Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
A New Sensorless Hybrid MPPT Algorithm Based
on Fractional Short-Circuit Current Measurement
and P&O MPPT
Hadeed Ahmed Sher, Student Member, IEEE, Ali Faisal Murtaza, Abdullah Noman,
Khaled E. Addoweesh, Senior Member, IEEE, Kamal Al-Haddad, Fellow, IEEE, and Marcello Chiaberge
Abstract—This paper presents a new maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) method for photovoltaic (PV) systems. The pro-
posed method improves the working of the conventional perturb
and observe (P&O) method in changing environmental condi-
tions by using the fractional short-circuit current (FSCC) method.
It takes the initial operating point of a PV system by using
the short-circuit current method and later shifts to the conven-
tional P&O technique. The advantage of having this two-stage
algorithm is rapid tracking under changing environmental con-
ditions. In addition, this scheme offers low-power oscillations
around MPP and, therefore, more power harvesting compared
with the common P&O method. The proposed MPPT decides
intelligently about the moment of measuring short-circuit current
and is, therefore, an irradiance sensorless scheme. The proposed
method is validated with computer software simulation followed
by a dSPACE DS1104-based experimental setup. A buck-boost dc–
dc converter is used for simulation and experimental confirmation.
Furthermore, the reliability of the proposed method is also calcu-
lated. The results show that the proposed MPPT technique works
satisfactorily under given environmental scenarios.
Index Terms—Efficiency, hybrid MPPT, maximum power point
tracking (MPPT), modeling and simulation, photovoltaic (PV).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE electricity generation through nonconventional
energy sources have seen a boost in second decade of
the 21st century because of better efficiency and declined cost.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) is among the most anticipated non-
conventional energy sources. In a PV system, 70%–80% cost
comprises PV module and inverter [1]. In the past 20 years,
the decrease in production cost of solar PV systems had a sig-
nificant impact on cost per unit [2], [3]. When compared with
conventional energy sources like thermal and hydal power, the
PV systems need less time to produce electricity. According to
the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, total installed
capacity of PV systems is more than 100 GW [4]. It is a good
Manuscript received October 01, 2014; revised January 19, 2015 and April
23, 2015; accepted May 23, 2015. This work was supported by King Abdulaziz
City for Science and Technology (KACST), Saudi Arabia. Paper no. TSTE-
00503-2014.
H. A. Sher, A. Noman, and K. E. Addoweesh are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
(e-mail: hsher@ksu.edu.sa; anoman@ksu.edu.sa; khaled@ksu.edu.sa).
A. F. Murtaza and M. Chiaberge are with Politecnico di Torino, Turin 10129,
Italy.
K. Al-Haddad is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, École de
technologie supérieure, Montreal, QC H3C1K3 Canada.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSTE.2015.2438781
1949-3029 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
sign, as PV systems are environment friendly. Estimates suggest
that the rate of PV installations in the past 15 years has been
around 45% [5], which means that in the near future, PV sys-
tems will have the largest share in electricity generation among
available renewable energy sources [6].
A solar PV module is a current source, i.e., it produces elec-
tric current whose amplitude depends on falling insolation on
the surface of PV module. The characteristic curve (I–V and
P –V ) of PV module is nonlinear and it has only one maximum
power point (MPP) under full exposure to sunlight. The MPP
varies with the changing insolation and temperature. Therefore,
an organized set of rules is required to operate the system at
MPP. These sets of rules are commonly referred to as MPP
tracking (MPPT) methods [7]. Because of nonlinear behavior of
the PV module, MPPT is essential for an efficient PV system.
Various MPPT methods have been proposed and published in
relevant scientific literature, which are, in fact, diversified ways
to implement the impedance matching [8]. The most discussed
methods are as follows [9], [10]:
1) perturb and observe (P&O);
2) incremental conductance (InC);
3) fractional open-circuit voltage (FOCV);
4) fractional short-circuit current (FSCC).
These MPPT algorithms can be subdivided into two broader
categories, i.e., online and offline methods. P&O and InC are
online MPPT techniques, as they do the tracking without iso-
lating the PV module from the system [11]. Online MPPT
methods have an intricate implementation process, but they
are not subjected to any power loss as a result of isolating
the PV module. However, they do suffer power loss because
of power oscillations around MPP. Online MPPT methods can
track the true MPP. The convergence speed of the online MPPT
techniques listed above depends on the size of the change in
operating point (also referred to as step size). A larger step
size will track MPP more rapidly, but it will also result in
greater power oscillations around the MPP. A smaller step size
will reduce power oscillations around MPP, but it will need
more time to track the MPP. Generally, the perturbation step
size is in the range of 0.05–0.1. On the other hand, offline
methods disconnect the PV module from the system to mea-
sure the operating parameters [short-circuit current (Isc ) and
open-circuit voltage (Voc )] [11]. FOCV and FSCC fall under
the offline category. Offline techniques are simple to imple-
ment using analog or digital electronics and they have a high
convergence speed. Since, the environmental conditions are not
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
TABLE I
PV M ODULE PARAMETERS [23]
constant, offline MPPT methods need periodic isolation of PV
module to measure the operating point. However, during mea-
surement of short-circuit current or open-circuit voltage of PV
module, no power is delivered to the system, consequently
resulting in power loss. Literature survey of offline MPPT
methods reveals that usually the time-based isolation method
is adopted. The work presented in [12]–[15] is based on time-
based measurement of FOCV. For FSCC MPPT, one method to
reduce periodic measurements is to use a sensor that measures
the irradiance and decides when to measure the short-circuit
current. However, an added sensor increases the cost. Offline
methods do not track true MPPT and therefore they are not
suitable for high-efficiency applications. Some researchers have
proposed changes in the conventional algorithms. The work of
[16] is an attempt to detect the partial shading using FOCV and
P&O. Authors of [17] and [18] have proposed a variable step
size P&O method. A modified FSCC method is presented by
[19] where a lookup table is used. The computed value from
lookup table is then compared with a calculated value and is
fed to the PI controller. However, this paper lacks compari-
son of the proposed technique with the conventional method.
The work of [20] is an improved form of P&O where instead
of voltage perturbation they have used current perturbation. In
addition, they measure the Isc at the start only. Another hybrid
method is proposed in [21] in which an estimation is used to
track the MPP. A hybrid MPPT is proposed in [22] in which an
approximated MPP is calculated numerically and then system
shifts to P&O, such that it brings the system within the toler-
ance. Thereafter, the algorithm shifts to the secant method for
steady operating voltage. This method, however, requires three
sensors, two for measuring power and one for measuring tem-
perature. The use of temperature sensor increases the cost and
decreases the reliability of the system as well.
This paper presents a hybrid MPPT technique that works
using advantages of both online and offline MPPT techniques.
The proposed method begins tracking MPP using the offline
MPPT method; therefore, it swiftly reaches near real MPP.
Then, it starts to track the real MPP using online MPPT tech-
nique. This hybrid technique isolates the PV module only dur-
ing rapidly changing environmental conditions. Under steady
environmental conditions, PV module is isolated only at the
startup. With the use of the offline MPPT method, it is pos-
sible to use microstepping for the online MPPT method. In
the proposed method, P&O is used as online MPPT and
FSCC as offline MPPT technique. In this paper, a 115-W
solar PV module (BP3115) is modeled for simulation and for
carrying out experimental work. The characteristics of this
module under standard testing conditions of 1000 W/m2 at
Fig. 1. Block diagram of fractional short-circuit MPPT.
25 ◦ C are given in Table I [23]. Verification of proposed
MPPT algorithm is accomplished through modeling and simu-
lation in MATLAB/Simulink and experiments carried out using
dSPACE DS1104-based embedded solution.
II. F RACTIONAL S HORT-C IRCUIT C URRENT MPPT
Under any given environmental condition, the current at MPP
(Impp ) has approximately a linear relation with short-circuit
current (Isc ) as expressed in the below equation
Impp ≈ kIsc (1)
where k is the constant of proportionality.
Value of k is unique for different PV modules. Typically,
it varies from 0.72 to 0.92. Since it is an approximation, it
does not track the real MPP. However, the tracking speed is
fast with a reasonable efficiency up to 90% [24]. It is cheap
and easy to implement because it needs only one current
sensor. FSCC requires periodic measurements of Isc to track
the approximated MPP, which results in temporary power loss.
Fig. 1 shows the block diagram for duty cycle calculations
using FSCC.
III. P ERTURB AND O BSERVE (P&O) MPPT
P&O or the hill climbing method is the widely used tech-
nique to track MPP. It perturbs the operating point and observes
the difference in power before and after perturbation. The
power is calculated using current and voltage sensors. If power
difference is positive, the direction of perturbation remains
same; otherwise, it is reversed. Therefore, this algorithm always
keeps tracking back and forth even after reaching the MPP,
which results in power oscillations around MPP. As discussed
in Section I, oscillations can be controlled by reducing the step
size which will increase the time to track MPP. Fig. 2 shows
the basic idea of P&O MPPT. A time delay in perturbation is
required to settle transients of the circuit.
IV. P ROPOSED MPPT T ECHNIQUE
Flowchart of proposed hybrid MPPT technique is shown in
Fig. 3. It has three distinct stages as listed below:
Stage 1: estimation of MPP using Isc ;
Stage 2: P&O loop;
Stage 3: limit subroutine for decision about measurement
of Isc .
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
SHER et al.: NEW SENSORLESS HYBRID MPPT ALGORITHM BASED ON FSCC MEASUREMENT AND P&O MPPT
Fig. 2. Basic block diagram of P&O MPPT.
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the proposed hybrid MPPT technique.
A. Stage 1: Estimation of MPP Using Isc
The proposed MPPT method begins with the estimation of
MPP using Isc . When this loop starts, the PV panel is isolated
to measure and store Isc . Next, the value of Impp is calculated
using (1). This loop then measures the output current of the PV
panel (Ipv ) and calculates the error difference between Impp
and Ipv . The resultant value is fed to a compensator and the
duty cycle is calculated. When compensator makes the error
equal to zero, then power and the duty cycle is stored and the
3
system reaches the P&O loop. Afterward, this loop measures
Isc only when prompted by the limit subroutine.
B. Stage 2: P&O Loop
P&O loop starts storing the duty cycle (D) as soon as the
algorithm reaches the compensator block of the stage 1. After
the error becomes zero, P&O loop starts tracking the power.
The main advantage of using stage 1 is that a very small step
size for P&O is possible. In this paper, a step size of 0.003
is applied in simulation and experimentation. This resulted in
small power oscillations around the MPP. After perturbing the
operating point, system compares the difference between new
and old power values. Before the next perturbation (positive or
negative), system calls the limit subroutine. If the limit sub-
routine is not activated, then next perturbation is applied. The
loop halts when the limit subroutine loop instructs the system
for new measurement of Isc . At this instant, the algorithm goes
back to stage 1 and obtains a new value of Isc .
C. Stage 3: Limit Subroutine
The intelligent mechanism of this subroutine determines the
instants for the measurement of Isc during the working of
the proposed MPPT technique. This loop contains the stored
value of Isc and continuously updates the instantaneous val-
ues of photovoltaic current Ipv . It then calculates and updates
the constant k2 and computes the difference between k1 and
k2 . This process is repeated until the difference exceeds the
limits. This limit defines the sensitivity of the system; lower
value means more measurements of Isc , whereas higher value
means less measurements. It must be noted that power loss
occurs during Isc measurement. By a hit-and-trial method,
0.05 has been found as optimized value of this limit for the
experimental setup. If the difference between two constants
surpasses this limit, the algorithm isolates the PV panel and
a fresh value of Isc is measured and stored in the system
memory. This loop inspects the difference between k1 and
k2 after every perturbation and waits until PV panel exceeds
the limit.
V. W ORKING OF THE P ROPOSED T ECHNIQUE
To understand the working of the proposed hybrid MPPT
technique, let us consider Fig. 4. It has five PV curves marked
with respective MPP at different irradiance levels. Let us
assume that, at the beginning, we need to track MPP at
1000 W/m2 irradiance. To do that, the algorithm will short cir-
cuit the PV panel and using stage 1, it will quickly calculate the
approximated MPP. Then, it proceeds to stage 2 P&O loop. It
tracks the MPP by perturbing and observing the output power
of PV panel. Let us assume that irradiation is decreasing with
the passage of time, which means that the Ipv also decreases.
However, the short-circuit current is measured and stored at
a different irradiation level (1000 W/m2 ). The decision about
measuring the short-circuit current for the new irradiation value
depends on limit subroutine loop, which monitors the difference
between the two constants k1 and k2 . If limit is small, system
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Fig. 4. Explanation of the proposed MPPT.
Fig. 5. Partial shading scenario.
will undergo more short-circuit current measurements result-
ing in power loss. A higher value will benefit the system by
less short-circuit current measurements. In Fig. 4, it is indicated
that the system can take a fresh value of Isc for the PV curve at
800 W/m2 . However, since the fall in irradiance is linear, sys-
tem can track MPP with the help of P&O without operating
in stage 1. It should be noted that the small green circles on
PV curves show the range of operation for P&O MPPT. Using
limit subroutine loop to fix the value of limit makes the system
flexible.
In order to see the functionality of proposed algorithm
under partial shading condition, consider Fig. 5 where three
different scenarios are considered. It is assumed that the
two PV panels are connected in series and there is no
mismatching.
One PV module is subjected to three different irradiation val-
ues. Here, G = 1 refers to 1000 W/m2 irradiance. The three
different values of G are 1, 0.9, and 0.4. This means that while
one of the PV module enjoys the full irradiation of G = 1, the
multiple MPP will appear because of the varying irradiance on
other module.
Considering the above-mentioned scenario, the PV curve is
plotted in MATLAB/Simulink as shown in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6,
the above graph shows the PV curve and lower is IV curve.
The black line shows the curves for homogenous lighting con-
ditions. The red line depicts the curves for modest shading
Fig. 6. I–V and P –V curve under partial shading condition.
TABLE II
S IMULATION PARAMETERS
condition, such that one PV module receives G = 1 and one
receives G = 0.9. The blue line shows stiff shading condition,
i.e., one PV module receives G = 1 and other receives G = 0.4.
Let us assume that the system was operating with uniform
irradiation condition and was at Ampp point. Stage 2 was
activated and the power was oscillating between points A1
and A2 .
Now, let us consider the scenario that the partial shading case
1 happens. In this case, let us assume that the limit subroutine
is not activated; therefore, stage 2 will continue its work and
slowly track the MPP. After reaching the point BMPP , the limit
of operation is confined to B1 and B2 . Now, let us assume that
a strong shading condition has happened. The initial operating
point was AMPP before the partial shading. When the shading
occurs, the output power will be reduced suddenly because it
is well known that change in PV current is proportional to the
light falling on PV module. Therefore, the limit subroutine will
be activated and a fresh value of Isc will be measured. This will
bring the system to reach C1 after which CMPP is hunted using
stage 2.
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In order to validate the proposed hybrid MPPT, simulation
is performed under steady and dynamic weather conditions.
A nonisolated buck-boost converter is designed with the com-
ponent values shown in Table II. In simulation setup, switch
S1 and a current sensor frame the arrangement for measuring
short-circuit current of the PV panel. An additional diode is
used to block the input capacitor current during the instant of
short-circuit measurement. The decision about applying gate
pulse to switch S1 is made through intelligent mechanism
governed by stage 1 and limit subroutine.
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.

SHER et al.: NEW SENSORLESS HYBRID MPPT ALGORITHM BASED ON FSCC MEASUREMENT AND P&O MPPT 5

Fig. 7. Result of proposed technique under steady weather conditions (1000 w/m2 at 25 ◦ C).

Fig. 8. MPP tracking of the proposed algorithm with dynamic weather conditions.

A. Steady Weather Condition
The standard testing condition is considered for simulat-
ing steady weather. Values of irradiance and temperature are
1000 W/m2 and 25 ◦ C, respectively. At the start of simulation,
FSCC loop measures short-circuit current; hence, power is zero.
Later on, it attains a satisfactory steady performance. Power
oscillations are small as perturbation step size is 0.003. It is
pertinent to mention that steady weather conditions require only
one measurement of Isc in the beginning. The proposed hybrid
MPPT is compared with [25] and conventional P&O as shown
in Fig. 7. As figure shows, the conventional P&O needs more
time to track MPP, although it does not require measurement
of short-circuit current. The hybrid method presented in [25]
suffers from periodic power loss as a result of Voc measure-
ments. In this simulation, we kept the same sampling time for
the proposed MPPT method by [25] and conventional P&O
MPPT method. In order to simulate impact of step size on track-
ing speed and power oscillations, three different perturbation
step sizes 0.01, 0.03, and 0.005 are applied. For simulation of
[25], the step size is same as the proposed hybrid MPPT.
B. Dynamic Weather Condition
Dynamic weather conditions start from standard testing con-
ditions (1000 W/m2 at 25 ◦ C) after which the irradiation
is dropped to 500 W/m2 at 25 ◦ C and then increased to
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

TABLE III
I DEAL VALUES OF MPP AT D IFFERENT I RRADIANCE L EVELS

Fig. 9. Conceptual diagram about the hardware–software interface.

900 W/m2 at 25 ◦ C as shown in Fig. 8. For comparison,

ideal MPP values at various irradiance levels are provided
in Table III. Fig. 8 shows simulation results under dynamic
weather conditions. It can be observed that whenever limit
subroutine is activated, short circuit happens. However, under
uniform weather conditions where stage 3 is not activated, the
algorithm continues to track MPP using P&O loop (stage 2). It
is pertinent to mention that for this simulation, we kept the same
sampling time for both the proposed [25] and conventional
MPP methods.

VII. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP

An experimental setup was designed to evaluate the proposed
technique. The hardware was directly connected to Simulink
using dSPACE DS1104 embedded card. Fig. 9 shows block
diagram of dSPACE and hardware interface, while actual exper-
imental arrangements are shown in Fig. 10. Irradiation sensor
shown in Fig. 10 is used for logging irradiation data during
experimentation. A buck-boost converter similar to simula- Fig. 10. Experimental arrangement. (a) PV panel. (b) Experimental setup.
tion setup was used for practical confirmation. Current sensing
was accomplished using Hall Effect sensor. As explained in
simulation setup, an extra diode (D1) is connected in series
between PV panel and input capacitor. Experimental arrange-
ments include a single BP-3115 solar panel and a resistor-based
voltage divider network that acts as a voltage sensor and LTS
25-NP Hall Effect current sensor. Data fed to the Simulink pass
through an ADC, low-pass filter, and finally to the control algo-
rithm. Switching frequency noise is eliminated with a suitable
low-pass filter. The output of proposed hybrid algorithm is fed
to the DS1104 block, which generates the switching PWM sig-
nal at desired frequency. PWM signal is then fed to gate driver
that gates the power MOSFET.

Fig. 11. Irradiance data during the experiment.

VIII. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
This experimentation was carried out after mid-day, from
1222 to 1246 h Saudi standard time (SST). Conventional P&O
with two distinct step sizes along with the proposed method
is tested for 8 min each. During the course of experiment, the
irradiation data as shown in Fig. 11 stay almost constant.
Fig. 12 shows the experimental results of the proposed
MPPT. It has three waveforms, which includes the power
extracted using the conventional P&O method using two differ-
ent step sizes and proposed hybrid MPPT method. It is visible
from Fig. 12 that the proposed hybrid MPPT is swift in track-
ing the MPP and has less power oscillations. Furthermore, the
short-circuit current duration is very small which results in very
less power loss.
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
SHER et al.: NEW SENSORLESS HYBRID MPPT ALGORITHM BASED ON FSCC MEASUREMENT AND P&O MPPT
Fig. 12. Experimental comparison of the proposed MPPT and conventional P&O.
TABLE IV
C OMPARISON OF P ROPOSED MPPT AND P&O MPPT
IX. D ISCUSSION
This proposed technique is meant to improve the perfor-
mance of the conventional P&O algorithm under varying envi-
ronmental conditions with reduced sensor count. Instead of
having a fixed initial operating point, this method seeks the
approximate MPP through FSCC and then hunts for exact
MPP using P&O with small step size. Under normal envi-
ronmental conditions, it tracks MPP without isolating the
PV panel as shown in Fig. 7. As seen in Fig. 12, losses
due to Isc measurement are negligible, when compared with
power gain. It is because Isc is not measured frequently
and was, in fact, done just once during the experiment.
Table IV compares proposed and conventional P&O w.r.t com-
ponent count, implementation complexity, and other features
like tracking speed, power oscillations, PV panel dependency,
etc.
7
As given in Table IV, an additional MOSFET is required
to implement the proposed technique. This MOSFET is con-
nected as an auxiliary part and works only when PV module
is isolated for Isc measurement. That is why switching losses
are negligible. It is also evident from simulation results that the
tracking speed of the proposed method is fast. Contrarily, the
P&O method suffers high power oscillations with higher step
size and slow tracking speed for smaller step size. Although
additional MOSFET is turned ON only to measure Isc , it is
desired to have an electro-thermal design of dc–dc converter for
commercial use [26]. Reliability of semiconductor components
used in dc–dc converters depends on various factors including
temperature, voltage stress, environment, constant construction,
and their application [27], [28]. In order to evaluate the mean
time between failures (MTBF) of the proposed system, (2) is
used [27]
MTBF = 1/ (λS1 + λS2 + λD1 + λD2 + λC1 + λC2 + λL )
(2)
where
λS Failure rate of MOSFET where subscript 1 is for switch
S1 and 2 for switch S2 ;
λD Failure rate of diode where subscript 1 is for diode D1
and 2 for diode D2 ;
λC Failure rate of capacitor where subscript 1 is for input
capacitor C1 and 2 for output capacitor C2 ;
λL Failure rate of inductor.
Using military handbook of reliability prediction [29], it is
calculated that MTBF for the proposed system is 0.0341 ×
106 h. Calculated failure rate goes in harmony with harsh and
high-temperature environment in Saudi Arabia. However, it
is satisfied with lifetime of a typical solar PV system [28].
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
TABLE V
E FFICIENCY C OMPARISON OF THE P ROPOSED H YBRID MPPT
AND P&O MPPT
Along with the reliability, using the simulation results, track-
ing efficiency is also calculated using (3) [30] and is shown in
Table V
 t2
Pmppt
η =  t1t2 . (3)
Pactual
t1
X. C ONCLUSION
This paper has proposed and experimentally verified an
improvement in conventional P&O MPPT technique. The pro-
posed improvement intelligently calculates the right time to
isolate PV panel and thus does not need time-based measure-
ment of short-circuit current. In addition, this algorithm does
not need any irradiance/temperature sensor. The merger of con-
ventional FSCC and P&O algorithm simplifies both software
and hardware control of PV systems. Moreover, the track-
ing efficiency is enhanced. The proposed algorithm detects
dynamic weather conditions automatically and continues to
work in stage 2 if conditions are constant. This hybrid MPPT
contributes toward improved stability and power harvesting
from PV modules.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Kannan, K. Leong, R. Osman, H. Ho, and C. Tso, “Life cycle assess-
ment study of solar PV systems: An example of a 2.7 kWp distributed
solar PV system in Singapore,” Solar Energy, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 555–563,
2006.
[2] C. Emmott et al., “Economical assessment of solar electricity from
organic photovoltaic systems,” in Proc. IET Conf. Renewable Power
Gener. (RPG’11), 2011, pp. 1–2.
[3] M. Bazilian et al., “Re-considering the economics of photovoltaic power,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 53, pp. 329–338, 2013.
[4] G. Masson, M. Latour, M. Rekinger, I.-T. Theologitis, and M. Papouts,
“Global market outlook for photovoltaics 2013–2017,” European
Photovoltaics Industry Association, Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
[5] C. Breyer and A. Gerlach, “Global overview on grid-parity,” Prog.
Photovoltaics Res. Appl., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 121–136, 2013.
[6] Z. Liang, R. Guo, J. Li, and A. Q. Huang, “A high-efficiency PV
module integrated dc/dc converter for PV energy harvest in freedom sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 897–909, Mar.
2011.
[7] B. Subudhi and R. Pradhan, “A comparative study on maximum power
point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89–98, Jan. 2013.
[8] T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, “Comparison of photovoltaic array max-
imum power point tracking techniques,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 439–449, Jun. 2007.
[9] A. Reza Reisi, M. Hassan Moradi, and S. Jamasb, “Classification and
comparison of maximum power point tracking techniques for pho-
tovoltaic system: A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 19,
pp. 433–443, 2013.
[10] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, “A review of maximum power point track-
ing techniques of PV system for uniform insolation and partial shading
condition,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 19, pp. 475–488, 2013.
[11] V. Salas, E. Olas, A. Barrado, and A. Lzaro, “Review of the maximum
power point tracking algorithms for stand-alone photovoltaic systems,”
Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 1555–1578, 2006.
[12] D.-Y. Lee, H.-J. Noh, D.-S. Hyun, and I. Choy, “An improved MPPT
converter using current compensation method for small scaled PV appli-
cations,” in Proc. 18th Annu. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. Expo.
(APEC’03), 2003, vol. 1, pp. 540–545.
[13] J. Ahmad, “A fractional open circuit voltage based maximum power point
tracker for photovoltaic arrays,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Softw. Technol.
Eng. (ICSTE), 2010, vol. 1, pp. V1-247–V1-250.
[14] M. Berrera, A. Dolara, R. Faranda, and S. Leva, “Experimental test
of seven widely-adopted MPPT algorithms,” in Proc. IEEE Bucharest
PowerTech, 2009, pp. 1–8.
[15] R. Faranda, S. Leva, and V. Maugeri, “MPPT techniques for PV systems:
Energetic and cost comparison,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen.
Meeting Convers. Deliv. Elect. Energy 21st Century, 2008, pp. 1–6.
[16] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, “Maximum power point tracking scheme for
PV systems operating under partially shaded conditions,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1689–1698, Apr. 2008.
[17] J. Ma et al., “Improving power conversion efficiency via a hybrid MPPT
approach for photovoltaic systems,” Electron. Elect. Eng., vol. 19, no. 7,
pp. 57–60, 2013.
[18] A. Mahdi, W. Tang, and Q. Wu, “Improvement of a MPPT algorithm
for PV systems and its experimental validation,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Renewable Energies Power Qual., Granada, Spain, 2010, pp. 1–6.
[19] J. Ghaisari, M. Habibi, and A. Bakhshai, “An MPPT controller design for
photovoltaic (PV) systems based on the optimal voltage factor tracking,”
in Proc. IEEE Can. Elect. Power Conf. (EPC), 2007, pp. 359–362.
[20] S. K. Kollimalla and M. K. Mishra, “A new adaptive P&O MPPT algo-
rithm based on FSCC method for photovoltaic system,” in Proc. Int. Conf.
Circuits Power Comput. Technol. (ICCPCT), Mar. 2013, pp. 406–411.
[21] G. Aurilio et al., “Fast hybrid MPPT technique for photovoltaic appli-
cations: Numerical and experimental validation,” Adv. Power Electron.,
vol. 2014, pp. 1–15, 2014.
[22] J. Ma et al., “A hybrid MPPT method for photovoltaic systems via esti-
mation and revision method,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits Syst.
(ISCAS), 2013, pp. 241–244.
[23] C. energy. (2013). Datasheet of bp115 Solar Module [Online]. Available:
http://bit.ly/K1tY3p
[24] R. Faranda and S. Leva, “Energy comparison of MPPT techniques for PV
systems,” WSEAS Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 446–455, 2008.
[25] T. Tafticht, K. Agbossou, M. L. Doumbia, and A. Chériti, “An improved
maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic systems,” Renew.
Energy, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1508–1516, Jul. 2008. ISSN 0960-1481.
[26] G. Graditi and G. Adinolfi, “Temperature influence on photovoltaic power
optimizer components reliability,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Power Electron.
Elect. Drives Autom. Motion (SPEEDAM), Jun. 20–22, 2012, pp. 1113–
1118.
[27] G. Graditi and G. Adinolfi, “Energy performances and reliability evalua-
tion of an optimized DMPPT boost converter,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Clean
Elect. Power (ICCEP), 2011, pp. 69–72.
[28] G. Graditi, D. Colonnese, and N. Femia, “Efficiency and reliability
comparison of DC–DC converters for single phase grid connected pho-
tovoltaic inverters,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Power Electron. Elect. Drives
Autom. Motion (SPEEDAM), Jun. 14–16, 2010, pp. 140–147.
[29] Handbook, Military, “Reliability prediction of electronic equipment,”
Dep. Defense, USA, MILHDBK-217F Notice 2.10.1, 1991.
[30] F. Chekired et al., “Intelligent maximum power point trackers for pho-
tovoltaic applications using FPGA chip: A comparative study,” Solar
Energy, vol. 101, pp. 83–99, 2014.
Hadeed Ahmed Sher (S’14) received the B.Sc.
degree in electrical engineering from Bahauddin
Zakaria University, Multan, Pakistan, in 2005, and
the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore,
Pakistan, in 2008. He is currently pursuing the
Ph.D. degree at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.
His research interests include grid connected solar
photovoltaic systems, maximum power point track-
ing, and power electronics.
 Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforinclusioninafutureissueofthisjournal.Contentisfinalaspresented,withtheexceptionofpagination.
SHER et al.: NEW SENSORLESS HYBRID MPPT ALGORITHM BASED ON FSCC MEASUREMENT AND P&O MPPT
Ali Faisal Murtaza received the B.Sc. degree from
the National University of Sciences and Technology
(NUST), Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the M.Sc. degree
from the University of Engineering and Technology
(UET), Lahore, Pakistan, and the Ph.D. degree from
the Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy.
He is currently working as an Assistant Professor
with the Faculty of Engineering (Electrical),
University of Central Punjab (UCP), Lahore,
Pakistan. He is a supervisor of a research group
“Efficient Electrical Energy Systems” at UCP. He
has authored/coauthored several research articles in leading journals and
conferences of his field. His research interests include the design of standalone
solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, maximum power point trackers for PV
systems, and partial shading effects.
Abdullah Noman, photograph and biography not available at the time of
publication.
Khaled E. Addoweesh (S’85–M’87–SM’14)
received the B.Sc. degree from King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1981, and the Ph.D. degree
from the University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K., in
1986, both in electrical engineering.
Since 1999, he has been a Professor with King
Saud University. His research interests include power
electronics and its applications such as renewable
energy integration, PV systems, and adjustable speed
drives.
9
Kamal Al-Haddad (S’82–M’88–SM’92–F’07)
received the B.Sc.A. and M.Sc.A. degrees from
the University of Québec à Trois-Rivières,
Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada, in 1982 and 1984,
respectively, in the field of electrical engineering and
power electronics, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from the Institut National Polytechnique,
Toulouse, France, in 1988.
Since June 1990, he has been a Professor with
the Department of Electrical Engineering, École
de Technologie Supérieure (ETS), Montréal, QC,
Canada, where he has been the holder of the senior Canada Research Chair
on Electrical Energy Conversion and Power Electronics since 2002. He has
supervised more than 150 Ph.D. and M.Sc.A. students working in the field of
power electronics, for various industrial systems, including modeling, simula-
tion, control, and packaging of 21 industrial prototypes transferred to industry.
He is a coauthor of more than 400 transactions and conference papers.
Dr. Al-Haddad is a fellow member of the Canadian Academy of
Engineering, IES Vice President Technical Activities, IEEE T RANSACTIONS
ON I NDUSTRIAL I NFORMATICS Associate Editor, and Director of ETS-
GREPCI research group.
Marcello Chiaberge is Assistant Professor with the Department of Electronics
and Telecommunications, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. He is also Vice-
Director of Politecnico di Torino Mechatronics Lab, Turin, Italy, and is
responsible and coordinator of the Electronics Group. He is author of more
than 90 articles accepted in international conferences and reviews and is coau-
thor of 10 international patents. His research interests include are hardware
implementation of neural networks and fuzzy systems, design and imple-
mentation of reconfigurable computing architectures for hard-real-time control
systems, design and implementation of hybrid control systems based on pro-
grammable state-of-the-art devices (DSP and FPGA), and implementation of
fault-tolerance communication networks based on plastic optical fibers (POFs).
Another research field is the design and implementation of non-conventional
power stages based on SiC devices for special functions in automotive,
industrial, green energy, and space applications