques that connect the power stage of the DMPPT-U
in parallel with the modules or the panels connected in a
string. The two commoner structures of those techniques
are presented in Fig. 7.
C. Techniques that interconnect the DMPPT-Us in parallel to
a bus. Only one commercial product based on this solution
[53] has been found by the authors.
D. Techniques where the PV sub-section connected to each
DMPPT-U is a string or a small array.
The main advantages and the disadvantages of the four
subclasses are presented in Table 2. These ones should be
considered in the selection of a structure for a given
application, since, depending on the application, an
advantage may become a disadvantage. For example, in a
standalone application, where the diagnostic procedures are
important for maintenance programming, the reduced
number of sensors of the subclasses B and D turns into a
disadvantage because the information about each module or
panel becomes unavailable; so that, the diagnostic quality
worsens.
The information about the different DMPPT-Us is
summarised in Tables 3 and 4. The columns in such tables
are similar to the ones given in Table 1 and they have been
defined to include the main information presented in
Figs. 5a and 7. The differences between Table 1 and
Tables 3 and 4 are that the last ones include one additional
column for specifying if the DMPPT technique uses a
central unit or not (column 9). Instead, Tables 3 and 4 do
not include the information about the design procedure of
the tracking methods since, in general, those methods are
simple.
The main information of the CUs (see Fig. 5b) is presented
in Table 5, where the column 1 shows the measurements
performed by the CUs; columns 2 and 3 present the
information sent by the DMPPT-Us and the communication
links used to transmit such information, respectively;
column 4 presents the objectives of the CUs and column 5
shows if the design procedure has been provided. Finally,
column 6 gives the reference for each technique.
In the DMPPT techniques, the structure presented in Fig. 5
(subclass A) is dominant, since 41% of the analysed DMPPT
techniques belong to such a subclass, whereas 23% belong to
the subclass B and 23% to subclass C. Most DMPPT
techniques perform measurements of the voltage (64%) and
the current (64%), respectively, in each PV sub-section,
whereas only [82] require the irradiance measurements; this
1403
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org

Fig. 7 Further DMPPT architectures

Arrows identify the energy flows
a RECC structure
b Power shuffle structure

is because most of the algorithms in each DMPPT-U are and boost topologies. Almost 40% of the studied DMPPT
relatively simple and require few information. techniques use boost or modified boost converters, whereas
In the analysed documents, most of the DMPPT-Us are about 13% use converters that can work as a buck, a boost
implemented with the DC/DC converters based on the buck or bridge converters. The other 10% of the DMPPT-Us are

Table 2 Main advantages and disadvantages of the DMPPT subclasses

DMPPT General advantages General disadvantages
subclass

A † it is possible to extract the SMPP with certain limitations
† simpler implementation of modules monitoring/
diagnostic/security procedures
B † low switching losses under the low mismatching
conditions because only part of the power passes through
the converters
† reduced number of sensors
† reduced number of processors
C † it is possible to extract the SMPP
† simple addition and removal of the individual DMPPT-Us
† simpler implementation of the modules monitoring/
diagnostic/security procedures
D † reduced number of sensors
† reduced number of converters
† reduced number of processors
† significant switching losses under the low mismatching
conditions because all the power passes through the
power converters
† high number of sensors
† one processor is required in each DMPPT-U
† high output voltage in some DMPP-Us under the deep
mismatching conditions
† it is not possible to extract the SMPP
† it is not clear which is the best method to control the
DMPPT-Us
† significant switching losses under the low mismatching
conditions because all the power passes through the
power converters
† high number of sensors
† complex converters because of high boosting factors are
required
† one processor is required in each DMPPT-U
† it is not possible to extract the SMPP
† significant switching losses under the low mismatching
conditions because all the power passes through the
power converters
† The MPPT techniques may be trapped in an LMPP
because each converter is connected to a group of
modules/panels

1404 IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
 www.ietdl.org
Table 3 DMPPT techniques part 1
Subclass DMPPT unit (DMPPT-U) Load Central Ref.
unit
PV Measurements Power stage Manipulated Tracking Implemented
input variable method in

A pan. iPV, vo buck/boost/ vo modified µC NS no [54]

bridge P&O
mod. iPV, vPV buck/boost/ vPV P&O µC inverter + no [31, 55]
bridge grid
mod., iPV, vPV buck/boost/ NS NS NS NS no [10]
pan. bridge
cell iPV, vPV multiple DC/ D Modified µC, analogue inverter + no [56]
DC P&O grid
mod. io, vo multiple DC/ D P&O analogue battery + no [57]
DC inverter +
grid
mod., iPV, vPV buck/boost/ D modified NS inverter + no [58]
pan., bridge P&O grid
str.
mod. iPV, vPV boost vPV IC µC inverter + yes [59, 60]
grid
mod. iPV, vPV boost vPV P&O NS inverter + no [8]
grid
mod. iPV, vPV boost vPV P&O NS inverter + yes [61]
grid
mod. iPV, vPV, vo boost vPV ESC NS inverter + yes [62]
grid
mod. NS modified vPV NS NS R no [63]
boost
2 mods. io multiple DC/ vPV P balance analogue inverter + no [64]
DC grid
mod., NS multiple DC/ NS NS NS inverter + yes [65]
pan. DC grid
mod., NS multiple DC/ NS NS µP inverter + yes [66]
pan. DC grid
mod., iPV, vPV, TPV, io, boost NS NS µP inverter + yes [67]
pan. vo grid
mod., iPV, vPV, io, vo buck/boost/ D modified NS inverter + yes [32]
pan. bridge P&O grid
B mod. no modified D no µC inverter + yes [9, 68]
buck–boost grid
mod., iPV, vPV modified vPV modified NS R yes [69]
pan. buck–boost IC
mod., vPV custom DC/DC NS V balance NS NS no [70]
pan.
mod., iPV, vPV bidirectional vPV I balance NS inverter + yes [71]
pan. DC/DC grid
mod. iPV custom DC/DC iPV I balance NS DC load yes [72]
mod. ibus, vbus multiple DC/ iPV I balance NS NS yes [73]
DC
mod. iPV, vPV boost vPV P&O NS inverter + yes [61]
grid
pan., iPV, vPV H-bridge vPV P&O DSP inverter + yes [74]
str. grid
mod., no boost D No no inverter + yes [75, 76]
pan., grid
str.

vPV: DMPPT-U input voltage, iPV: DMPPT-U input current, vo: DMPPT-U output voltage, io: DMPPT-U output current, D: DMPPT-U duty
cycle, vbus: DC bus voltage, ibus: DC bus current, TPV: PV sub-section temperature, G: PV sub-section irradiance, Mod.: PV module, Pan.:
PV panel, Str.: PV string, Array: small part of the total array, µC: Microcomputer, µP: Microprocessor, FPGA: Field Programmable Gate
Array and R: resistive

more flexible and require different conversion topologies.
Moreover, some custom converters are proposed to obtain
high-voltage gains with the purpose of connecting a module
or a panel directly to the grid.
The tracking algorithms running in each DMPPT-U are
usually simple. One-third of the DMPPT techniques use the
P&O or its variants; however, in a significant part of the
analysed papers (20%) the MPPT algorithm adopted is not
specified. In general, the MPP tracking algorithms in each
DMPPT-U manipulate the PV subsection voltage (36%) or
the duty cycle of the converter (28%); respectively,
nonetheless, there are some algorithms that do not specify the
manipulated variable (15%) or operate over another variable
of the converter (e.g. the input current: 10%, output voltage:
7% and the output current: 2%, respectively). The hardware
used to implement the tracking algorithms is reported in a
small number of the cases (28%); nonetheless, the
microprocessing devices (µC, DSP etc.) are the commonest.
Besides, a large part of the techniques is intended for the grid
connected applications (51%) or the load is not specified (30%).
Table 5 shows that less than half of the DMPPT
techniques (43%) implement the CUs. Such CUs usually

IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413 1405

doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Table 4 DMPPT techniques part 2
Subclass DMPPT unit (DMPPT-U) Load Central Ref.
unit
PV Measurements Power stage Manipulated Tracking Implemented
input variable method in

C pan. iPV, vPV modified vPV NS NS inverter no [77]

buck–boost + grid
pan. iPV, vPV modified D IC µC NS no [78]
boost
pan. iPV, vPV, TPV, io boost D NS µC DC load no [79]
and vo1
mod. iPV, vPV isolated DC/ vPV NS NS inverter no [80, 81]
DC + grid
mod., iPV, vPV isolated DC/ iPV P&O DSP NS no [82]
pan. DC
mod., vPV flyback D P&O NS NS no [83]
pan. inverter
pan. NS modified NS NS NS NS no [84]
flyback
mod. iPV, vPV multi-input D P&O NS R no [85]
boost
mod. vPV multi-input io no FPGA battery yes [86]
buck
D str. iPV, vPV boost iPV k × Isc NS NS no [87]
str., G2 NS vPV ANN NS NS no [88]
array
str., No boost D PSO DSP DC load yes [89]
array
str. iPV, vPV buck vo3 V balance NS NS no [90, 91]
str. iPV, vbus multiple DC/ vo3 V balance NS NS yes [92]
DC

1
This technique also measures the ambient temperature and the current and the voltage of the battery in each DMPPT-U
2
It requires one irradiance sensor for each group of four modules
3
These applications modify the output voltage of the one converter for each string

measure the voltage (47%) and the current (53%),
respectively, of the bus that collects the power of the entire
PV system. The other techniques collect data from the
DMPPT-Us (47%); however, a communication channel is
not required or its adoption is not specified in most cases.
The information measured on the bus and collected from
the DMPPT-Us is used for different purposes: for
improving the MPPT algorithm or implementing a
centralised MPPT algorithm for all the DMPPT-Us (47%),
the maintenance and the diagnostic procedures (30%) and
to avoid damages in the DMPPT-Us by performing
protection routines (23%).
5.1 DMPPT-Us connected in the SP configuration
Such techniques connect the N DMPPT-Us to form a string
and M strings in parallel depending on the voltage and the

Table 5 Central units of the DMPPT techniques

Measurements Data from the DMPPT Communication Objective Design procedure Ref.
unit link

no iPV, vPV, io and vo PLC-FSK1 maintenance, failure detection no [59, 60]

no no no balance vo yes [61]
vbus vo NS avoid high vo in the DMPPT-Us yes [62]
vbus no no control custom DC/AC no [65]
no MPP NS track GMPP in each DMPP-U no [66]
no iPV, vPV and TPV NS improve the MPP in each DMPPT-U, no [67]
maintenance
ibus, vbus PPV (CMPPT), NS NS CMPPT, diagnostic CMPPT: yes, [32]
(diagnostic) diagnostic: no
ibus, vbus no no balance vPV yes [9, 68]
no iPV, vPV no MPPT in each DMPPT U no [69]
ibus, vbus NS NS MPPT, diagnostic, maintenance no [71]
ibus, vbus iPV no MPPT in each str. of DMPPT-U no [72]
ibus, vbus no no balance iPV yes [73]
ibus, vbus no no regulate vbus yes [74]
ibus, vbus no no MPPT in each DMPPT-U yes [75, 76]
ibus no no MPPT in each DMPPT-U yes [86]
no NS NS maintenance, failure detection no [92]
ibus, vbus no no GMPPT no [89]

1
Power line communication (PLC) with frequency-shift keying (FSK)

1406 IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

power requirements, respectively. Generally, the part of the
PV array connected to each DMPPT-U is a module or a
panel, but different subarrays can also be connected.
The DMPPT techniques proposed in [10, 31, 54–58] use
DC/DC converters with step-up or step-down operations;
therefore, a simple MPPT algorithm (traditional or modified
P&O) in each DMPPT-U is able to set the voltage of the
module regardless of the current flowing in the string.
Nevertheless, the operation range where all the DMPPT-Us
can track their MPPs is inversely proportional to the PMPP
(power in the MPP) difference between the less and the
most irradiated module/panel as explained in [10].
In [54], the authors consider the DC/DC converter
connected to a PV panel made of three modules, and they
propose a method to track the GMPP of each panel by
performing a voltage scan from the open-circuit voltage.
Linares et al. [31], Erickson et al. [55] and Tsao et al. [10]
proposed to connect the module directly to the string when
the MPP current in the module is equal, or close, to the
current of the string of the DMPPT-Us; thus avoid the
switching losses. Although in such conditions, the current
flows through the two switches in [31, 55], the power stage
presented in [10] uses an additional switch to perform a
direct connection of the module to the string.
The operating principles of the techniques presented in [56,
57] are similar to the ones presented above. The feature of [56]
is that it proposes a high-frequency/low-power DC/DC
converter and a modified P&O method to perform the MPP
tracking in each PV cell of a module. An interesting fact
presented in [57] is an analogue implementation of the MPPT
algorithm in each DMPPT-U to reduce the implementation costs.
In [8, 59–64, 67], the authors use step-up converters in the
DMPPT-Us controlled by a traditional MPPT algorithm
(Roman et al. [59, 60] use IC, Femia et al. [8] and Kadri
et al. [61] use P&O and Bratcu et al. [62] use ESC). Such
converters may restrict the MPP tracking when the module
current in the MPP is smaller than the current of the string
of the DMPPT-Us, since in the step-up converters, the
output current is smaller or equal to the input one.
Femia et al. [8] presented the small-signal model of a string of
DMPPT-Us and demonstrated the stability of the system;
moreover they show that a high voltage appears at the output
of the highly irradiated DMPPT-Us associated with the highly
irradiated modules when one or more modules operate in the
deep mismatching conditions [according to (3)]. They also
propose to limit the duty cycles of the DC/DC converters to
avoid such high voltages. Another method to avoid such high
output voltages is presented in [30, 62], which can change the
operation mode of each DMPPT-U (between the MPPT or the
output voltage regulation) depending on the mismatching
conditions. In [63], the high output voltages are avoided by
using a battery in each DMPPT-U to compensate for the
power drops during the mismatching conditions.
A simple method to control two DMPPT-Us (operating in
the same conditions) at the same time is presented in [64].
Such a method considers two DMPPT-Us connected in
parallel and only measures the output current of each
DMPPT-U since the output voltages of the two units are
the same. From those two measurements, an analogue
control is able to converge to a point close to the MPP in
each module. To extend the system to the higher voltage
and powers, various groups of two DMPPT-Us are
connected by following the SP configuration.
The system presented in [65] uses a buck converter at the
output of each string of the DMPPT-Us to produce a bus
voltage that follows the reference of the absolute value of
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
the grid voltage; in other words, the voltage of that bus is
the voltage of the grid rectified. The second stage of the
proposed system is an H-bridge converter that transforms
the voltage of the bus into an AC voltage to connect the
system to the grid.
Another interesting concept is proposed in [32, 59, 60, 66,
67], where the authors implement a communication link in
each DMPPT-U to send, or exchange, information with a
centralised controller. Although such a system is useful for
maintenance, diagnostic and/or improvements in the MPPT
methods in each DMPPT-U, it also increases the hardware
and the memory requirements of the system.
5.2 DMPPT-Us connected in parallel with a string
of modules/panels
In these techniques, the DMPPT-U does not follows the
structures presented in Figs. 5a and b. Instead, the PV
modules/panels are connected in series to form a string, and
the power stages are connected in parallel to those modules/
panels. The commonest structures are presented in Fig. 7,
where the basic objective is to generate an alternative path
to the current of each module/panel to compensate for or
mitigate the effects of the mismatching conditions.
Shimizu et al. [9], connected a converter at each node of a
string of modules by following the power shuffle structure
presented in Fig. 7. Each DC/DC converter is composed of
one switch, one capacitor and one inductance. Such a string
of N DMPPT-Us is named a generation control circuit
(GCC), and it permits us to drive the difference between the
current of the string and the current produced by each PV
module; such a functionality allows us to eliminate the
multiple maximums from the P−V curve. A power shuffle
structure is also used by the other DMPPT solutions as in
[69], where the authors use an additional battery or
super-capacitor to improve the energy sharing between the
DMPPT-Us in the mismatching conditions.
The techniques in [70–72] use the same concept of the
GCC but each DMPPT system uses a different converter in
each DMPPT-U. Buthker et al. [70] followed the power
shuffle structure with a redundancy in the converters to
facilitate the power transfer of a given module with the
previous and the next ones in the string. Meanwhile,
Stratakos and Ikiannikov [71] used bidirectional converters
in each DMPPT-U and a common capacitor to carry the
energy from one to another module. Villa et al. [72] instead
used a custom converter composed of a set of switches,
diodes and capacitors (in parallel to each module) and a
single inductor to compensate for the current differences
between the shaded and the unshaded modules.
The DMPPT technique presented in [73] proposes the
returned energy current converters (RECC) presented in
Fig. 7a. That structure is aimed at taking part of the current
of the PV string to compensate for the current reduction
that occurs in the modules under the mismatching
conditions. The objective of such a compensation is to
eliminate the multiple LMPPs in the P−V curve of the
string to use a simple MPPT technique implemented in a
centralised controller.
Although the technique proposed by Kadri et al. [61] has
already been presented in Section 5.1, it is also included in
this section because the authors propose additional
converters connected in parallel at the outputs of the
DMPPT-Us, to balance their voltages in the deep
mismatching conditions. Such additional converters solve
the large output voltage limitation presented in Section 3.2;
1407
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
however, it requires additional hardware that increases the
implementation costs.
Some techniques follow the structure presented in
Figs. 5a and b but just implement one string of the
system. Although each module has one converter, the
control algorithm may be centralised or distributed
depending on the technique. Two examples are presented
in [74, 75]. In [74], each DMPPT-U has an H-bridge
converter whose outputs are connected in series with a
single inductor to form a multilevel inverter, where each
module is controlled separately by a traditional P&O and
a PI voltage controller. The DMPPT-Us in [75] are
controlled by a single algorithm (multivariable P&O).
Such a method modifies the duty-cycles of the
DMPPT-Us, one by one, and monitors the output power
of the string of the DMPPT-Us to find the best operation
point of each DC/DC converter to optimise the whole
system.
5.3 DMPPT-Us connected in parallel
This group of MPPT techniques is composed of the
DMPPT-Us connected in parallel. As in the group
presented in Section 5.1, each subarray (module, panel,
string etc.) interacts with a converter but the control
algorithm may be centralised or distributed depending on
the technique.
Some of those techniques are aimed to connect one
module/panel directly to the grid or to the DC bus of a
centralised inverter. To achieve that goal it is necessary to
have high-gain converters.
The solutions presented in [77–79] proposed high-gain
converters without using transformers. The converter
proposed in [77] is denominated a current-fed
semi-quadratic buck–boost and the voltage of the module
can be controlled by a simple MPPT technique.
Abdel-Rahim et al. [78] presented a modified boost
converter, whose duty cycle is controlled by an IC
technique. Such a converter is connected to a full-bridge
inverter to feed the grid. In [79], each DMPPT-U has a
boost converter with a battery at the output. The algorithms
that control the converters have to operate in different
modes (e.g. MPPT, battery charge etc.) to guarantee the
state-of-charge of each battery. The outputs of all the
DMPPT-Us are connected in parallel and fed an additional
boost converter to reach the voltage level required by the
inverter DC input.
The converters used in [80–84] transform the DC current of
the module into AC and they use a transformer to obtain
high-voltage gains; besides, each DMPPT-U has its own
simple MPPT algorithm. Erickson et al. [80, 81] and Yao
et al. [82] transformed the DC voltage of the module into a
high-frequency AC voltage to reduce the size of the
transformer required by each converter. One drawback of
such techniques concerns the requirement of rectifying the
high-frequency AC voltage to feed an inverter; therefore,
the energy flows through three power stages (DC/
AC-transformer-AC/DC) before reaching the inverter. The
DMPPT-Us presented in [83, 84] use modified flyback
inverters connected directly to the module; hence the
low-frequency voltage and the current increase the size of
the converters.
Different approaches are presented in [85, 86], where a
multi-input–boost and multi-input buck converters,
respectively, are proposed. Each module is connected
through an independent branch, which is composed of a
1408
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
switch and an energy storage component (inductance in
[85] and capacitor in [86]). In [85], each switch is
controlled by a P&O and all the modules share the same
output capacitor; whereas the modules in [86] share the
inductor and the output capacitor.
5.4 DMPPT-Us where the PV subarray is a string or
a small array
Some techniques propose to divide the PV array into multiple
subarrays (i.e. one or more strings) in order to reduce the
number of converters required and the voltage conversion
ratio of the power converters thereof. The reduction of the
number of converters, in some cases, is used to centralise
the control of the different converters, whereas the
increment in the voltage range of the PV subarray
connected to each DMPPT-U allows us to use simpler
converters whose outputs can be connected in parallel.
Therefore these solutions can be seen as a tradeoff between
the CMPPT and the DMPPT architectures.
In some of these techniques the basic principle is similar to
the CMPPT solutions presented in Section 4.1, because the
algorithms take the samples of the P−V curve to find the
GMPP in each DMPPT-U. One example is presented in
[87], where the authors divide the PV array into strings.
Each string is connected to a boost converter to reach the
voltage level of a DC bus that feeds an inverter. To find
the GMPP in each string, Noguchi et al. [87] measured the
short-circuit current and performed periodic scans of the
P−V curve by using additional hardware at the input of
each DC/DC converter.
The other solutions use the same principle presented in
Section 4.2 to track the GMPP in each DMPPT-U. The
technique introduced in [88] divides the PV array into
strings, each string having its own DC/DC converter.
Between two consecutive strings of the N modules there are
N−1 irradiance sensors, which are used by an ANN to
determine the voltage of the GMPP or an LMPP close to
the GMPP in each string. Such voltages are set as the
reference to be followed by each DC/DC converter of the
array.
The technique proposed in [89] divides the PV array into
small arrays (subarrays) and connects one DC/DC converter
to each subarray. The outputs of the converters are
connected in parallel to form a DC bus. All the converters
are controlled by a centralised PSO technique, which
searches the GMPP by measuring the voltage and the
current at the DC bus.
There also are some techniques aimed at compensating for
the effects of the mismatching in the PV array by including a
DC/DC converter as part of the PV array. In Karatepe et al.
[90, 91] and Hargis [92], a DC/DC converter is connected
in series with each string in order to compensate for the
voltage drops caused by the modules whose BDs are active
and to avoid displacements in the voltage operation of the
modules without mismatching. Each DC/DC converter is
fed by the output of the string with which it is connected,
and it is controlled separately since the algorithm needs to
determine the voltage reference of each DC/DC converter
depending on the number of the mismatched modules in
each string. The output of the array is connected to another
DC/DC converter with a simple MPPT technique. Karatepe
et al. [90, 91] proposed a simple method to determine the
number of the mismatched modules in the array.
Meanwhile, Hargis [92] presents different isolated
converters that can be used to implement this solution.
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
 www.ietdl.org
Table 6 RMPPT techniques
Reconfiguration algorithm Load Tracking Ref.
method
Reconfigurable Measurements Possible Configuration Design Reconfiguration
unit configurations search method procedure runs

mod. iPV, vPV total TCT evaluate all the yes NS inverter P&O [11]
configurations + grid
mod. i1str, vbus total SP evaluate all the yes NS DC load NS [20]
configurations
pan. iPV, vPV reduced SP evaluate some no NS inverter NS [93]
configurations + grid
cell iPV, v2PV reduced TCT I balance yes mismatching R P&O [94]
detected
3
mod., pan., str. iPV, vPV or G reduced TCT I balance yes NS NS NS [95]
and array
mod. iPV, vPV and reduced SP disconnect the yes NS R NS [96]
TPV shaded modules

vPV: reconfigurable unit voltage, iPV: reconfigurable unit current, vo: DMPPT-U output voltage, TPV: reconfigurable unit temperature, G:
reconfigurable unit irradiance, Mod.: PV module, Pan.: PV panel, Str.: PV string, Array: small part of the total array and R: resistive
1
istr refers to the measurement of the current in each string
2
One method of this technique uses both the sensors, the other one only uses the voltage sensors
3
Irradiance is estimated from the image processing

6 Literature survey of the RMPPT-based
solutions
This section introduces some widely adopted techniques that
use a RMPPT architecture. The main features concerning the
RMPPT techniques are summarised in Table 6, including the
main hardware feature of each technique by considering the
general structure presented in Fig. 6. The first column
shows the part of the PV array that can be reconfigured, the
second column presents the measurements needed by the
reconfiguration algorithm and the third column illustrates
the array configuration adopted. The fourth, the fifth and
the sixth columns present the method used to find the best
configuration, if the related paper presents the design
procedure, and in which conditions the reconfiguration
algorithm is executed, respectively. Finally, the last three
columns show the information concerning the load, the
GMPP tracking method and the reference, respectively.
It is worth noting that the RMPPT techniques mostly use
the current and the voltage measurements of each
reconfigurable element of the PV field. Moreover, four of
the six studied techniques establish a reduced number of
possible configurations, which depend on the hardware and
the software used in each PV system. In general, an MPP
tracking method should link the PV-RA with the MPPT
algorithm to track the GMPP after the reconfiguration
process; nevertheless, in two approaches the P&O MPPT
algorithm is adopted, whereas in the other papers the
algorithm used or the existence of a link between the
reconfiguration process and the MPPT algorithms is not
detailed.
A group of these techniques assumes that each module of
the string can be connected in any row (in the TCT
configurations) or in any column (in the SP configurations)
of the array through a matrix of switches. The
reconfiguration algorithm needs to determine which of all
the possible configurations provides the largest GMPP at
the output of the array.
The RMPPT presented in [11] uses a reconfigurable TCT
array. The objective is to reduce the difference between the
average irradiance of the rows as much as possible. To do
that, the algorithm measures the voltage and the current of
each module to estimate the irradiance. Afterwards it
evaluates, offline, all the possible configurations to find the
one that provides the minimum difference between the rows
with the highest and the lowest irradiance averages.
Another approach is presented in [20], where a
reconfigurable SP array is proposed. The reconfiguration
algorithm performs one scan of the array voltage and it
measures the current in each column of the array to obtain
the current against voltage (I−V ) curves of each string. On
the basis of such information, the model parameters of each
module in the string are calculated and, by using the model
presented in [21], all the feasible configurations are
evaluated to determine the one that provides the highest
GMPP.
The two techniques mentioned above, require a high
number of switches to connect all the modules of the array
in any row (in the TCT) or column (in the SP); that is why
a reconfiguration solution available in the market [93]
divides the array into groups of two strings, and it allows us
to connect each panel in one of the two strings or
disconnect it. To find the best configuration, the system
acquires the I−V curve of each panel, but the methodology
used is not available. The information of the I−V curves is
also used for the diagnostic and the maintenance purposes.
Another group of RMPPT techniques, such as the ones
proposed by Nguyen and Lehman [94] and by Shamseldein
et al. [95], divide the PV array into fixed and reconfigurable
parts. The modules in the fixed part are connected in the
TCT configuration, while the adaptive part can be
connected to any row of the TCT array to compensate for
the effects of the mismatched modules in each row. Nguyen
and Lehman [94] proposed two methods to determine the
connection of the adaptive modules. The first one connects,
one by one, the adaptive module with the highest voltage to
the row of the fixed array with the lowest voltage; such an
action is repeated until all the reconfigurable modules have
been connected. The second method estimates the PV
current in the fixed part and evaluates, offline, the best
distribution of the adaptive modules to reduce the
mismatching effects. The reconfiguration algorithm
presented in [95] requires the estimation of the irradiance
on all the modules in both the fixed and the adaptive parts,
to determine the best connection of the modules. In general,
these techniques reduce the number of possible

IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413 1409

doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Table 7 Main advantages and disadvantages of the DMPPT subclasses
Architecture General advantages
CMPPT † low cabling requirements
† low number of sensors
† only one power converter is required
† simple power converters
† low switching losses
† only one processor is required
† low number of components in all the system,
which reduces the probability of failures
DMPPT † low cabling requirements
† the power of the PV array is distributed over
multiple converters
† simple power converters
† if one or more converter/module fails only part
of the available power is lost
† high performance for complex mismatching
pasterns
† simple MPPT algorithms
† simple processors/hardware to implement the
MPPT algorithms
† simple implementation of monitoring/
diagnostic/security procedures
RMPPT † only one power converter is required
† simple power converters
† if one or more module fail only part of the
available power is lost
† increment of the maximum available power in
the PV array through the reconfiguration
† mitigation of the mismatching effects in the PV
array
† simple MPPT algorithms
† simple implementation of the monitoring/
diagnostic/security procedures
reconfigurations and switches required in the array;
nonetheless the capacity of the mismatching compensation
is also reduced.
Finally, the technique proposed in [96] uses a
reconfiguration system with a low number of switches and a
simple algorithm. Basically, the method classifies the
modules as shaded or unshaded. The shaded modules are
bypassed by the switches and the unshaded modules are
connected in series to form strings of N modules connected
in series. If the number of modules in one string smaller
than N, then such a string is connected to a step-up
converter to reach the voltage level of the complete strings.
All the strings are connected in parallel to feed a grid
connected inverter.
7 Conclusions
A review of the state-of-the-art in the field of the MPPT
architectures and techniques for the PV arrays operating in
the mismatching conditions has been presented. The MPPT
techniques were classified into three architectures according
to the hardware requirements and to the interconnection
among the elements of the PV array and the power
converters. The general description of each architecture,
with its advantages and disadvantages, and the main
hardware structures were also presented. Moreover, the
operation principle and the basic hardware requirements of
some widely adopted MPPT techniques (61 techniques in
total) were discussed. The details concerning the different
1410
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
General disadvantages
† all the power handled by one power converter
† all the power is lost if the power converter fails
† complex MPPT algorithms
† middle and high performance processors are required to
implement the MPPT algorithms
† if one module fails, a significantly part of the available power is
lost
† low performance for the complex mismatching patterns
† high number of sensors
† high number of power converters
† high switching losses in the low mismatching conditions
† high number of components in all the system, which increases the
probability of failures
† communication links may be required
† additional algorithms to manage the DMPPT-us may be required
† high cabling requirements
† high number of sensors depending on the reconfiguration
technique
† power consumption of the matrix relay
† all the power is lost if the power converter fails
† complex algorithms to find the best configuration
† high performance processors are required to implement the
reconfiguration algorithm
† a reasonable cost matrix relay have electromechanical parts, which
increase the probability of failures
† the PV arrays need to be disconnected from the load to perform
the reconfiguration, which introduces additional power losses
approaches and the techniques proposed in this paper have
been presented in a synthetic and structured way to provide
to the reader some basic elements that can be used as a
guideline to determine the best solution fitting with the
application peculiarities and the constraints.
The overview shows different ways to address the
mismatching problem in the PV arrays, where the trend to
use the DMPPT architecture is clearly identified, since it
represents more than 60% of the reviewed solutions.
However, it is not possible to ensure which architecture
and/or approach provides the maximum benefit for the final
user in all the applications because the criteria to select the
best MPPT solution for a specific application must be
defined by the designer of the PV system. Such a criteria
may vary from one application to another, since each
application has its own specific features such as, among
others, the shadowing profiles (fixed, variables, predictable,
not predictable etc.), the irradiance profiles, the differences
in the parameters of the PV modules of the array, the
maximum and minimum voltage constraints and the
interaction with the other energy sources and energy storage
systems.
The other important aspect that should be considered in the
selection criteria of the MPPT solution is the final objective of
the PV installation, because this aspect significantly affects
the decision process. For instance, if the application is
aimed at injecting energy into the grid, the analysis should
provide the architecture and the MPPT technique that
reduce the time for the return of the investment. Instead, if
the PV system is used to supply a remote load, the analysis
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

should consider the architecture and the particular MPPT
technique ensuring the minimum number of failures. In
these kinds of applications, the monitoring and the
diagnostic procedures may be of high importance.
The general advantages and the disadvantages of the three
architectures presented in this paper are summarised in
Table 7 in order to guide the reader in the selection of the
most suitable architecture for a given application. It is
worth noting that the advantages and the disadvantages in
Table 7 are general and should be considered only as a
guideline because, depending on the application, an
advantage may turn into a disadvantage. For example, a
DMPPT system is able to extract the SMPP since each
module/panel of the array is connected to a power
converter; however, the use of the converters for each
module/panel becomes a disadvantage in a system that
operates with low mismatching conditions since the
switching losses in all the power converters degrade the
system efficiency in comparison with a CMPPT solution.
The last remarks put in evidence of the lack of a clear
methodology to determine what is the best MPPT
architecture and technique for a given installation. Therefore,
it is necessary to develop methodologies, guidelines and/or
selection criteria, to help the designers of the PV systems to
choose the best MPPT architecture and technique once the
features of the specific application have been defined.
8 Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the scholarship
APCC-ND-66-197 from COLCIENCIAS, the group of
Power Electronics of the Università degli Studi di Salerno
(Italy) (FARB2011-FARB2012), the project
RECONF-PV-18789 of the Universidad Nacional de
Colombia and the GICI group of the Universidad del Valle
(Colombia).
9 References
1 Femia, N., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘Optimization of
perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method’, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., 2005, 20, (4), pp. 963–973
2 Esram, T., Chapman, P.L.: ‘Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum
power point tracking techniques’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2007,
22, (2), pp. 439–449
3 Kjaer, S.: ‘Evaluation of the hill climbing and the incremental
conductance maximum power point trackers for photovoltaic power
systems’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2012, 27, (4), pp. 922–929
4 ERDM Solar: ‘Datasheet ERDM 75-85 W’. Available at: http://www.
erdmsolar.com/shop/images/stories/file/SM580.pdf
5 Goetzberger, A., Hoffmann, V.: ‘Cap 10: efficiency and performance of
PV systems’. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Generation, 2005, pp. 147–161
6 IEA: ‘Technology roadmap solar photovoltaic energy’. Tech. Rep.,
International Energy Agency, 2010. Available at: http://www.iea.org/
papers/2010/pv roadmap.pdf
7 Patel, H., Agarwal, V.: ‘Maximum power point tracking scheme for PV
systems operating under partially shaded conditions’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2008, 55, (4), pp. 1689–1698
8 Femia, N., Lisi, G., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘Distributed
maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic arrays: novel approach
and system analysis’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2008, 55, (7),
pp. 2610–2621
9 Shimizu, T., Hirakata, M., Kamezawa, T., Watanabe, H.: ‘Generation
control circuit for photovoltaic modules’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2001, 16, (3), pp. 293–300
10 Tsao, P., Sarhan, S., Jorio, I., Semiconductor, N.: ‘Distributed max
power point tracking for photovoltaic arrays’. Proc. 34th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC), 2009, pp. 002 293–002 298
11 Velasco-Quesada, G., Guinjoan-Gispert, F., Pique-Lopez, R.,
Roman-Lumbreras, M., Conesa-Roca, A.: ‘Electrical PV array
reconfiguration strategy for energy extraction improvement in
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
grid-connected PV systems’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2009, 56,
(11), pp. 4319–4331
12 Faranda, R., Leva, S., Maugeri, V.: ‘MPPT techniques for PV systems:
energetic and cost comparison’. IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting – Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in
the 21st Century, 2008, pp. 1–6
13 Xiao, W.: ‘Evaluating maximum power point tracking performance by
using artificial lights’. Proc. 30th Annual Conf. of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, 2004, vol. 3, pp. 2883–2887
14 Hohm, D., Ropp, M.: ‘Comparative study of maximum power point
tracking algorithms using an experimental, programmable, maximum
power point tracking test bed’. Conf. Record of the 28th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., 2000, pp. 1699–1702
15 Ahmadi, D., Mansouri, S.A., Wang, J.: ‘Circuit topology study for
distributed MPPT in very large scale PV power plants’. IEEE Applied
Power Electronics Conf. and Exposition (APEC), 2011, vol. 1, no. d.,
pp. 786–791
16 Poshtkouhi, S., Varley, J., Popuri, R.: ‘Analysis of distributed peak
power tracking in photovoltaic systems’. IEEE Int. Power Electronics
Conf. (IPEC), 2010, pp. 942–947
17 Bidram, A., Davoudi, A., Balog, R.S.: ‘Control and circuit techniques to
mitigate partial shading effects in photovoltaic arrays’, IEEE
J. Photovoltaics, 2012, 2, (4), pp. 532–546
18 Ishaque, K., Salam, Z.: ‘A review of maximum power point tracking
techniques of PV system for uniform insolation and partial shading
condition’, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2013, 19, pp. 475–488
19 Silvestre, S., Boronat, a., Chouder, a.: ‘Study of bypass diodes
configuration on PV modules’, Appl. Energy, 2009, 86, (9),
pp. 1632–1640
20 Bastidas-Rodriguez, J.D., Ramos-Paja, C.A., Saavedra-Montes, A.J.:
‘Reconfiguration analysis of photovoltaic arrays based on parameters
estimation’, Simul. Modelling Pract. Theory, 2013, 35, pp. 50–68
21 Petrone, G., Ramos-Paja, C.: ‘Modeling of photovoltaic fields in
mismatched conditions for energy yield evaluations’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2011, 81, (4), pp. 1003–1013
22 Bastidas, J.D., Franco, E., Petrone, G., Ramos-Paja, C.A., Spagnuolo,
G.: ‘A model of photovoltaic fields in mismatching conditions
featuring an improved calculation speed’, Electr. Power Syst. Res.,
2013, 96, pp. 81–90
23 Orozco-Gutierrez, M., Ramirez-Scarpetta, J., Spagnuolo, G.,
Ramos-Paja, C.: ‘A technique for mismatched PV array simulation’,
Renew. Energy, 2013, 55, pp. 417–427
24 Hovel, H.J.: ‘Solar cell electrical characteristics’, in Willardson, R.K.,
Beer, A.C. (Eds.): ‘Semiconductors and Semimetals Volume 11 Solar
Cells’ (Academic Press, 1975), vol. 11
25 Femia, N., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘Power electronics
and control techniques for maximum energy harvesting in
photovoltaic systems’ (CRC Press, 2013)
26 Bianconi, E., Calvente, J., Giral, R., et al.: ‘Perturb and observe MPPT
algorithm with a current controller based on the sliding mode’,
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2013, 44, (1), pp. 346–356
27 Bianconi, E., Calvente, J., Giral, R., et al.: ‘A fast current-based mppt
technique employing sliding mode control’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2013, 60, (3), pp. 1168–1178
28 Levron, Y., Shmilovitz, D.: ‘Maximum power point tracking employing
sliding mode control’, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Regul. Pap., 2013,
60, (3), pp. 724–732
29 Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘Distributed maximum power
point tracking: challenges and commercial solutions’,
Autom. J. Control Meas. Electron. Comput. Commun., 2012, 2, (53),
pp. 128–141
30 Ramos-paja, C.A., Saavedra-Montes, A.J., Vitelli, M.: ‘Distributed
maximum power point tracking with overvoltage protection for PV
systems’, Dyna, 2013, 80, (178), pp. 141–150
31 Linares, L., Erickson, R.W., MacAlpine, S., Brandemuehl, M.:
‘Improved energy capture in series string photovoltaics via smart
distributed power electronics’. Proc. 24th Annual IEEE Applied Power
Electronics Conf. and Exposition, 2009, pp. 904–910
32 Zhang, J., Djabbari, A., Lisi, G.: ‘Method and system for selecting
between centralize and distributed maximum power point tracking in
an energy generating system’. WO2009/140551, 2009, pp. 1–69
33 Johnson, J.: ‘Overview of arc-faults and detection challenges arcing in
PV systems’. Tech. Rep., Sandia National Laboratories, 2011.
Available at: http://www.energy.sandia.gov
34 Strauch, J.: ‘Arc fault PV industry activities, and testing and modeling
current PV industry activities in arc fault’. Tech. Rep., Sandia
National Laboratories, 2011. Available at: http://www.energy.sandia.gov
35 Lei, P., Li, Y., Seem, J.: ‘Sequential ESC based global MPPT control for
photovoltaic array with variable shading’, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
2011, 2, (99), pp. 1–1
1411
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
36 Alajmi, B.N., Ahmed, K.H., Finney, S.J., Williams, B.W.: ‘A maximum
power point tracking technique for partially shaded photovoltaic systems
in microgrids’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2013, 60, (4), pp. 1596–1606
37 Alonso, R., Ibaez, P., Martinez, V., Roman, E., Sanz, A.: ‘An innovative
perturb, observe and check algorithm for partially shaded PV systems’.
Proc. 13th European Conf. on Power Electronics and Applications, EPE
‘09, 2009, pp. 1–8
38 Carannante, G., Fraddanno, C., Pagano, M., Piegari, L.: ‘Experimental
performance of MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic sources subject to
inhomogeneous insolation’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2009, 56,
(11), pp. 4374–4380
39 Koutroulis, E., Blaabjerg, F.: ‘A new technique for tracking the global
maximum power point of PV arrays operating under partial-shading
conditions’, IEEE J. Photovoltaics, 2012, 2, (2), pp. 184–190
40 Ji, Y.-H., Jung, D.-Y., Kim, J.-G., Kim, J.-H., Lee, T.-W., Won, C.-Y.:
‘A real maximum power point tracking method for mismatching
compensation in PV array under partially shaded conditions’, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., 2011, 26, (4), pp. 1001–1009
41 Zhou, L., Chen, Y., Guo, K., Jia, F.: ‘New approach for MPPT control of
photovoltaic system with mutative scale dual carrier chaotic search’,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2011, 26, (99), pp. 1038–1048
42 Ramaprabha, R., Balaji, M., Mathur, B.L.: ‘Maximum power point
tracking of partially shaded solar PV system using modified Fibonacci
search method with fuzzy controller’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst., 2012, 43, (1), pp. 754–765
43 Ahmed, N.a., Miyatake, M.: ‘A novel maximum power point tracking
for photovoltaic applications under partially shaded insolation
conditions’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2008, 78, (5), pp. 777–784
44 Liu, Y.-h., Huang, S.-C., Huang, J.-W., Liang, W.-C.: ‘A particle swarm
optimization-based maximum power point tracking algorithm for PV
systems operating under partially shaded conditions’, IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., 2012, 27, (4), pp. 1027–1035
45 Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Amjad, M., Mekhilef, S.: ‘An improved particle
swarm optimization (PSO) based MPPT for PV with reduced
steady-state oscillation’, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2012, 27, (8),
pp. 3627–3638
46 Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Shamsudin, A., Amjad, M.: ‘A direct control
based maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic system
under partial shading conditions using particle swarm optimization
algorithm’, Appl. Energy, 2012, 99, pp. 414–422
47 Syafaruddin, S., Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T.: ‘Artificial neural
network-polar coordinated fuzzy controller based maximum power
point tracking control under partially shaded conditions’, IET Renew.
Power Gener., 2009, 3, (2), pp. 239–253
48 Dougal, R., Iotova, a.P.: ‘Parallel-connected solar PV system to address
partial and rapidly fluctuating shadow conditions’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2009, 56, (5), pp. 1548–1556
49 Solodovnik, E.E.V., Liu, S., Member, S., Dougal, R.A.: ‘Power
controller design for maximum power tracking in solar installations’,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 2004, 19, (5), pp. 1295–1304
50 Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T.: ‘Simple and high-efficiency photovoltaic
system under non-uniform operating conditions’, IET Renew. Power
Gener., 2010, 4, (4), pp. 354–368
51 http://www.solarmagic.com/en/
52 http://www.tigoenergy.com/it/products
53 http://www.eiqenergy.com/index.html
54 Hester, R., Thornton, C., Dhople, S.: ‘High efficiency wide load range
buck/boost/bridge photovoltaic microconverter’. Proc. 26th Annual
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conf. and Exposition (APEC), 2011,
pp. 309–313
55 Erickson, R.W.J., Croft, S., Everson, S., Schultz, A.: ‘Thin-film
photovoltaic power element with integrated low-profile high-
efficiency DC-DC converter’. WO2010/093702A2, 2010, pp. 1–42
56 Perreault, D., Pilawa-Podgurski, R., Sullivan, C., Latham, A.: ‘Power
processing methods and apparatus for photovoltaic systems’.
WO2011/163437, 2011, pp. 1–98
57 Ang, S., Burgers, K.C.: ‘Distributed maximum power point tracking
converter’. WO2009/035995, 2009, pp. 1–29
58 Ledenev, A., Porter, R.M.: ‘Systems for highly efficient solar power’.
WO2009/051853, 2009, pp. 1–103
59 Roman, E., Alonso, R., Ibanez, P., Elorduizapatarietxe, S., Goitia, D.:
‘Intelligent PV module for grid-connected PV systems’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., 2006, 53, (4), pp. 1066–1073
60 Roman, E., Martinez, V., Jimeno, J., Alonso, R., Ibanez, P.,
Elorduizapatarietxe, S.: ‘Experimental results of controlled PV module
for building integrated PV systems’, Solar Energy, 2008, 82, (5),
pp. 471–480
61 Kadri, R., Gaubert, J.-P., Champenois, G.: ‘Nondissipative string current
diverter for solving the cascaded DCDC converter connection problem
1412
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
in photovoltaic power generation system’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2012, 27, (3), pp. 1249–1258
62 Bratcu, A.I., Munteanu, I., Bacha, S., Picault, D., Raison, B.: ‘Cascaded
DCDC converter photovoltaic systems: power optimization issues’,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2011, 58, (2), pp. 403–411
63 Du, Y., Lu, D.D.-C.: ‘Battery-integrated boost converter utilizing
distributed MPPT configuration for photovoltaic systems’, Solar
Energy, 2011, 85, (9), pp. 1992–2002
64 Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘TEODI: a new technique
for distributed maximum power point tracking PV applications’.
IEEE Int. Conf. on Industrial Technology, 2010, vol. 0, no. 1,
pp. 982–987
65 De Rooij, M.A., Glaser, J.S., Mayer, O.G., El-Barbari, S.F.S.: ‘Quasi-ac,
photovoltaic module for unfolder photovoltaic inverter’. EP2166638A2,
2009, pp. 1–15
66 Arditi, S.: ‘Systems and methods for detecting and correcting a
suboptimal operation of one or more inverters in a multi-inverter
system’. WO2011/119587, 2011, pp. 1–23
67 Shaver, A.E., Newdoll, R.M.: ‘Distributed maximum power point
tracking system, structure an process’. WO2008/119034, 2008, pp. 1–58
68 Shimizu, T., Hashimoto, O., Kimura, G.: ‘A novel high-performance
utility-interactive photovoltaic inverter system’, IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2003, 18, (2), pp. 704–711
69 Lee, H.W., Koh, K.H., Suh, K.Y., Suk, K.H.: ‘Method for compensating
for partial shade in photovoltaic power system’. WO2005/112551, 2005,
pp. 1–17
70 Buthker, H.C.J., De Waal, K., Bergveld, H.J.: ‘A photovoltaic unit, a
dc–dc converter there for, and a method of operating the same’.
EP2280469, 2011, pp. 1–35
71 Stratakos, A., Ikiannikov, A.: ‘System, method, module, and energy
exchanger for optimizing output of series-connected photovoltaic and
electrochemical devices’. WO2012/024536, 2012, pp. 1–110
72 Villa, L.F.L., Ho, T.-P., Crebier, J.-C., Raison, B.: ‘A power electronics
equalizer application for partially shaded photovoltaic modules’, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., 2013, 60, (3), pp. 1179–1190
73 Nimni, Y., Shmilovitz, D.: ‘A returned energy architecture for improved
photovoltaic systems efficiency’. IEEE Int. Symp. on Circuits and
Systems (ISCAS), 2010, pp. 2191–2194
74 Villanueva, E., Correa, P., Rodríguez, J., Member, S., Pacas, M.:
‘Control of a single-phase cascaded H-bridge multilevel inverter for
grid-connected photovoltaic systems’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2009, 56, (11), pp. 4399–4406
75 Petrone, G., Ramos-Paja, C.A., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: ‘Granular
control of photovoltaic arrays by means of a multi-output maximum
power point tracking algorithm’, Progr. Photovoltaics, Res. Appl.,
2012, 21, (5), pp. 918–932
76 Ramos-Paja, C., Romero, a., Giral, R., Calvente, J., Martinez-Salamero,
L.: ‘Mathematical analysis of hybrid topologies efficiency for PEM fuel
cell power systems design’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2010, 32,
(9), pp. 1049–1061
77 Nousiainen, L., Suntio, T.: ‘Dual-mode current-fed semi-quadratic
buck-boost converter for transformerless modular photovoltaic
applications’. Proc. 14th European Conf. on Power Electronics and
Applications (EPE), 2011, pp. 1–10
78 Abdel-Rahim, O., Orabi, M., Ahmed, M.: ‘Development of high-gain
high-efficiency grid-connected inverter for PV Module’. Proc. Second
IEEE Int. Symp. on Power Electronics for Distributed Generation
Systems (PEDG), 2010, pp. 368–373
79 Reynaud, J., Gantet, O., Aloisi, P., Estibals, B., Alonso, C.: ‘A novel
distributed photovoltaic power architecture using advanced Li-ion
batteries’. Proc. 14th Int. Power Electronics and Motion Control Conf.
(EPE/PEMC), 2010, pp. S9-6–S9-12
80 Erickson, J., Warren, R.: ‘Integrated photovoltaic module’. WO2010/
132369, 2010, pp. 1–39
81 Erickson, R.W.J., Pisklak, S., Plum, T.: ‘Low profile power conversion
system for rooftop photovoltaic power systems’. WO2010/153106,
2011, pp. 1–35
82 Yao, W., Gao, M., Ren, Z., Chen, M., Qian, Z.: ‘Improvement of
performance and flexibility for photovoltaic module using individual
DC/DC converter’. IEEE Sixth Int. Power Electronics and Motion
Control Conf., 2009, vol. 3, pp. 441–444
83 Rai, S., Kumar, U., Naik, R.: ‘A novel technique for photovoltaic
maximum power point tracking system’. IEEE European Conf. on
Power Electronics and Applications, 2005, pp. 1–8
84 Kim, H., Kim, J., Kim, H., et al.: ‘A high efficiency photovoltaic module
integrated converter with the asymmetrical half-bridge flyback
converter’, Solar Energy, 2010, 84, (8), pp. 1376–1381
85 Dhople, S., Ehlmann, J., Davoudi, A., Chapman, P.: ‘Multiple-input
boost converter to minimize power losses due to partial shading in
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406

photovoltaic modules’. IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition (ECCE), 2010, pp. 2633–2636
86 Poshtkouhi, S., Trescases, O.: ‘Multi-input single-inductor DC-DC
converter for MPPT in parallel-connected photovoltaic applications’.
Proc. 26th Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conf. and
Exposition (APEC), 2011, vol. 4, pp. 41–47
87 Noguchi, T., Togashi, S., Nakamoto, R.: ‘Short-current pulse-based
maximum-power-point tracking method for multiple photovoltaic and
-converter module system’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2002, 49, (1),
pp. 217–223
88 Syafaruddin, S., Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T.: ‘Performance enhancement
of photovoltaic array through string and central based MPPT system
under non-uniform irradiance conditions’, Energy Convers. Manage.,
2012, 62, pp. 131–140
89 Miyatake, M., Veerachary, M., Toriumi, F., Fujii, N., Ko, H.:
‘Maximum power point tracking of multiple photovoltaic arrays: a
PSO approach’, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2011, 47, (1),
pp. 367–380
90 Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T., Boztepe, M., Çolak, M.: ‘Voltage based power
compensation system for photovoltaic generation system under partially
IET Power Electron., 2014, Vol. 7, Iss. 6, pp. 1396–1413
doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406
www.ietdl.org
shaded insolation conditions’, Energy Convers. Manage., 2008, 49, (8),
pp. 2307–2316
91 Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T., Boztepe, M., Çolak, M.: ‘Power controller
design for photovoltaic generation system under partially shaded
insolation conditions’. Int. Conf. on Intelligent Systems Applications
to Power Systems (ISAP), 2007, pp. 1–6
92 Hargis, C.: ‘Voltage compensation’. WO2011/076707, 2011,
pp. 1–40
93 Bitron: ‘Endana – Optimization, monitoring and safety for
photovoltaics’, 2013, pp. 1–2. Available at: http://www.bitronenergy.
com/documents/endana.pdf
94 Nguyen, D., Lehman, B.: ‘An adaptive solar photovoltaic array using
model-based reconfiguration algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2008, 55, (7), pp. 2644–2654
95 Shamseldein, M.Z.M.A., Kazerani, M., Salama, M.: ‘Reconfigurable
photovoltaic structure’. WO2012/006723, 2012, pp. 1–55
96 Alahmad, M., Chaaban, M.A., Lau, S.K., Shi, J., Neal, J.: ‘An adaptive
utility interactive photovoltaic system based on a flexible switch matrix
to optimize performance in real-time’, Solar Energy, 2012, 86, (3),
pp. 951–963
1413
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014