8th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Brasov, ROMANIA, Nov.

3-6, 2019

A low cost maximum power point tracker with the

hybrid algorithm that uses temperature measurement
Janusz
Mroczka
Wroclaw
University
of
Science
and
Technology
Chair
of
Electronic
and
Photonic
Metrology

Boleslawa
Prusa
53/55,
50-317
Wroclaw,
Poland
janusz.mroczka@pwr.edu.pl
Mariusz
Ostrowski
Wroclaw
University
of
Science
and
Technology
Chair
of
Electronic
and
Photonic
Metrology

Boleslawa
Prusa
53/55,
50-317
Wroclaw,
Poland
mariusz.ostrowski@pwr.edu.pl

Abstract—In this paper a low cost maximum power point

tracker is tested in a simulations and in the testing environment.
The device consists of a regular integrated dc-dc converter,
MSP430 microcontroller with a special maximum power point
tracking algorithm built in. The algorithm uses temperature
measurement to increase the tracking speed and allows to track
the global maximum power point in partial shading conditions.
Additionally, the implemented method is adaptative that allows
to use any solar panel and provide correct tracking property
with the change of the solar parameters.

Index Terms—maximum power point tracker; maximum

power point tracking algorithm; temperature measurement;
adaptative maximum power point algorithm

I. I NTRODUCTION
Photovoltaic panels (PV) have low efficiency and non-linear
output characteristics, Figs. 1a and 1b. A direct connection
to the most of devices is impossible due to the voltage
difference and, in some applications, can cause power loses.
Therefore, special devices called maximum power point (MPP) (a)
trackers (MPPT) must be used to adjust the output voltage to
ensure that the PV panel works in their MPP. This device
consists of a regular dc-dc converter (usually a step up or
a flyback converter in grid connected systems and a step
down or a SEPIC converters in stand alone systems) and a
microcontroller to control MOSFET or the IGBT switches
in converters. Additionally, microcontroller’s built in software
provide tracking of the MPP of the photovoltaic palnels.
Salas et. al. [1] divided those algorithms into two groups: the
indirect and the direct algorithms.
The indirect algorithms (”quasi seeking“) - are algorithms
that use mathematical equations or the solar panel properties to
determine the MPP position). The look up table method, frac-
tional open circuit (OC) voltage (OCV) method [2], fractional
short circuit (SC) current (SCC) method [2] can be included (b)
in this group [1].
Fig. 1: The output characteristics of photovoltaic panel a) in
The direct algorithms (”true seeking“) uses the voltage, the
uniform illumination condition, b) in partial shading condi-
current, the illumination and/or the temperature measurement
tions.
and on its base constantly change operating point of the PV
to track the position of the MPP. Most of the commonly

This work was supported by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher

Education (049M/0003/19)

ICRERA 2019 
ª
*&&& 445

8th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
used methods [2], [3] are the direct methods, like perturb and
observe (P&O) [4] or modified P&O methods [5]–[7], fuzzy-
logic [8], swarm optimization [9], coocko search [10] can be
included in this group.
Ishaque et. al. [11] proposed another categorisation. The
conventional algorithms (almost all of methods classified by
Salas) and the hybrid methods. The hybrid algorithms can not
be included in the groups created by Salas and they are a
separate group of algorithms. An example of algorithms in
this group can be the multiple divided open circuit voltage
method developed by Patel et. al. [12]. The indirect method is
used to estimate positions of the local MPPs. The point with
maximum power is set as the starting point of the regular
P&O algorithm. By using both algorithms this method can
track position of the global MPP (GMPP).
II. M AXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKER
A. Hybrid maximum power point tracking algorithm
The developed method is a hybrid method. It uses two
subroutines to estimate the position of the GMPP. The block
diagram of the method is shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: The block diagram of the developed MPP method.
The OCV-based subroutine uses the temperature measure-
ment. It is started in the partial shading conditions [13]. The
OC voltage depends on the temperature mainly [14]. There-
fore, the OC voltage can by estimated by the measurement of
the temperature of the PV module according to the equation:
VOC = VOC,ST C + KΔT, (1)
where VOC,ST C is the OC voltage in standard test conditions
(STC), K is the OC voltage coefficient and ΔT is the differ-
ence between STC temperature and the panel temperature.
The MPP voltage is proportional to the OCV. Therefore, the
MPP value can be estimated by equation:
VM P P = kV (VOC,ST C + KΔT ), (2)
where kV is the constant coefficient (between 0.7 and 0.9
depends on PV panel).
ICRERA 2019
Brasov, ROMANIA, Nov. 3-6, 2019
Each of the local MPPs (LMPP) voltage can be estimated
using equation:
N

VLM P P,n = VM P P, i, (3)
i=1
where N is the count of the series connected PV modules with
bypass diodes in the PV panel and VLM P P,k is the n-th local
MPP voltage.
If instead of using constant proportionality coefficients the
proportionality curve will be used the n-th LMPP can by
calculated using equation:
N

VLM P P,n = T F (Tn ), (4)
i=1
where T F (x) is the temperature-voltage proportionality func-
tion, and Tn is the temperature of the n-th solar module.
The block diagram of OCV-based MPPT method subroutine
is presented in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3: The block diagram of OCV-based subroutine.
The subroutine starts with measuring temperature of each
solar module. If every measured temperature is in the propor-
tionality function coefficients range, n-th LMPP is calculated
using Eq. 4. Then for each calculated point current is measured
and the power is calculated. Next the variable step size P&O
method is running through the point with the highest power.
Subroutine stops after the step size is smaller than  (in the
simulations and test 1% of the initial step size).
If the temperature is outside proportionality curve co-
efficient range the constant step search method developed
by Koutroulis [15] is used. The operating point voltage is
increased by constant step and for each point the current
is measured and the power is calculated. The point with
maximum power is set as the starting point of the regular
variable step size P&O method.
The SCC-based subroutine is started in uniform illumination
conditions. The SCC value is proportional to the illumination
value. Additionally, the MPP current is proportional to the
SCC value,
IM P P = kI ISCC , (5)
446
8th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
where kI is the constant coefficient (between 0.8 and 0.95
depends on PV panel). If constant coefficient will be replaced
by proportionality function, the position of the MPP can be
estimated using equation:
IM P P = IF (E), (6)
where IF (x) is the illumination-current proportionality func-
tion, and E is the illumination value.
The SCC-based subroutine block diagram is shown in
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4: The block diagram of SCC-based subroutine.
On the beginning of subroutine the illumination is measured.
If its value is in range of the proportionality function the MPP
current value is estimated. Next the variable step size P&O
method is running through this operating point. Subroutine
stops after the step size is smaller than  (in the simulations
and tests 1% of the initial step size). If the illumination value
is not in the range of the proportionality function the constant
step size search method is running similarly to the OCV-based
method.
After the SCC-based subroutine is ended the temperature-
voltage and illumination-current functions coefficients are
updated. It allows to connect any of the PV panel to the
MPP tracker that uses this maximum power point method.
Additionally, any changes in parameters of the PV modules
are quickly adapted.
B. Integrated dc-dc converter
The regular integrated dc-dc converter like APE1707 or
MC34063 provides output voltage regulation using feedback
from the simple voltage divider. It can be seen in Fig. 5a.
It is possible to track the MPP of the photovoltaic panel by
using the op-amp differential amplifier. The simple modifica-
tion of typical integrated dc-dc converter circuit is presented
in Fig. 5b.
The input voltage is divided by the voltage divider R6, R7
and transmitted trough the voltage follower into the invert-
ing input of the differential amplifier. The reference voltage
generated by the PWM signal or by the DAC output of
microcontroller (resistor R5 and capacitor C1 are not needed
ICRERA 2019
Brasov, ROMANIA, Nov. 3-6, 2019
(a)
(b)
Fig. 5: The APE1707 blok diagrams: a) APE1707 typical
application note block diagram, b) modification of the typical
application of the regular integrated dc-dc converter.
when DAC is used) is transmitted to the non-inverting input
of the differential amplifier. The output signal is connected
to the feedback input of the integrated dc-dc converter. This
modification allows to use any integrated dc-dc converter to
use in MPP tracker.
A hardware implementation of modified dc-dc converter is
presented in Fig. 6.
The microcontroller can use any of MPPT algorithms.
The implementation of developed method allows to launch
developed method in two operating modes. The first one uses
only temperature sensors data if the illumination sensor is not
present in the circuit. When the PV panel voltage, current
or power changed only the OCV-based subroutine is running.
This make algorithm much slower in uniform illumination.
The tracking property for partial shading conditions are the
same. The second mode uses all sensor data to provide better
searching performance if the illumination sensor is connected.
Both digital and analog temperature sensors can be used. In
the tests the digital DS18B20 temperature sensors was used.
The illumination was measured by the regular photoresistor
with the software temperature compensation.
The power circuit unit draws energy directly from the PV
panel. It provides all necessary voltages for microcontroller
and all peripherals including current and voltage measurement
circuits and differential amplifier circuit in a wide range of
input voltage changes. The minimal voltage for the power
supply start is 5V for presented device. By using the MSP430
family microcontroller the power consumption for presented
447
8th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Brasov, ROMANIA, Nov. 3-6, 2019

(a)

Fig. 6: The APE1707 based MPP tracker: A - the APE1707

based step down converter, B - the MSP430AFE253 microcon-
troller, C - the power circuit unit, D - the voltage and current
measurement circuits, E - the differential amplifier circuit.

device is below 200mW.

III. T EST RESULTS
The MPP tracker was tested using the photovoltaic panel
model. The model allows to simulate any illumination and
temperature conditions for the panel consisting of 3 photo-
voltaic modules. Each module parameters are shown in table
(b)
Fig. 7: The oscillograms of current and voltage of PV out-
put using a) regular perturb and observe method, b) hybrid
algorithm.

TABLE I: The PV module model parameters at STC. for hybrid method than for the regular perturb and observe
method. The seeking time depends mainly on the count of
Parameter Designation Value photovoltaic modules (with bypass diode) in series.
Power at MPP PM P P 4W
Voltage at MPP VM P P 11.6V
In 50s the shading covered 40% of the solar panel. The
Current at MPP IM P P 0.34A perturb and observe method tracks the local MPP. The hybrid
OC voltage VOC 14.5V algorithm finds the global MPP correctly. The initial tracking
SC current ISC 0.38A error does not achieve 6%.
All tests were performed for 50 similar lighting and tem-
The exemplary characteristics for uniform illumination and perature values. The differences were made deliberately to
partial shading conditions for the used device are shown in improve the accuracy of the power measurement. The averaged
Figs. 1a and 1b. The voltage and current were measured test results are presented in table II. In the test four commonly
using the Rigol oscilloscope (for timing reads), a voltmeter
and an amp-meter with 16-bit analog to digital converters (for TABLE II: The averaged test results for choosen MPPT meth-
measurement of voltage and current). ods for uniform illumination and partial shading conditions
On the beginning, the illumination is equal for whole panel.
After the tracker was plugged in the output, voltage of PV MPPT Test results
Method The regular The partial Enery
changed, Figs. 7a, 7b. illumination shading
The initial seeking error is below 5% which makes this regular OCV 5 cycle 0,3s tracking error 0,235Wh
algorithm fast and accurate. The final error is smaller than variable step P&O 70 cycle 4s tracking error 0,264Wh
1%. The searching time for the hybrid method is 100ms and constant step [15] 56 cycle 3,2s 61 cycle 3,7s 0,267Wh
multiple OCV [12] 46 cycle 2,9s 91 cycle 5,6s 0,273Wh
for the P&O method is 8s using the same sampling time for Developed method 9 cycle 0,6s 22 cycle 1,8s 0,277Wh
both methods. The searching time is almost 80 times shorter

ICRERA 2019 448

8th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
used method is compared with developed method. All test
were performed for the same illumination and temperature
conditions and the same time (100s). All algorithms were
implemented in the same hardware with the same properties
including the sampling frequency, the sampling resolution and
the operating frequency.
It can be seen that developed method has seeking time
compared with regular OCV method but it can search the max-
imum power point in partial shading conditions. Additionally,
is less complex when comparing to the methods developed by
Koutroulis [15] or Patel [12] not to even mention about the
neutral networks, the genetic or the biological methods. In all
tests the seeking time compared to hybrid methods was 5-10
times shorter in uniform illumination conditions and 2-4 times
shorter in partial shading conditions.
During tests the developed method is characterized by
highest efficiency of MPP tracking. The energy given to the
load was 2% higher comparing to the method developed by
Patel [12] during all tests.
The developed algorithm is adaptative and needs few illu-
mination and temperature changes to adapt to new solar panel.
All tests were proved for fully configured algorithm. During
the adaptation process its efficiency can be compered to the
method developed by Koutroulis [15].
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
Simulations and tests proved that presented maximum
power point tracking algorithm tracks the global MPP cor-
rectly even in quickly changing environmental conditions
which makes it an accurate algorithm for MPP tracking. The
tracking speed increases almost eighty times compared to the
regular P&O method. Additionally, it can be implemented in
a low cost maximum power point tracker.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Salas, E. Olias, A. Barrado, and A. Lazaro, “Review of the maximum
power point tracking algorithms for stand-alone photovoltaic systems,”
Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, 2006.
ICRERA 2019
Brasov, ROMANIA, Nov. 3-6, 2019
[2] M. Dris and B. A. Djilani, “Comparative study of algorithms (mppt)
applied to photovoltaic systems,” International Journal of Renewable
Energy Research (IJRER), vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 872–879, 2013.
[3] X. Li, H. Wen, and Y. Hu, “Evaluation of different maximum power
point tracking (mppt) techniques based on practical meteorological data,”
in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Renewable Energy Research
and Applications (ICRERA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 696–701.
[4] A. Ballaji, B. Divakar, N. Hediyal, R. P. Mandi, and K. N. Swamy,
“Energy efficient perturb and observe maximum power point algorithm
with moving average filter for photovoltaic systems,” International
Journal of Renewable Energy Research, vol. 9, no. 1, 2019.
[5] M. A. Abdourrziq, M. Ouassaid, and M. Maaroufi, “Single-sensor based
mppt for photovoltaic systems,” International Journal of Renewable
Energy Research (IJRER), vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 570–579, 2016.
[6] A. Ali, A. N. Hasan, and T. Marwala, “Perturb and observe based
on fuzzy logic controller maximum power point tracking (mppt),” in
2014 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and
Application (ICRERA). IEEE, 2014, pp. 406–411.
[7] M. A. Abdourraziq, M. Ouassaid, M. Maaroufi, and S. Abdourraziq,
“Modified p&o mppt technique for photovoltaic systems,” in 2013 In-
ternational Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
(ICRERA). IEEE, 2013, pp. 728–733.
[8] Y. Soufi, M. Bechouat, S. Kahla, and K. Bouallegue, “Maximum power
point tracking using fuzzy logic control for photovoltaic system,” in
2014 International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and
Application (ICRERA), Oct 2014, pp. 902–906.
[9] E. Mostafa and N. K. Bahgaat, “A comparison between using a firefly
algorithm and a modified pso technique for stability analysis of a
pv system connected to grid,” International Journal of Smart Grid-
ijSmartGrid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2017.
[10] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A maximum power point tracking (mppt) for
pv system using cuckoo search with partial shading capability,” Applied
Energy, vol. 119, pp. 118–130, 2014.
[11] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, “A review of maximum power point tracking
techniques of pv system for uniform insolation and partial shading
condition,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 19, pp.
475 – 488, 2013.
[12] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, “Maximum power point tracking scheme for pv
systems operating under partially shaded conditions,” IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1689–1698, April 2008.
[13] J. Mroczka and M. Ostrowski, “A hybrid maximum power point search
method using temperature measurements in partial shading conditions,”
Metrology and Measurement Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 733–740, 2014.
[14] M. H. Moradi and A. R. Reisi, “A hybrid maximum power point tracking
method for photovoltaic systems,” Solar Energy, vol. 85, no. 11, pp.
2965 – 2976, 2011.
[15] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, “A new technique for tracking the global
maximum power point of pv arrays operating under partial-shading
conditions,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184–190,
April 2012.
449