Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A novel MPPT method for PV systems with irradiance measurement

Ángel-Antonio Bayod-Rújula ⇑, José-Antonio Cebollero-Abián
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Zaragoza C, Maria de Luna 3, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain

Received 3 April 2014; received in revised form 30 July 2014; accepted 7 August 2014
Available online 7 September 2014

Communicated by: Associate Editor Arturo Morales-Acevedo

Abstract

Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) is needed in a photovoltaic system to ensure the operation in the Maximum Power Point
(MPP), maximizing the generated energy. Many MPPT techniques have been developed. Perturbation and observation, as well as incre-
mental conductance, are by far the most widely used because of their simplicity. However, they have some weak points and problems that
affect their efficiency, especially under rapid irradiance changes and partial shading. This paper proposes a novel MPPT method which
can be implemented in PV (photovoltaic) inverters and charge controllers. The most innovative feature is the presence of photodiodes as
irradiance sensors. Thanks to irradiance measurement, the proposed method can recognize problematic scenarios and execute specific
algorithms to prevent malfunction under these situations. The MPPT method has been theoretically analyzed; efficiency results are
shown in comparison with standard techniques, which verify its feasibility.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: MPPT simulator; Partial shading; PV efficiency; MATLAB–Simulink; Photovoltaic energy

1. Introduction environment pollution. If it does not change soon, we will

World energy consumption is growing every day, and
natural resources are limited. Nowadays most of the
consumed energy is obtained from fossil fuels, causing
Abbreviations: a1, Ideality factor of the 1st diode in the two diodes model;
a2, Ideality factor of the 2nd diode. in the two diodes model; DC, Direct
Current; DSP, Digital Signal Processor; FPGA, Field Programmable Gate
Arrays; IMPP, Current at MPP (A); ISC, Short-circuit current (A); MPPT,
Maximum Power Point Tracking; MPP, Maximum Power Point; Ns,
Number of solar cells connected in series in the panel; PV, Photovoltaic;
Rs, Series resistance (X); Rp, Parallel resistance (X); STC, Standard Test
Conditions; VMPP, Voltage at MPP (V); VOC, Open-circuit voltage (V); a,
Temperature coefficient of ISC (A/°C); b, Temperature coefficient of VOC
(V/°C).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 976761920; fax: +34 976762226.
E-mail addresses: aabayod@unizar.es (Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula), joseac@
unizar.es (J.-A. Cebollero-Abián).
run out of energy sources and there will be energy shortage.
Therefore, we need sustainable energy sources, such as
solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or biomass. Solar photovol-
taic power generation has a very powerful potential,
because of the absence of fuel cost, the scalability in power
and the simplicity and little maintenance required by PV
systems. The amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s
surface in a year is thousand times the energy consumed
in this period of time. Worldwide PV installed capacity
has rapidly increased in the last decade. It is expected that
in the future a remarkable percentage of the world’s energy
consumption will be obtained from photovoltaic systems
(Solar Generation VI, 2011).
A photovoltaic system consists of solar PV modules,
electronic converters, batteries (in some applications), a
control circuit and the load or the grid. The output I–V

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.08.017
0038-092X/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
96 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104
characteristics of solar cells depend especially on irradiance
and temperature. One of the objectives of the control cir-
cuit is to reach and keep the maximum power point, which
is known as Maximum Power Point Tracking. MPPT can
be implemented in a DC–DC converter, which is usually
included in PV inverters. There are also charge controllers
with MPPT technology, for stand-alone systems.
Many MPPT techniques have been developed. Constant
voltage, fractional open-circuit voltage (VOC), perturbation
and observation, incremental conductance, neural net-
works or fuzzy logic are some of the most used ones
(Esram and Chapman, 2007; Faranda et al., 2008; Reisi
et al., 2013; Bhatnagar and Nema, 2013; Eltawil and
Zhao, 2013; Salam et al., 2013). They can be classified into
two groups: direct methods and indirect methods. Direct
methods use the output power of the PV system as feed-
back to search the MPP. Indirect methods measure other
magnitudes, such as the short-circuit current, the open-
circuit voltage or the temperature of the modules.
The most basic methods do not give very good MPPT
performance. More sophisticated methods can provide bet-
ter results, but they are more complex and more expensive.
The most important problems of these four MPPT meth-
ods are malfunction with partial shading, wrong tracking
direction, power oscillations around MPP, bad working
with low irradiance and interruptions in the power
generation.
Partial shading produces multi-peak output P–V curves.
Many direct MPPT algorithms, such as perturbation and
observation, are designed to reach the nearest local maxi-
mum, but they do not analyze and compare all peaks to
determine the true MPP (Min et al., 2011; Ishaque and
Salam, 2013). Some approaches to this problem can be
found in the literature (Qi et al., 2014; Bouilouta et al.,
2013; Syafaruddin et al., 2012), but the majority of them
require complex and expensive electronic devices to be
implemented. Economy and simplicity are a key factor in
small and/or distributed PV systems, so that complex
methods are not suitable in practice.
Wrong tracking direction problem only happens in
direct methods, such as perturbation and observation or
incremental conductance (Salas et al., 2006; Tey and
Mekhile, 2014). Under changing irradiance conditions,
the difference in the output power between one sample
and the previous one is due to two factors: the voltage per-
turbation and the irradiance variation. When irradiance
varies rapidly, there is no evidence to determine whether
the main factor is the change of irradiance or the voltage
perturbation. In some geographical areas, irradiance
changes are very common. Therefore, it is very important
to tackle this problem to get an optimal MPPT efficiency,
especially in cloudy days when solar resource is scarce.
Perturbation and observation operates periodically
incrementing or decrementing the output voltage of the
PV array. This method can result in oscillations in the
power output, due to the fact that the voltage is continu-
ously changing between three values in steady state
(Mamarelis et al., 2014). With a lower voltage step this fluc-
tuation decreases and the MPP can be located more accu-
rately. However, the tracking speed decreases and other
problems like wrong tracking direction are more prone to
appear. Therefore, the voltage step size should be adjusted
to allow a balance between transient state and steady state.
Direct methods do not work properly with low irradi-
ance. In these conditions the P–V characteristic curve is
too flat, and little irradiance changes or even the ripple in
the measured signals can confuse the algorithm.
The measurement of some magnitudes, like short-circuit
current or open-circuit voltage, requires the interruption of
the power generation. A pilot cell can be used to avoid
these interruptions, but it is an expensive solution (Esram
and Chapman, 2007). In addition, the accuracy may be
low because each PV cell is slightly different due especially
to the manufacturing processes.
Several papers available in the literature propose opti-
mized MPPT techniques. Unfortunately, most of these
techniques have a limited field of practical applicability
because they require high computational power, expensive
hardware resources, high quality measurement sensors
and/or high performance digital controllers. Consequently,
in real commercial applications in which cost, size and
weight are the main constraints, many complex methods
presented in literature are not being used (Mamarelis
et al., 2014).
Moreover, in the literature very few MPPT methods
with irradiance measurement have been proposed. In
(Faranda et al., 2008) the temperature parametric equa-
tion method is explained; it is an indirect technique in
which irradiance and temperature measures are used to
estimate the MPP voltage. The pilot cell technique
(Esram and Chapman, 2007) is an indirect method in
which the irradiance is not directly measured. A small
pilot cell with the same characteristics as the panels is used
to estimate the open-circuit voltage or the short-circuit
current of the PV panels without stopping the power
generation.
In this paper, a new MPPT method is proposed. The
most innovative feature of this proposed MPPT method
is the presence of photodiodes as irradiance sensors. Their
information allows the algorithm to work properly regard-
less the climatic conditions. A PV system has been modeled
and a computer application has been designed to simulate
the behavior of MPPT techniques, using real measures of
irradiance and temperature. Four well-known MPPT
methods have been tested:
1: Fixed voltage (indirect method)
2: Fractional VOC (indirect method)
3: Perturbation and observation (direct method)
4: Incremental conductance (direct method)
The simulation results have verified that the proposed
method can provide better efficiency figures than most of
the standard techniques.
 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104
2. Proposed MPPT method
As mentioned above, some of the problems in MPPT
are caused by irradiance changes and partial shading.
The proposed MPPT system is equipped with photodiodes;
this kind of sensor is simple and economical. However, its
response is vague and non-linear. Thanks to the photodi-
odes, the MPPT system can detect partial shading, the level
of irradiance and rapid changes of irradiance.
The proposed method has the following features:
2.1. Partial shading detection
In the proposed MPPT method, each PV panel is pro-
vided with some photodiodes. One sensor by PV panel is
enough if they are properly distributed, although two or
more could improve the detection of partial shading.
A single-panel PV system would need at least two sensors,
one in each side of the panel. If partial shading appears,
there are three possibilities:
Case (1): The shadow covers some photodiodes of the
PV system, but not all of them.
Case (2): The shadow does not cover any photodiode.
Case (3): The shadow covers all of the photodiodes.
In the first case, illustrated in Fig. 1, partial shading con-
dition can be detected immediately. Significant differences
between the response of the photodiodes prove partial
shading unequivocally.
In the second case in which none of the photodiodes are
covered, represented in Fig. 2, partial shading can also be
detected. An abnormally low steady output power, com-
pared with the irradiance measured through the sensors,
is a clear evidence of partial shading. A very accurate mea-
surement of the irradiance is not necessary, because par-
tially shaded PV arrays generate much less power than
when they are fully illuminated. A lookup table has been
implemented to check in real time if the PV system gener-
ates as much power as expected, according to the level of
irradiance measured by the photodiodes. The highest out-
put of all irradiance sensors is taken into account in this
estimation.
Fig. 1. The shadow covers three of six photodiodes.
97
Fig. 2. The shadow does not cover any photodiode.
The third case corresponds to the worst case scenario, in
which partial shading could not be detected. For this rea-
son, it is highly desirable to install at least as many photo-
diodes as solar modules and distribute them properly.
2.2. Partial shading P–V output curves analysis
In order to locate the true MPP in partial shading con-
ditions, the proposed MPPT method executes the analysis
of the whole PV output curve.
Firstly, when partial shading is detected, the method
waits for 30 s, to check if the shadow is transient or
permanent.
If partial shading continues, the open-circuit voltage of
the array is measured. Later, discrete measures along the
P–V curve are taken. The region very close to 0 V is
skipped, because in this area of the curve measures are
not accurate due to the internal resistance of the cells.
The voltage increase between one measure and the next
one is determined by the open-circuit voltage, taken in
the first step of this process. Ten points measured along
the P–V curve are usually enough to find the region which
contains the MPP of a partially shaded PV array, even with
complex shading patterns like the illustrated in Fig. 3.
Finally, a direct technique, such as perturbation and
observation, is launched. The initial voltage is established
where the output power measured in the previous step
has been the highest; thereby perturbation and observation
raises the nearest local maximum, which should be the
global maximum.
The analysis of the whole output P–V curve is executed
every 180 s if partial shading continues. The power genera-
tion of the PV system is slightly affected during this
process, which lasts less than one second. An important
advantage of the proposed MPPT method is that the full
analysis of the P–V curve is not carried out unless partial
shading is detected through the photodiodes.
2.3. Variable voltage step size
The size of the voltage step in direct MPPT techniques
strongly determines the accuracy and the tracking speed.
98 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104

Fig. 3. Analysis of a P–V curve with partial shading.

When the operating point is far from the MPP, a high volt-
age step is advisable in order to reach it quickly and avoid
the wrong tracking direction problem. However, after
reaching the MPP, a low voltage step size provides better
accuracy and reduces unwanted oscillations (Al-Diab and
Sourkounis, 2010).
The proposed method can choose the voltage step size
between two fixed values (Mellit et al., 2011; Yang and
Zhao, 2011). Some techniques have a completely variable
step size. However, the simulations results obtained in this
work have shown that two step values are enough; a high
one when the working point is far from the MPP and a
low one when the MPP has been reached. The voltage step
can take two values, 0.4 V and 0.2 V; it is chosen according
to DP/DV between the current sample and the previous
one.
In order to determine whether choose the high or the
low voltage step, the slope of the P–V curve is evaluated.
In this curve, the closer to the MPP, the lower the absolute
value of the slope. The proposed method chooses the low
voltage step if the slope is smaller than a threshold value;
which means that the MPP is close. Otherwise, the high
step size is used.
As mentioned, the slope of the P–V output also depends
on the irradiance over the surface of the panels; the curve
becomes flatter if that magnitude decreases. Therefore in
the proposed method the threshold value of the slope is
not a fixed value, it is directly proportional to the
irradiance calculated through the arithmetic mean of the
response of all photodiodes.
2.4. Combination of techniques
Fig. 4 contains the flowchart witch summarizes the
proposed MPPT method.
As mentioned, direct MPPT methods do not work
properly with very low irradiance. Indirect methods can
provide better efficiency under these circumstances.
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the proposed method.
The proposed method changes between two different
techniques, depending on the level of irradiance. A pertur-
bation and observation based algorithm with variable volt-
age step size is used when the irradiance is above 200 W/m2
and partial shading has not been detected. Fractional VOC
is used when the irradiance is below 200 W/m2 and partial
shading has not been detected. Thanks to the combination
of techniques, the proposed method covers the whole irra-
diation range with excellent performance.
The irradiance in each MPPT step is calculated as the
arithmetic mean of the response of all photodiodes. In
practice, the threshold will not be exactly 200 W/m2, due
to the uncertainty in the response of the sensors. In
addition, hysteresis has been set to avoid repetitive and
undesired changes of technique.
The proportionality constant of the fractional VOC
method is kv = 0.8; this value has been chosen in order to
maximize the efficiency of the MPPT method during the
whole year. The open-circuit voltage is measured every
120 s while fractional VOC is being executed.
Even with high irradiance, the proposed method
measures the open-circuit voltage before launching
 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104 99

perturbation and observation. Thanks to this information, other parameters (Orioli and Gangi, 2012). The ideality
the initial operating point of this technique can be set close factors of the diodes a1 and a2 are chosen according to
to the MPP, decreasing the time taken to reach it. After fin- the characteristics of the PV panel. These constants express
ishing a partial shading situation, the measurement of the the degree of ideality of the diodes, which affect the curva-
open-circuit voltage is also executed before launching per- ture of the I–V curve. Some researchers have discussed
turbation and observation. ways to estimate the correct value of these constants, it is
usually assumed that a1 = 1 and 1 6 a2 6 2 (Tian et al.,
3. PV system model and MPPT simulation 2012).
The following expression represents the output current
Solar cells consist of a PN junction made of semiconduc- of a PV cell. This equation must be solved using numerical
tor material, usually silicon. Solar irradiance is directly iterative methods, because neither IPV nor VPV can be
converted into electricity through the photovoltaic effect isolated on one side of the equal sign. If VPV is known,
(Luque and Hegedus, 2003). The output I–V curves of IPV can be calculated, and vice versa.
PV modules depend mainly of the irradiance that reaches I PV ¼ I PVgen  I D1 ðV PV ; I PV Þ  I D2 ðV PV ; I PV Þ
the cells and the temperature of them.  
V PV þ I PV  Rs
A PV panel can be modeled from the physics of a PN  ð1Þ
Rp
junction (Saloux et al., 2011; Celik and Acikgoz, 2007).
The simplest equivalent circuit of a PV module is composed The equation of the photogenerated current can be
by a current source and a diode in parallel. This model is mathematically expressed as follows. G and T are respec-
known as Ideal Model, Single-diode Model or No Resistor tively the irradiance and the cell temperature.
Model. One of its parameters is the diode ideality factor, G
which takes into account the diffusion current of PV cells. I PVgen ¼ ðI SC þ aðT  T STC ÞÞ ð2Þ
GSTC
The Series Resistor Model, by far the most widely used
in simulation, includes a series resistor Rs; and the Two The equations of the diodes are shown. I01 and I02 are
Resistor Model, also called One Diode Model, includes the reverse saturation currents of diode 1 and diode 2.
both a series Rs and a parallel resistor Rp. The number of    
V PV þ I PV  Rs
parameters increases and the computational requirements I D1 ¼ I 01 exp 1 ð3Þ
a1 V T
are higher (Bennett et al., 2012). The series resistor repre-
sents internal losses due to the current flow; whereas the The thermal voltage of Ns cells connected in series is
parallel or shunt resistor represents some leakage current given by this expression, in which q is the electron charge
inside the PV cell. (q = 1.602176  1019 C) and k is the Boltzmann constant
In this work the Two Diode Model, a more advanced (k = 1.3806503  1023 J/K)
equivalent circuit, is used. This model, shown in Fig. 5, is Ns  k  T
similar to the Two Resistor Model but with two diodes VT ¼ ð4Þ
q
in parallel. The second diode represents the recombination
losses in the depletion region. This model has better accu- The reverse saturation current of a diode can be calcu-
racy, especially in the region close to VOC and when irradi- lated as follows. Eg is the band gap energy of the semicon-
ance or temperature is far from standard test conditions ductor and I0STC is the nominal saturation current at STC.
(STC) (Ishaque et al., 2011a,b). On the other hand, the  3   
T STC q  Eg 1 1
computational cost is significantly higher. I 0 ¼ I 0STC exp  ð5Þ
T a  k T STC T
The model uses these PV panel parameters, given for
STC (TSTC = 25 °C, GSTC = 1000 W/m2): VOC, ISC, VMPP, A more optimized equation has been taken, based on
IMPP, a, b, Ns, Rs, Rp, a1 y a2. (Ishaque et al., 2011a,b):
The first seven parameters are usually shown in the I SC þ aðT  T STC Þ
datasheet of the PV panel. Rs and Rp can be estimated from I 01 ¼   ð6Þ
exp V OC þbðT T STC Þ
a1 V T
1

Rs and Rp are required to match the output curve calcu-

lated by the simulation tool with the STC curve provided
by the manufacturer of the PV panel. The points that are
used are the Maximum Power Point, short circuit current
and open circuit voltage.
The iteration process starts with the value Rs0 = 0. Rp is
estimated from Eq. (7), and only in this first step Rp0 is
obtained from Eq. (8). This expression is based in the
difference of slope between the left side and the right side
Fig. 5. Two diode PV model. of the output curve of a PV panel.
100 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104

With the values of Rs and Rp, and the rest of the param-
eters, the output curve of the PV panel is calculated using
Eq. (1) and successive. The Maximum Power Point of the
panel is obtained from this curve; and it is compared to
the Maximum Power Point of the PV panel that provides
the manufacturer, this data is an input of the PV model
that is used specifically to calculate Rs and Rp.
The difference between the two Maximum Power Points
is evaluated. If the difference is less than a tolerance, in this
case 0.01%, the iteration process finishes. If not, in the next
iteration Rs is increment in 0.001 X, and the previous step is
repeated again. The process finishes when the difference is
less than 0.01%.
RP ¼ h h 
V þI
 MPPi MPPh s 
multiple peaks, as illustrated in Fig. 8; only one of them is
the global MPP (Petrone and Ramos-Paja, 2011). If the
current flowing through a PV cell is higher than its short-
circuit current, the cell absorbs power and its temperature
rises. To avoid the rupture of the cell, they are provided
with by-pass diodes.
The PV model has been interfaced with a MPPT con-
troller; both of them developed in MATLAB. The block
diagram of the whole system is shown in Fig. 9. This sim-
ulation tool can emulate step by step the behavior of a wide
range of MPPT methods; using irradiance, temperature
and the parameters of the PV system as inputs. In each sim-
ulation run, the MPPT efficiency is calculated as:
R
 i i X
n

I PV  I 01 exp V MPP þI MPP Rs

 1  I 02 exp V MPPaþI MPP Rs
 1  I MPP
Rt P real
a1 V T V
2 T P real dt i¼1
ð7Þ gMPPT ¼ R 0t X
n ð9Þ
0
P max dt
P max
The initial values of Rp is: i¼1
   
V MPP V OC  V MPP
Rp0 ¼  ð8Þ A great number of MPPT simulations have been con-
I SC  I MPP I MPP ducted using the proposed method and the four standard
The simulation tool can calculate the output I–V and techniques: fixed voltage, fractional VOC, perturbation
P–V curves of partially shaded PV panels, and they can and observation and incremental conductance. The devel-
be combined in series and/or in parallel configuration. This oped simulation tool has been fed with real irradiance
makes it possible to simulate complex shading patterns and temperature data. The measurements were taken in
such as arrays in which only some part of some panels Zaragoza during an entire year, using a pyranometer, a
are shaded. thermometer and a data-logger.
Irradiance affects especially the output current of the
cells, as can be seen in Fig. 6. A PV module is composed 4. Results
by cells in series, so the current must be the same in all
of them; whereas the voltage of a module is the sum of Extensive simulation studies were carried out to verify
the voltages of each individual solar cell. PV strings are the proposed MPPT method, the most representative
composed by panels in series, so the same procedure can results are shown in this paper. The goal is to compare
be applied to calculate their output curves. The number the described MPPT algorithms under the strictly same
of bypass diodes is also taken into account (Gokmen conditions.
et al., 2013). Firstly, a whole year simulation has been conducted,
Consequently, the I–V characteristic curves of partially using the proposed method in comparison with the four
shaded PV panels, strings or arrays show a stepped appear- conventional methods previously mentioned in this paper.
ance, as represented in Fig. 7. As a result, P–V curves have All simulations have been performed with the same irradi-

5 5
2 I-V (partially shaded array)
200 W/m , 25 ºC
2
4.5 500 W/m , 25 ºC 4.5
2
800 W/m , 25 ºC
4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3
I (A)

I (A)

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
V (V) V (V)

Fig. 6. I–V output curves for different levels of irradiance. Fig. 7. I–V characteristic of a partially shaded PV array.
 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104 101

100 60
P-V (partially shaded array) Real tracking
Ideal tracking
90 2
200 W/m , 50 ºC
50 2
80 400 W/m , 50 ºC
2
600 W/m , 50 ºC
2
70 800 W/m , 50 ºC
40 2
1000 W/m , 50 ºC
60
P (W)

P (W)
50 30

40

20
30

20
10
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
V (V) V (V)

Fig. 8. P–V characteristic of a partially shaded PV array. Fig. 10. Real tracking and ideal tracking along a sunny day and a
partially cloudy day with the proposed method.

50
Real tracking
Ideal tracking
45

40

35

Fig. 9. Scheme of the PV system modeled in MATLAB. 30

P(W)

25

20
Table 1
Solar panel parameters. 15

Parameter Value 10

VOC 21.06 V
5
ISC 3.8 A
VMPP 17.1 V 0
0
IMPP 3.5 A Time
Cells 36
a 3 mA/°C Fig. 11. Real output power and maximum output power along a sunny
b 80 mV/°C day and a partially cloudy day with the proposed method.
a1 1
a2 1.2
Rs 0.326 O To verify and evaluate the behavior of the proposed
Rp 161.572 O method under problematic scenarios, each technique has
been tested in specific circumstances: in sunny days, in
cloudy days and in partly cloudy days. Table 2 shows the
ance and temperature data and with the same PV system, a results of these simulations. To calculate the MPPT effi-
five-panel string with the parameters given in Table 1. No ciency figures, Eq. (9) has been used. The PV simulation
partial shading has been established, because under this cir- tool have a diagnosis algorithm that determines the maxi-
cumstance the efficiency of each method strongly depends mum output power of the PV system in each simulation
on the shading pattern. step, according to the irradiance, the temperature and the

Table 2
Overall MPPT efficiencies.
Method All year (%) Sunny days (%) Cloudy days (%) Partly cloudy days (%)
Proposed method 98.62 99.62 98.23 97.37
Fixed voltage 96.25 97.03 95.95 95.21
Fractional VOC 97.31 97.67 96.25 97.34
Perturbation and observation 97.99 99.40 95.54 96.83
Incremental conductance 96.79 99.14 95.60 94.28
102 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104

rest of the PV system parameters. In each simulation, the 200

Real tracking
MPPT and the diagnostics algorithm have been executed 180 Ideal tracking
Initial P-V curve
simultaneously, with the same input data. The MPPT sam- Final P-V curve
160
ple time of 0.1 s; this value can be configured in the user
interface. 140

The proposed method provides an efficiency of 98.62% 120

in the whole year simulation; better than any other simu-

P (W)
100
lated method. In addition, as can be seen, it overcomes
the conventional methods regardless of the climatic condi- 80

tions: in sunny days, in cloudy days and in partly cloudy 60

days.
40
From Figs. 10–15, the real tracking is represented in
continuous thick black line and the ideal tracking is repre- 20

sented in dashed thick blue line. The P–V output curves of 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
the panels are plotted in dashed thin lines. V (V)
Fig. 10 shows the real tracking and the ideal tracking
Fig. 14. Real tracking and ideal tracking during the establishment of
along a sunny day and a partially cloudy day, using the
partial shading with standard perturbation and observation.
proposed method. The MPPT efficiency keeps high even
in changing conditions, as can be seen in Fig. 11.
200
Real tracking
Ideal tracking
80 180
Initial P-V curve
Real tracking Final P-V curve
Ideal tracking 160
70 2
200 W/m , 25 ºC
2
400 W/m , 25 ºC 140
2
60 600 W/m , 25 ºC
2
800 W/m , 25 ºC 120
2
1000 W/m , 25 ºC
P (W)

50
100
P (W)

40 80

60
30

40
20
20

10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
V (V)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
V (V) Fig. 15. Real tracking and ideal tracking during the establishment of
partial shading with the proposed method.
Fig. 12. Real tracking and ideal tracking during a quick increment of
irradiance with standard perturbation and observation.

To test the behavior of the proposed method under rap-

80
Real tracking idly changing conditions, an irradiance transition from
Ideal tracking
70 2
200 W/m , 25 ºC
200 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 in 10 s have been tested with the
2
400 W/m , 25 ºC same PV system. The classic perturbation and observation
2
600 W/m , 25 ºC
60
2 algorithm does not work properly, the wrong tracking
800 W/m , 25 ºC
2
1000 W/m , 25 ºC direction problem appears, as can be seen in Fig. 12. The
50
proposed method cannot completely prevent this problem
P (W)

40 but it corrects very quickly the wrong direction; the operat-

ing point is never too far from the MPP, as shown in
30 Fig. 13.
Partial shading conditions have also been simulated.
20
The shadowing of a 3-panel array using standard perturba-
10
tion and observation algorithm is represented in Fig. 14. At
the beginning the global MPP is on the right side of the P–
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
V curve, but afterwards the peak in the middle becomes the
V (V) highest. During the shadowing, the MPPT searching direc-
Fig. 13. Real tracking and ideal tracking during a quick increment of tion is always changing, because in each step the output
irradiance with the proposed method. power is lower than in the previous one. After the shadow-
 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104
ing, the conventional perturbation and observation
algorithm leads to the nearest peak, resulting in an effi-
ciency of about 50%. The proposed method analyzes the
entire P–V curve because partial shading has been detected.
Therefore, it detects the region where the true MPP is
located and this point is reached quickly, as shown in
Fig. 15. A lot of shading patterns have been simulated,
some of them really complex. The proposed method have
reached the true MPP in a very high percentage of
cases, in contradistinction to standard perturbation and
observation.
5. Conclusions
In this work a novel MPPT method has been developed,
in order to overcome the problems of the conventional
MPPT techniques.
The most innovative feature is the presence of photodi-
odes as irradiance sensors; they are used as an additional
input of the MPPT algorithm. Thanks to them, the pro-
posed method can estimate the level of irradiance and rec-
ognize problematic scenarios, especially partial shading.
The designed algorithm takes into account this additional
information to improve the behavior under these situa-
tions, enhancing the MPPT efficiency.
To evaluate the yield of MPPT algorithms, a PV system
has been modeled, using the software MATLAB–Simulink.
This PV model is interfaced with a MPPT controller, also
developed in MATLAB. Four of the most relevant MPPT
techniques have been simulated, in order to identify draw-
backs and scenarios in which they do not work properly.
The proposed method has been designed taking into
account these problematic scenarios, specific algorithms
have been created in order to tackle these detected prob-
lems and prevent malfunction, improving the MPPT
efficiency.
The proposed method has been evaluated using the sim-
ulation tool, under the same temperature and irradiance
data that the four conventional MPPT techniques. The
simulation results have shown that the proposed method
can provide a better MPPT efficiency under every irradi-
ance conditions. It can improve not only the steady-state
performance but also the dynamic response.
The proposed MPPT method is suitable for small and
simple PV systems; it only needs to measure the output cur-
rent and the output voltage of the PV system, as well as the
irradiance through the photodiodes. It can be implemented
in an economical electronic device, such a microcontroller,
a DSP or a FPGA. The proposed method allows increasing
the global efficiency of a PV system without increasing the
prize of its components.
The next step of this work will be the evaluation of the
developed method in a real photovoltaic test bench, imple-
menting the MPPT algorithm in an electronic device.
103
References
Al-Diab, A., Sourkounis, C., 2010. Variable step size P&O MPPT
algorithm for PV systems. Optimization of Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (OPTIM) 12, 1097–1102.
Bennett, T., Zilouchian, A., Messenger, R., 2012. Photovoltaic model and
converter topology considerations for MPPT purposes. Sol. Energy 86
(7), 2029–2040.
Bhatnagar, P., Nema, R.K., 2013. Maximum power point tracking control
techniques: State-of-the-art in photovoltaic applications. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 224–241.
Bouilouta, A., Mellit, A., Kalogirou, S.A., 2013. New MPPT method for
stand-alone photovoltaic systems operating under partially shaded
conditions. Energy 55, 1172–1185.
Celik, A.N., Acikgoz, N., 2007. Modelling and experimental verification
of the operating current of mono-crystalline photovoltaic modules
using four- and five-parameter models. Appl. Energy 84 (1), 1–15.
Eltawil, M.A., Zhao, Z., 2013. MPPT techniques for photovoltaic
applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25, 793–813.
Esram, T., Chapman, P.L., 2007. Comparison of photovoltaic array
maximum power point tracking techniques. Energy Convers. IEEE
Trans. on 22 (2), 439–449.
Faranda R, Leva S, Maugeri V, 2008. MPPT techniques for PV Systems:
Energetic and cost comparison. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting – Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the
21st Century, pp. 1–6.
Gokmen, N., Karatepe, E., Ugranli, F., Silvestre, S., 2013. Voltage band
based global MPPT controller for photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy
98 (C), 322–334.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., 2013. A review of maximum power point tracking
techniques of PV system for uniform insolation and partial shading
condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 475–488.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., 2011a. Simple, fast and accurate two-
diode model for photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
95 (2), 586–594.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., Syafaruddin, 2011b. Modeling and
simulation of photovoltaic (PV) system during partial shading based
on a two-diode model. Simul. Model. Practice Theor. 19 (7), 1613–
1626.
Luque, A., Hegedus, S., 2003. Handbook of Photovoltaic Science and
Engineering. Wiley, England, pp. 61–112.
Mamarelis, E., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., 2014. A two-steps algorithm
improving the P&O steady state MPPT efficiency. Appl. Energy 113,
414–421.
Mellit, A., Rezzouk, H., Messai, A., Medjahed, B., 2011. FPGA-based
real time implementation of MPPT-controller for photovoltaic sys-
tems. Renew. Energy 36 (5), 1652–1661.
Min W, Xiaoli Z, Xiaoqin L, Zhengang D, Jun Y, 2011. Design of MPPT
algorithm under partial shadows. In: Electric Information and Control
Engineering (ICEICE) 2011 International Conference, pp. 309–312.
Orioli, A., Gangi, A.D., 2012. A procedure to calculate the five-parameter
model of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules on the basis of the
tabular performance data. Appl. Energy 102, 1160–1177.
Petrone, G., Ramos-Paja, C.A., 2011. Modeling of photovoltaic fields in
mismatched conditions for energy yield evaluation. Electr. Power Syst.
Res. 81 (4), 1003–1013.
Qi, J., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., 2014. Modeling and maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) method for PV array under partial shade conditions.
Renew. Energy 66, 337–345.
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.
Salam, Z., Ahmed, J., Merugu, B.S., 2013. The application of soft
computing methods for MPPT of PV system: A technological and
status review. Appl. Energy 107, 135–148.
104 Á.-A. Bayod-Rújula, J.-A. Cebollero-Abián / Solar Energy 109 (2014) 95–104
Salas, V., Olı́as, E., Barrado, A., Lázaro, A., 2006. Review of the
maximum power point tracking algorithms for stand-alone photovol-
taic systems. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 90 (11), 1555–1578.
Saloux, E., Teyssedou, A., Sorin, M., 2011. Explicit model of photovoltaic
panels to determine voltages and currents at the maximum power
point. Sol. Energy 85 (5), 713–722.
Solar Generation VI, 2011. <http://www.epia.org/uploads/tx_epiapubli-
cations/Solar_Generation_6__2011_Full_report_Final.pdf>.
Syafaruddin, Karatepe E., Hiyama, T., 2012. Performance enhancement
of photovoltaic array through string and central based MPPT system
under non-uniform irradiance conditions. Energy Convers. Manage.
62, 131–140.
Tey, K.S., Mekhile, S., 2014. Modified incremental conductance MPPT
algorithm to mitigate inaccurate responses under fast-changing solar
irradiation level. Sol. Energy 101, 333–342.
Tian, H., Mancilla-David, F., Ellis, K., Muljadi, E., Jenkins, P., 2012. A
cell-to-module-to-array detailed model for photovoltaic panels. Sol.
Energy 86 (9), 2695–2706.
Yang, Y., Zhao, F.P., 2011. Adaptive perturb and observe mppt technique
for grid- connected photovoltaic inverters. Proc. Eng. 23, 468–473.