Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A robust hybrid method for maximum power point tracking

in photovoltaic systems
Mohammad H. Moradi ⇑, S.M. Reza Tousi, Milad Nemati, N. Saadat Basir, N. Shalavi
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Received 4 March 2013; received in revised form 13 May 2013; accepted 17 May 2013
Available online 15 June 2013

Communicated by: Associate Editor Nicola Romeo

Abstract

In this paper a new hybrid method for maximum power point tracking in PV systems has been proposed. This method combines off-
line and online methods in order to estimate duty cycle of converter in maximum power point. In the offline phase, temperature and
radiation intensity are the inputs of the system to estimate the approximate maximum power based on analytical equations of solar cell.
These equations which give the relation of maximum power with temperature and irradiation can be derived from characteristics of cell
provided by manufacturer or experiments. Afterwards the duty cycle of converter would be estimated using circuit equations of measured
Thevenin model of the load and battery. Measuring Thevenin equation results in robustness of method respecting variations of load and
battery. In the online phase, the classic perturbation and observation (P&O) method will be utilized for fine tuning and tracking of max-
imum power point. The proposed method has been simulated in MATLAB/SIMULINK workspace and compared with some other
MPPT methods. The results reveal that this hybrid method outperforms other methods in term of performance and speed of tracking.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Maximum power point tracking; Photovoltaic (PV) system; Hybrid online–offline method; Perturbation and observation (P&O) method

1. Introduction sible electrical power has been taken into consideration.

Environmental considerations such as global warming
and related issues in one side and frequent increments in
cost of fossil fuels in other side raising the global world’s
attention to utilizing clean and renewable energies (Wu
et al., 1998; DeBroe et al., 1999). Among sources of energy,
solar energy is the most common one due to the ability of
direct conversion to electricity by photovoltaic cells. Now-
adays PV systems have been utilized in myriad of applica-
tions from residential to industrial and aerospace ones.
However because of high cost of PV systems, investment
on these energy sources should be reasonable. Therefore,
since the introduction of this technology, increasing the
efficiency of solar panels and extraction of maximum pos-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 811 2526078; fax: +98 811 8352828.
E-mail address: mh_moradi@yahoo.co.uk (M.H. Moradi).
The former one is related to material and construction pro-
cess of solar panels while the latter depends on control
mechanism and utilization conditions. This paper deals
with the control of PV systems and more precisely the con-
cept of Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) which is
sufficiently well-known in electrical engineering society.
Solar panels have non-linear voltage–current character-
istics with only one unique point in which maximum power
can be achieved. On the other hand, operation of a solar
panel depends on irradiation intensity and ambient temper-
ature. Hence, the maximum power point changes with vari-
ations of light intensity and temperature. It would be
important and profitable to track this point adequately
and as fast as possible to exploit the free solar energy in dif-
ferent environment conditions. There have been many
MPPT methods presented in literatures and some of them
have been commercialized and used in real applications.

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.05.016
 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276
Many methods have been presented for MPPT in PV
systems. These methods can be categorized in three main
types of offline, online and hybrid (Esram and chapman,
2007; Reisi et al., 2013).
1.1. Model based methods
In these methods maximum power point is calculated in
an offline manner using data provided by manufacturer or
initial experiments (Reisi et al., 2013). The main parameters
(Vmpp, Impp, duty cycle (D)) of maximum power point are
being estimated using open circuit voltage and short circuit
current calculated in a specific ambient condition. Then
they fed to photovoltaic system in order to convey power
to maximum power point. Some of the well-known offline
methods are open circuit voltage (Schoeman and vanWyk,
1982; Enslin et al., 1997), short circuit current (Noguchi
et al., 2002) and neural networks (Hiyama et al.,
1995a,b). Artificial Neural Network proposed in Raia
et al. (2011), gets the temperature and irradiation level as
inputs and calculates voltage and current of the possible
maximum power point and its appropriate duty cycle using
converter’s model. Another type of these methods based on
real time mathematical calculations. For example, IV
MPPE method which sets the solar panel to operate at a
voltage providing the available maximum power without
tracking process by estimating I–V curve and detecting its
maximum power point. The operation is based on solving
the solar array equivalent electrical model due to real time
parameters, by measuring voltage and current of six coor-
dinates nearby the operating point (Blanes et al., 2013).
One similar procedures to this one is Analytical five-point
method (Wang et al., 2011). Another approach is based
on Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) techniques which due
its ability to handle non-linear objective functions (Ishaque
and Salam, 2011; Ishaque et al., 2011), envisaged with the
MPPT difficulties effectively. Among the EA techniques,
particle swarm optimization (PSO) is must advantageous
due to its simple structure, easy implementation, and fast
computation capability (Miyatake et al., 2007; Ishaque
et al., 2012).
But the main shortcoming of offline methods goes to the
fact that MPP calculation is based on estimating, result in
steady state deviation.
1.2. Model free methods
On the other hand, online methods usually are free from
ambient data and only rely on measurement of panel out-
put power in order to track the path to maximum power
point by changing system variables like converter duty
cycle (Reisi et al., 2013). Perturbation and observation
(P&O) is one of the most popular and simple Online
method (Hua et al., 1998; Chen et al., 2004). The P&O
algorithm have two major problems which are low conver-
gence speed to MPP and inability? in tracking rapid
changes. In order to mitigate the first issue variable pertur-
267
bation method has been proposed in Zhi-dan et al. (2008)
and Raia et al. (2011). Nevertheless, the algorithm is still
unable to respond correctly to rapid changes in tempera-
ture and irradiance of system (Tasi-Fu and Yu-Kai, 1998;
Reisi et al., 2013). Another common method for tracking
the maximum power point is Incremental Conductance
(INC-Cond). INC-Cond methods (Hussein et al., 1995;
Wu et al., 2003) are based on the fact that the slope of
the I–V curve is zero at the MPP. The INC MPPT algo-
rithm usually has a fixed iterative step size determined by
the requirements which provides steady state accuracy
and the response speed of the MPPT. Thus, the tradeoff
between the dynamics and steady-state accuracy has
addressed by the aforementioned design. To solve this
dilemma, a variable step-size INC MPPT is proposed in
Liu et al. (2008), which results in steady state accuracy.
However, MPPT dynamics has improved effectively due
to the digression of the iteration step size, particularly
when insolation changes quickly. And also for acquiring
a fast response speed, a modified variable step-size incre-
mental-resistance (INR) MPPT based on the current-mode
control (Tan et al., 2005; Bae et al., 2009) is proposed in
Mei et al. (2011).
1.3. Hybrid methods
In order to merge the merits of the abovementioned
methods and alleviate their demerits, hybrid model based
and model free methods have been presented. Thus these
methods utilize the speed of MB methods and accuracy
of MF methods simultaneously (Reisi et al., 2013). In
(Irisawa et al., 2000; Kobayashi et al., 2003) a hybrid
method is proposed using a model based method to set
the operating point of the PV array close to the MPP
and then use the INC-Cond approach for tracking the
MPP with high accuracy. Other hybrid methods which
reported in Koizumi and Kurokawa (2005), Jain and Agar-
wal (2004) and Tafticht and Agbossou (2004), propose a
linear function for detecting location of the MPP then, in
order to set the operating point nearby the MPP a pertur-
bation with appropriate sign is applied. In Jain and Agar-
wal (2004), a two-loop algorithm is proposed that allows
faster tracking in the first loop and performs the fine tuning
tracking in the second loop. In Tafticht and Agbossou
(2004), the nonlinear equation describing the output power
characteristics is employed to estimate an initial operating
point close to the MPP. In our previous work (Moradi and
Reisi, 2011) a hybrid method has been developed by com-
bining two methods of estimation of Vmpp based on piece-
linear estimation of Voc and P&O algorithm. In spite of
acceptable results in some scenarios, The formula pre-
sented for Voc in this method is less sensitive to irradiance
changes and, as a result, it would be only suitable in case of
temperature changes. In addition, it entails the incorrect
output voltage and decline in speed of MPPT if no battery
is available in the PV system or the internal resistance of
battery is large.
268 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276
   
In this paper a new robust hybrid MPPT method has V þ Rs I V þ Rs I
I ¼ I pv  I o exp 1  ð1Þ
been proposed which is a combination of two phases. In aV t Rp
the first phase which is done base on model, the MPP is
N s KT
estimated using analytical equations and model of PV sys- Vt ¼ ð2Þ
tem while considering ambient temperature, irradiation q
and also load model (set point tuning). In the second phase, G
classic perturbation and observation (P&O) method will be I pv ¼ ðI pv;n þ K I DT Þ ð3Þ
Gn
used to follow the maximum power point exactly moving  3   
from initial point provided by the first stage (fine tuning). T qEg 1 1
I o ¼ I o;n exp  ð4Þ
The remainder of paper is organized in five sections. In Tn aK T n T
Section 2 an overview of photovoltaic systems has been
I sc;n
provided. Afterwards in Section 3, the detail steps of the I o;n ¼ h i ð5Þ
V
new method have been explained. Section 4 provides simu- exp aVoc;nt
lation results and discussions about performance of
method in comparison with some other methods. At last where Vt is thermal voltage, Ns is the number of series cells,
concluding remarks will be presented in Section 5. Ipv is photovoltaic current, Ipv,n is photovoltaic current in
nominal condition, G is radiation intensity, Gn is nominal
radiation intensity = 1000 w/m2, DT is (DT = Tn) tem-
2. Photovoltaic system perature change, Tn is nominal temperature = 25 °C, Eg
is the distance of energy bars in Si, Io,n is inverse saturation
A typical photovoltaic system (PV) usually consists of current in nominal condition, KI is the ratio of short circuit
solar panel, DC-DC convertor, controller, load and battery current variation to temperature variation in nominal con-
as illustrated in Fig. 1. In the following brief description of dition, a is a constant value between 1 and 1.5 that is deter-
each part will be provided. mined by other cell’s parameters.
By using Eq. (6) instead of (4), the accuracy of model
increases as a consequence of Voc sensitivity to tempera-
2.1. Solar panel
ture. In these equations, Kv is the sensitivity of open cir-
cuit voltage with respect to temperature (Carrero et al.,
Solar panel is a P–N junction that transduces light into
2007):
electrical energy. The radiated energy causes motion of car-
riers in the junction as a result creates a voltage in the out- I sc;n þ K I DT
Io ¼ h i ð6Þ
put. Equivalent circuit of a solar panel is shown in Fig. 2. exp V oc þK v DT
1
aV t
The equations of this circuit are as follows (Grade-
llaVillalva et al., 2009; Reisi et al., 2013): G
I sc ¼ ðI sc;n þ K I DT Þ ð7Þ
Gn
V oc ¼ V oc;n þ K v DT ð8Þ
Fig. 3a–d shows the effects of temperature and radiation
variations on open circuit voltage, Voc, and short circuit
DC-DC Boost Desired
current, Isc.
Converter Thevenin Fig. 3a shows that the short circuit current changes lin-
Temp & IL
Irradiation PWM early with respect to the light intensity and Fig. 3c shows
Network
VL that open circuit voltage decreases linearly with tempera-
Controller
ture rise. Meanwhile, the voltage is also a function of the
irradiation.

Fig. 1. Structure of a photovoltaic system.

2.2. Converter

Converter is an essential part of any PV system regard-

Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of solar panel (Moradi and Reisi, 2011).
less of load type. The main role of converter is conditioning
the produced power of PV cells in order to meet the load
requirements. However, it can be used for matching the
panel curve with output load in order to extract maximum
power from PV panel (Tasi-Fu and Yu-Kai, 1998). In this
paper a boost converter has been used based on load volt-
age requirement and also impedance adaptation capability.
Fig. 4 shows a basic boost regulator. In a boost convertor,
 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276 269

Fig. 3. Effects of irradiation and temperature on Voc, and Isc.

Thevenin circuit consisting voltage source Vth and resis-

tance Rth. The first parameter changes with the state of
charge of the battery (which means that charge or dis-
charge of battery leads to Vth variation) and the second
parameter, Rth, changes with variations in load and battery
exhaustion (variation of internal resistance).
Fig. 4. Boost regulator.
This strategy helps us in studying effects of load changes
in maximum power point tracking of PV systems. Fig. 5
output voltage is larger than input voltage and they are illustrates the effect of load impedance observed from solar
related by this formula: panel on its working points and in consequent on the
1 power derived from PV system.
Vo ¼ Vi ð9Þ
1D
where D is the duty cycle of power switch in converter. 2.4. Estimation of converter duty cycle

2.3. Load model The efficiency of converter can be calculated using (10)
which have been proved in Kazimierczuk (2008):
In many applications of PV systems, loads require a
constant voltage supply. Therefore batteries have been
not only used to provide a regulated voltage for load but
also to save energy and perform sectional compensation
(Moradi and Reisi, 2011). Usually the battery voltage is
supposed to be constant and modeled by an invariable
DC voltage source. But for an old or empty battery the
internal resistance of battery becomes considerable which
leads to a variable output voltage. In this situation, the bat-
tery should be modeled by a DC source and a resistance. In
a more general statement, it can be said that the battery Fig. 5. Variation of load impedance observed from solar panel in a boost
and linked load to convertor can be modeled by equivalent convertor (Moradi and Reisi, 2011).
270 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276

P o ¼ gP i ð10Þ Now, the duty cycle can be calculated based on approx-

Po imated values of circuit variables according to following
g¼ equations (Kazimierczuk, 2008):
P o þ P LS
V o  Io !
¼   D  RDS RF rL D  rC
V o  Io þ DrDS RF
þ 1D rL
þ ð1DÞ DrC
2 þ 1D  I 2o þ V F  I o þ fS  C O;MOS  V 2o P LS ¼ 2
þ þ þ  I 2o
ð1DÞ2 ð1  DÞ 1  D ð1  DÞ2 1  D

Although this formula depends on many parameters like þ V F  I o þ fS  C O;MOS  V 2o ð15Þ

characteristics of circuit elements which also may not be Po
adequately, the effect of these inaccuracies is not compara- g¼ ð16Þ
P o þ P LS
ble with the effect of duty cycle on efficiency of the con-
verter. It must be noted that the efficiency of Boost P o ¼ g  P mppðapproxÞ ð17Þ
converter depends on duty cycle and equivalent resistance sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Eth E2th gP mppðapproxÞ
of the load. This efficiency decreases with increment of duty Io ¼ þ þ ð18Þ
2
cycle and gets worse by reduction of load resistance (Kazi- 2Rth 4Rth Rth
mierczuk, 2008). Furthermore based on the following for- I i ¼ I mppðapproxÞ ¼ K  I sc ð19Þ
mula provided in Tasi-Fu and Yu-Kai (1998), relation of
converter duty cycle with input and output current can gI o
Dmpp ¼ 1  ð20Þ
be achieved. Ii
gI o PLS is the power losses in converter (W), CO,MOS is Mosfet
¼1D ð11Þ output capacitor (F), VF is diode forward voltage (V), RF is
Ii
diode ON state resistance (X), RDS is Mosfet ON state
The following formula is based on load equivalent
resistance (O), fs is switching frequency (Hz).
Thevenin circuit.
V o ¼ Rth  I o þ Eth ð12Þ 3. Proposed hybrid MPPT algorithm
The maximum power can be estimated by Vmpp(approx)
and Impp(approx). In this paper a new robust hybrid method has been pro-
posed which considers not only the effects of temperature
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ V mppðapproxÞ  I mppðapproxÞ ð13Þ and irradiance in estimation of maximum power point
Afterward the power at MPP can be written in terms of but also the characteristics of load. The method consists
temperature and irradiance as proved in Appendix A. of two separate phases. In the first phase which run in an
offline manner the MPP and its corresponding duty cycle
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ Gða0  b0  T Þ þ c ð14Þ
w will be estimated using some simplified formulas in terms
T is temperature (°C), and G is irradiance m2 . of temperature, radiation intensity and parameters of load
In order to obtain a0 , b0 and c coefficients, it would be equivalent Thevenin circuit. At the second and online
only necessary to solve this equation in three experimental phase the exact maximum power point is determined using
points. Fig. 6 shows how the maximum power changes with P&O algorithm. Therefore this method mitigates the short-
temperature and irradiance. ages of offline and P&O methods while considering the role
of load model in estimation of MPP.
Fig. 7 shows the flow chart of this method. As depicted
in this figure, the temperature and light intensity are mea-
sured frequently. In case of small changes in these variables
the P&O algorithm would be able to track the MPP effec-
tively but for large variations the other loop of set point
60 calculation must be followed. In this loop the Thevenin
model of the load is calculated frequently using voltage
MAX Power (W)

50
40 and current measurements in P&O loop.
30
20
3.1. Thevenin equivalent model calculation
10
100 To calculate the equivalent circuit, the voltage and cur-
0
1000 rent of two operating point are required. For this purpose,
800 50
600
400
the voltage and current (V1, I1) of one operating point are
200 Temperature
0 0 recorded. Then, a small perturbation applied on duty cycle
Irradiation (W/m2)
and new values of voltage and current (V2, I2) can be
Fig. 6. Maximum power change with respect to irradiation and recorded. Thevenin equivalent voltage and resistance are
temperature. calculated by using the following equations:
 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276
Initialization
Variable
Measurement
No
Yes
Yes
Set Point
calculation
Fig. 7. Flowchart of the proposed method.
 
V 1  V 2 
Rth ¼   ð21Þ
I1  I2  In this study a PV system like Fig. 1 has been simulated
V th ¼ V 1  Rth  I 1
The perturbation is applied to the system with the mag-
nitude of P&O perturbation and after passing some time
just as one time period of P&O, second sample is recorded.
Applied perturbation does not affect the load and it is just
to prepare a different operating point. Accuracy in calcula-
tions depends on the accuracy and speed of voltage and
current measurement tools. But of course simulation com-
putations were error-free.
The new MPP set point should be calculated using given
approximate formulas in terms of both new ambient vari-
ables and new Thevenin model parameters. Afterwards
the P&O algorithm continues its operation from this new
point. Hence, it would be able to tackle large changes in
system.
This method has two distinct main offline and online
loops in order to estimate and find the maximum power
point of PV system consequently. In the following the
detail functionalities of each step of algorithm will be
discussed.
 Initialization: In this phase, initial data that is necessary
for controller are fed into the system. This data includes
initial duty cycle of converter and PV cell parameters
such as Isc,max, Vocmax, Vmpp, Impp (under nominal condi-

tion Gn ¼ 1000 mw2 and T n ¼ 25 C), sensitivity coeffi-
271
cient of Isc to temperature (KI) and sensitivity
coefficient of Voc to temperature (Kv). It would also be
some other parameters such necessary to calculate as
efficiency of converter (h), ratio of MPP current to Isc
(K) and at last a0 , b0 and c0 for Pmpp estimation.
 Measurement of variables: After primary launching, the
control system starts its process by measuring ambient
and load conditions. These variables consist of radiation
intensity, temperature, load voltage, load current and
output power. In addition, the Thevenin model of the
load must be calculated using voltage and current of
load.
 Control loop selection: In this step, variables resulted
from previous step checked for major variations. If the
relative changes are greater than a specified threshold,
the algorithm must recalculate the new MPP and corre-
No
sponding duty cycle. Otherwise, the P&O loop performs
its function in order to tune MPP exactly.
 Set point calculation: In this part of algorithm the new
MPP and its corresponding converter duty cycle are
computed using Eqs. (13) and (20).
 Fine tuning: In this phase any online MPP method with
the ability of tracking the MPP exactly can be used.
Herein, the classic P&O method has been utilized with
frequency of 500 Hz.
4. Simulation and results
in MATLAB/SIMULATION work space Fig. 8. The panel
ð22Þ
used in this model is 60 W and has 48 arrayed cells. Fig. 8
shows the block diagram of simulated PV system. The per-
formance of proposed hybrid method was studied and
compared with method (Moradi and Reisi, 2011), P&O
algorithm and ANN method (Raia et al., 2011) in the fol-
lowing scenarios:
 Variable radiation, variable temperature.
 Constant radiation, variable temperature.
 Variable radiation, constant temperature.
 Variation of Rth.
4.1. Variable irradiation and variable temperature
In this test, both intensity and temperature have
increased as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. As it can be seen from
Fig. 11 the proposed method has produced the maximum
power in comparison with other three methods.
As it is clear in Fig. 11, P&O has moved in the opposite
direction of power increment. The reason of this behavior
is the fact that voltage of maximum power point drastically
depends on temperature change. Thus P&O is not able to
track the new MPP voltage by changing the duty cycle of
converter and continues to move in opposite direction
because of negative slope of power change that it can see.
272 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276

Fig. 8. Block diagram of the simulated system in MATLAB/SIMULINK.

45
1100

1000 40
Irradiation (W/m )

900
2

Temperature

35

800
30
700
25
600

500 20

400 15
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

Fig. 9. Intensity change curve. Fig. 10. Temperature change curve.

On the other side and in the case of irradiation change, the
voltage of MPP does not change considerably and as a
result P&O does not face a large difference with maximum
power point voltage.
4.2. Constant irradiation and variable temperature
In this case, irradiation has been kept constant in just
1000 W per square meters while temperature has changed
as shown in Fig. 12. It is evident from Fig. 13 that during
rapid changes of temperature the proposed method perfor-
mance outstands other methods. Since proposed method
considers load model, ambient temperature and irradiance
in MPP approximation, its accuracy is better than method
(Moradi and Reisi, 2011) which only approximates open
circuit voltage. The P&O method also is unable to track
the MPP and change the duty cycle rapidly in case of large
change in temperature.
 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276 273

60 1000
Proposed method
[16]
50
P&O 900
ANN
40
Power (W)

Irradiation
800
30

20 700

10
600

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

500
Time (Sec) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Time (Sec)
Fig. 11. Cell output power.
Fig. 14. Variations of irradiation.

35

70
30
Temperature

60
25
Power (W)

50
20

40

15
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
30 Proposed method
Time (Sec) P&O and [16]
ANN
Fig. 12. Variations of temperature.
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Time (Sec)
65
Proposed method Fig. 15. Cell output power in response to change of irradiation.
[16]
P&O
ANN
60 and the proposed method. When irradiance changes, there
Power (W)

is no need for a significant change in duty cycle to follow

MPP. So, both methods work perfectly, but it can be seen
that a minor difference exists because of using an accurate
55 approximation in the proposed method in comparison with
P&O method (Fig. 15).

4.4. Variation of Rth

0.02 0.04
Time (Sec)
Fig. 13. Cell output power in response to variation of temperature.
4.3. Variable intensity and constant temperature
In this case the irradiation changes while the tempera-
ture is constant at 25 degree centigrade (Fig. 14). Since
method (Moradi and Reisi, 2011) works with approxima-
tion of Voc, its performance is similar to performance of
P&O. Thus, the comparison is made only between P&O
0.06 0.08
In Figs. 16–18 the behavior of these four methods are
compared in case of some different Thevenin resistances
with values of 0.06, 0.5 and 2 ohms. In all cases the temper-
ature and irradiance variations are the same as above sce-
narios. The results show the superiority performance of
proposed method against other ones.
In the second case the temperature and irradiance are
constant and at t = 0.05 s a change occurs in the Thevenin
resistance of the load from 2 to 4 ohms. It can be seen from
Fig. 19 that the proposed method can respond to this dis-
turbance rapidly and better than P&O and methods pro-
posed in Raia et al. (2011) and Moradi and Reisi (2011).
274 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276

60
60

50 58
Power (W)

P (W)
40 56

Proposed method 54 Proposed method

30 [16] P&O & [16]
P&O ANN
ANN
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Time (Sec)
Time (Sec)
Fig. 19. Cell output power in response to change of Thevenin resistance of
Fig. 16. Cell output power with 2 ohm Thevenin resistance. load.

60
(2011) and Raia et al. (2011) are unable to approximate
the duty cycle accurately and not following the changes effi-
ciently. Although the P&O method can follow the changes
50 to some extent, the tracking speed is not desirable.
Power (W)

5. Conclusions
40

In this paper a robust hybrid method for maximum

Proposed method power tracking in PV systems was proposed. It consists
30 [16]
of two separate offline and online phases which are set
P&O
ANN
point approximation and fine tuning loops for MPPT
respectively. In the first phase not only the influence of tem-
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
perature and light intensity on MPP has been formulated,
Time (Sec)
but also the effects of load and battery characteristics mod-
Fig. 17. Cell output power with 0.5 ohm Thevenin resistance. eled by equivalent Thevenin circuit have been considered.
Therefore the MPP approximated by in this phase, is
robust with respect to load changes and battery conditions.
This would be the one of the main advantages of proposed
60 method respecting other methods. Afterward, since the
MPP calculated is not completely exact classic P&O
method with low perturbation frequency will be run in
50
order to fine tune the MPP.
Power (W)

The simulation results revealed that the proposed

40
method performed better than classic P&O, ANN method
provided in Raia et al. (2011) and method provided in
Proposed method Moradi and Reisi (2011) for various scenarios. This superi-
30 [16] ority respecting P&O method relies on the fact that classic
P&O P&O is unable to track the rapid changes in irradiance and
ANN temperature, while in case of method (Moradi and Reisi,
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 2011) the algorithm is unable to track MPP appropriately
Time (Sec) in load change and aged battery conditions. Also, method
(Raia et al., 2011) shows lower efficiency compare with
Fig. 18. Cell output power with 0.06 ohm Thevenin resistance. other three methods. The only drawback of this method
would be the higher cost of implementation because of its
dependency to temperature and irradiance measurement.
The above results reveal that during fast changes in light
and temperature the new method works better than others. Appendix A.
This superiority relies on insertion of load model in duty
cycle approximation. Furthermore, when the load resis- Maximum power can be estimated by Vmpp(approx) and
tance is large, methods proposed in Moradi and Reisi Impp(approx).
 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ V mppðapproxÞ  I mppðapproxÞ
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ K I ðV oc;n þ K v DT ÞK 2 ðI sc;n þ K 1 ÞG=Gn
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ K 1 V oc;n G þ K 2 T n G þ K 03 TG þ K 04 I sc;n G
þ K 05  T nG þ K 06 TG þ K 07 T 2 G
The K 07 T 2  G is negligible because of small value of K 07 .
Thus the following equation can be achieved:
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ Gða  bT Þ
where
a ¼ K 01 V oc;n þ K 02 T n þ K 04 I sc;n þ K 05 T n
b¼ K 03 þ K 06
In order to compensate the effects of various approxima-
tions in Eq. (a4) an extra term added to formula. Therefore
the following equation would be derived. It shows that the
power at MPP can be written in terms of temperature and
irradiance in a simple form.
P mppðapproxÞ ¼ Gða  bT Þ þ c
References
Bae, H.S., Lee, S.J., Choi, K.S., Cho, B.H., Jang, S.S., 2009. Current
control design for a grid connected photovoltaic/fuel cell DC–AC
inverter. In Proc. 24th IEEE APEC 15-19 (2), 1945–1950.
Blanes, Jośe M., Javier Toledo, F., Montero, Sergio, 2013. Ausi ‘as Garrig
´os, In-site real-time photovoltaic I–V curves and maximum power
point estimator. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28 (3), 1234–1240.
Carrero, C., Amador, J., Arnaltes, S., 2007. A single procedure for helping
PV designers to select silicon PV module and evaluate the loss
resistances. Renew. Energy 32 (15), 2579–2589.
Chen, Y.-M., liu, Y.-C., Wu, F.-Y., 2004. Multi input converter with
power factor correction, maximum power point tracking and ripple-
free input currents. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 19 (3), 631–639.
DeBroe, A.M., Drouilhet, S., Gevorgian, V., 1999. A peak power tracker
for small wind turbines in battery charging applications. IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers. 14 (4), 1630–1635.
Enslin, J.H.R., Wolf, M.S., Snyman, D.B., Swiegers, W., 1997. Integrated
photovoltaic maximum power point tracking converter. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron. 44, 769–773.
Esram, Trishan, Chapman, Patrick L., 2007. Comparison of photovoltaic
array maximum power point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 22 (6).
GradellaVillalva, Marcelo, Gazoli, Jonas Rafael, RuppertFilho, Ernesto,
2009. Comprehensive approach to modeling and simulation of
photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24 (5).
Hiyama, T., Kouzuma, S., Imakubo, T., Ortmeyer, T.H., 1995a. Evalu-
ation of neural network based real time maximum power tracking
controller for PV system. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 10 (3), 543–
548.
Hiyama, T., Kouzuma, S., Imakubo, T., 1995b. Identification of optimal
operation point of PV modules using neural network for real time
maximum power tracking control. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 10
(2), 360–367.
Hua, C., Lin, J., Shen, C., 1998. Implementation of a DSP-controlled
photovoltaic system with peak power tracking. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 45 (1), 99–107.
Hussein, K.H., Muta, I., Hshino, T., Osakada, M., 1995. Maximum
photo-voltaic power tracking: an algorithm for rapidly changing
atmospheric conditions. Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng. 142 (1), 59–64.
275
ða1Þ Irisawa, K., Saito, T., Takano, I., Sawada, Y., 2000. Maximum power
point tracking control of photovoltaic generation system under non-
ða2Þ uniform insolation by means of monitoring cells. In Conf. Record
Twenty-Eighth IEEE Photovoltaic Spec. Conf., 1707–1710.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., 2011. An improved modeling method to determine
ða3Þ the model parameters of photovoltaic (PV) modules using differential
evolution (DE). Sol. Energy 85, 2349–2359.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., Shamsudin, A., 2011. A critical
evaluation of EA computational methods for photovoltaic cell
parameter extraction based on two diode model. Sol. Energy 85,
ða4Þ 1768–1779.
Ishaque, Kashif, Salam, Zainal, Amjad, Muhammad, Mekhilef, Saad,
2012. An improved particle swarm optimization(PSO)–based MPPT
ða5Þ for PV with reduced steady-state oscillation. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 27 (8), 3627–3638.
ða6Þ Jain, S., Agarwal, V., 2004. A new algorithm for rapid tracking of
approximate maximum power point in photovoltaic systems. IEEE
Power Electron. Lett. 2 (1), 16–19.
Kazimierczuk, Martin.K., 2008. Pulse–Width Modulated DC–DC Power
Converters, first ed. A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Publication, pp. 95–97.
Kobayashi, K., Takano, I., Sawada, Y., 2003. A study on a two stage
maximum power point tracking control of a photovoltaic system under
partially shaded insolation conditions. In IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen.
ða7Þ Meet., 2612–2617.
Koizumi, H., Kurokawa, K., 2005. A novel maximum power point
tracking method for PV module integrated converter. In Proc. 36th
Annu. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., 2081–2086.
Liu, F., Duan, S., Liu, F., Liu, B., Kang, Y., 2008. A variable step size
INC MPPT method for PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 55 (7),
2622–2628.
Mei, Qiang, Shan, Mingwei, Liu, Liying, Guerrero, Josep M., 2011. A
novel improved variable step-size incremental-resistance MPPT
method for PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 58 (6), 2427–2434.
Miyatake, M., Toriumi, F., Endo, T., Fujii, N., 2007. A novel maximum
power point tracker controlling several converters connected to photo-
voltaic arrays with particle swarm optimization technique. In Proc.
Eur. Conf. Power Electron. Appl., 1–10.
Moradi, M.H., Reisi, A.R., 2011. A hybrid maximum power point
tracking method for photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy 85, 2965–2976.
Noguchi, T., Togashi, S., Nakamoto, R., 2002. Short-current pulse-based
maximum-power-point tracking method for multiple photovoltaic and
converter module system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 49 (1), 217–223.
Raia, Anil K., Kaushikab, N.D., Singha, Bhupal, Agarwal, Niti, 2011.
Simulation model of ANN based maximum power point tracking
controller for solar PV system. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 773–
778.
Reisi, A.R., Moradi, M.H., Jamasb, S., 2013. Classification and compar-
ison of maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
system: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 433–443.
Reisi, A.R., Moradi, M.H., Showkati, H., 2013. Combined photovoltaic
and unified power quality controller to improve power quality. Sol.
Energy 88, 154–162.
Schoeman, J.J., vanWyk, J.D., 1982. A simplified maximal power
controller for terrestrial photovoltaic panel array. In Proc. 13th
Annu.l IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., 361–367.
Tafticht, T., Agbossou, K., 2004. Development of a MPPT method for
photovoltaic systems. In Can. Conf. Elect. Comput. Eng., 1123–1126.
Tan, C.W., Green, T.C., Hernandez-Aramburo, C.A., 2005. An improved
maximum power point tracking algorithm with current-mode control
for photovoltaic applications. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. PEDS, vol. 1,
pp. 489–494.
Tasi-Fu, W., Yu-Kai, C., 1998. Modeling PWM DC/DC converters out of
basic converter units. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 13 (5).
Wang, J.C., Su, Y.L., Shieh, J.C., Jiang, J.A., 2011. High-accuracy
maximum power point estimation for photovoltaic arrays. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 95 (3), 843–851.
276 M.H. Moradi et al. / Solar Energy 94 (2013) 266–276

Wu, T.-F., Chang, C.-H., Liu, Z.-R., Yu, T.-H., 1998. Single-stage
converts for photovoltaic powered lighting with MPPT and charging
feature. In Proc. IEEE APEC, 1149–1155.
Wu, W., Pongratananukul, N., Qiu, W., Rustom, K., Kasparis, T.,
Batarseh, I., 2003. DSP-based multiple peak power tracking for
expandable power system. In Proc. 18th Annu. IEEE Appl. Power
Electron. Conf. Expo., 525–530.
Zhi-dan, Zhong, Hai-bo, Huo, Xin-jian, Zhu, Guang-yi, Cao, Yuan, Ren,
2008. Adaptive maximum power point tracking control of fuel cell
power plants. J. Power Sources 176, 259–269.