Journal of Power Electronics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43236-020-00144-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking

in high‑gain photovoltaic applications
David de la Rosa Romo1 · Rodrigo Loera‑Palomo2 · Michel Rivero2,3 · Francisco S. Sellschopp‑Sánchez1

Received: 20 December 2019 / Revised: 26 August 2020 / Accepted: 31 August 2020

© The Korean Institute of Power Electronics 2020

Abstract
Efficient extraction of the maximum power from photovoltaic (PV) systems under inherently variable weather conditions
is a key issue that has been tackled in recent years. Maximum power extraction techniques are relevant for increasing the
penetration of PV systems into electric systems. This paper presents an averaged current mode control strategy as a maxi-
mum power extraction technique in a photovoltaic high step-up dc–dc converter, which can be applied to dc microgrids or
ac networks through power inverters. Since the generated power of a photovoltaic system is related to the terminal voltage,
power extraction is given through the regulation of the converter’s input voltage. For this purpose, in the proposed averaged
current mode control, the inner current loop uses the inductor current as a feedback signal, which improves the dynamic
behavior of the converter with a simple gain. Meanwhile, the outer voltage loop is built with a proportional-integrative
controller for regulation. The converter and control strategy are able to track rapid irradiance changes. They are also able
to maintain the photovoltaic voltage regulation under dc bus voltage variations. The performance of the proposed control
scheme is validated experimentally with a 100 W converter prototype.

Keywords Multiloop control · MPPT · Photovoltaic system · High step-up converter · DC–DC converters

1 Introduction In general, a photovoltaic (PV) system consists of a PV

In the last few decades, renewable energies have become a
significant electric power source that contributes to mitigat-
ing climate change effects and helps cope with the increase
in fossil fuels price. Among the different renewable energy
sources, solar and wind energies are the ones that present
exponential growth. The main drawback of both sources is
intermittency due to their dependency on inherently vari-
able weather conditions. This variability makes necessary
the use of power electronic converters and control strate-
gies for maximum power point tracking (MPPT), which are
used to determine the generated power that is injected into
electric networks.
* Rodrigo Loera‑Palomo
rloerapa@conacyt.mx
1 good performance, but their main drawbacks are the oscil-
InstitutoTecnológico de la Laguna, Torreón, Mexico
2
CONACYT, Instituto Tecnológico de la Laguna, Torreón,
Mexico
3
Instituto de Investigaciones en Materiales, Unidad Morelia,
UNAM, Morelia, Mexico
module or PV array, a power electronic converter and a
MPPT strategy. In this system, the objective is the maxi-
mization of PV generated power, since the efficiency of PV
modules are around 6–20% [1]. Despite the power electronic
interface, the maximum power extraction of PV modules
is realized through MPPT techniques, which make it pos-
sible to locate the maximum power point (MPP) from the
power–voltage (P–V) characteristic of the PV modules. The
MPP depends on a number of factors including the solar
irradiance distribution on the PV system [2], the tempera-
ture, the aging of the solar cells, and the PV system con-
figuration. Several MPPT techniques have been reported in
the literature [3–5], where the approaches can be classified
as direct methods and MPPT algorithms with closed-loop
control. The direct methods are based on comparisons of
generated power (samples) to make decisions on the system
(perturbations) to achieve the MPP. These methods have
lations they present around the MPP and reductions in their
performance under changing conditions [3, 6, 7]. A com-
parison made in [8] shows that the P&O MPPT algorithm
has deficiencies at startup and under steady-state operation,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

where the value of the perturbation step is the parameter that
has the greatest effect on the steady-state performance. In
[9], it is established that voltage ripple at the terminals of PV
modules should be sufficiently small (below 8.5%) to operate
without significant fluctuations and to achieve a utilization
ratio of 98%. On the other hand, algorithms with closed-loop
control present better dynamic behavior due to feedback sig-
nals from the implemented control loops [10, 11].
Several approaches for MPPT with closed-loop con-
trol have been proposed with different degree of success.
Among these approaches there are fuzzy logic-based con-
trollers, flatness-based control, robust integral backstepping
approach, adaptive controllers, sliding mode control, etc.
[12–15]. The use of this type of algorithm for MPPT pro-
vides: (1) stable operation, (2) fast response under rapidly
varying conditions such as temperature and irradiance, and
(3) a reduction of the oscillatory behavior in the MPP, when
compared with direct MPPT methods. These control strate-
gies were designed and tested with basic dc-dc converter
topologies (power electronic interfaces), like buck, boost,
flyback and other basic topologies. These kinds of converters
present limited gains and require high duty cycles to achieve
a large voltage conversion ratio, which implies a higher volt-
age/current stress on semiconductor devices of the converter.
Although these basic converters have characteristics that are
valid for certain applications, the actual tendency of PV sys-
tems is to increase the output voltages [16–19]. Thus, the use
of power electronic converters with a high step-up voltage
gain, which presents reduced duty cycles and lower voltage/
current stress on the semiconductor devices, is a must.
In this sense, there is a great variety of quadratic or high
step-up converters reported in the technical literature. This
type of converters has been studied a bit when interacting
with photovoltaic applications, including the MPPT con-
trol scheme implementations. For example, Altin et al.
[20] applied an incremental-conductance (I-C) maximum
power point tracking method on a quadratic boost converter,
where the I-C method presents a high tracking speed and
lower oscillations. In turn, Ozdemir et al. [21] presented a
fuzzy logic control to achieve the MPPT of a photovoltaic
array. The fuzzy control applied to a quadratic boost con-
verter in [21] had a fast response with small oscillations at
the maximum power point. In addition, the quadratic con-
verter achieves a high output voltage. Finally, Yuang-Shung
et al. [22] presented a comparison between the perturb and
observe (P&O) algorithm and a P&O-based fuzzy logic
control MPPT. They showed that fuzzy logic-based control
presented lower oscillations and a fast response.
The aim of this paper is the implementation of a multi-
loop control strategy for a noncascading quadratic step-up
converter with a wide voltage conversion ratio for PV appli-
cations. The converter topology is based on a noncascad-
ing configuration, which reduces the processed power. In
13
D. de la Rosa Romo et al.
addition, it presents a quadratic voltage conversion ratio,
a single active switch and a common ground between the
input and output ports. Additionally, in this paper, multiloop
control scheme is used as a MPPT control algorithm. Notice
that, this control method has been widely used for the con-
trol dc-dc converters in non-PV applications. In addition,
in basic dc–dc converters, the multiloop scheme changes
the second-order dynamics of the system to dominant first-
order, since this fact is not clear in more complex topolo-
gies. In this paper, the implementation of the inner current
loop simplifies the controller design. The outer voltage loop,
which uses a proportional-integrative controller, satisfies the
input voltage regulation condition for PV power extraction.
Additionally, it is important to notice that the duty cycle to
achieve a high voltage gain in quadratic converters is lower
than that for basic boost converters [23].
2 Proposed PV system
Figure 1 shows the proposed photovoltaic system with a non-
cascading quadratic dc-dc switching converter as a MPPT con-
trol. The quadratic converter corresponds to a power electronic
interface between the low voltage PV array and a high voltage
dc bus system. A PV module can develop a maximum power
point (MPP) voltage in the range of 23–38 V, and modules
can be connected in series to reduce the voltage amplification
with the dc bus voltage [9]. In turn, the dc bus system can
present voltages from 380 to 400 V in dc microgrids [24, 25].
In the system shown in Fig. 1, the converter is able to extract
the maximum power of the PV array using an appropriate
control scheme by controlling the voltage at the terminals of
the PV system. In this sense, the control scheme stage oper-
ates the active switch of the converter to track the reference
signal, which is associated with the MPP of the PV array. In
this paper, a multiloop control scheme is used to achieve the
Fig. 1  Schematic of a photovoltaic system with a quadratic dc–dc
converter
Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking in high-gain photovoltaic…

MPP with a fast response and without oscillations, even in the

presence of perturbations in the PV system/power converter.
The operation of the PV array and its I–V characteristic
can be described by the single-diode model [26]. This model
suggests that a PV array behaves like a current source, where
the voltage is dependent on the load connected to it. Therefore,
the voltage of the PV array can be used for control purposes.
In this sense, in the multiloop control, the inner current loop
is designed to achieve better dynamics of the system, while a
proportional-integrative controller is used in the outer voltage
loop for voltage regulation at the PV terminals in order reach Fig. 3  Noncascading quadratic boost converter PV system
the MPP of the PV system.
The proposed noncascading quadratic boost converter in
[27] is based on the reduced redundant power processing VC1 = VC2 D(1 − D), (5)
(R2P2) principle, which is built with buck-boost (block A) and
boost (block B) basic switching cells implemented in a I–IIA
noncascading configuration, as shown in Fig. 2. For this topol-
VC2 = Vo . (6)
ogy, the voltage conversion ratio is a function of the quadratic The current supplied to the dc bus corresponds to
of the duty cycle, as shown in Eq. (1), which represents a high Io = Ipv (1 − D)2 . On the other hand, Eq. (4) determines the
gain converter. operating duty cycle range of the converter, since the voltage
VC2 at the terminals of the PV array has an operating range of
1
M(D) = = . (1) 0 V to Voc (open-circuit voltage). The nominal duty cycle of
VCi (1 − D)2 the converter can be obtained from Eq. (4) which, consider-
ing the voltage of the PV array and the output voltage, reads:
The quadratic converter with a photovoltaic source is shown √
in Fig. 3. For this system, the PV array is represented by the VCi
D=1− . (7)
current ipv (current source) and Ci is the coupling capacitance. VC2
In the converter circuit, Lj refers to the inductors, Cj refers to
the capacitors, Sj′ and DB1 are the passive switches (diodes) and The operational limit of the converter can be obtained
from Eq. (7) if it is considered that VCi = Voc , as shown in
SRL is the active switch (MOSFET), where j = 1, 2.
Fig. 4. In this graph, the Voc ∕VC2 axis shows the inverse
The steady-state condition of the power converter can be
of the converter gain, and the duty cycle starting point,
obtained through an analysis of the networks defined by the
depending on the values of Voc and Vc2 . Then, for the opera-
condition of the active switch SRL . Therefore, the operating
tion of the PV array (Vpv < Voc ), the duty cycle D should
point of the system is given by:
IL1 = Ipv , (2)

IL2 = Ipv (1 − D), (3)

VCi = VC2 (1 − D)2 , (4)

Fig. 2  Noncascading structure for a quadratic step-up converter Fig. 4  Operational limit of a quadratic dc-dc converter

13
 D. de la Rosa Romo et al.

be greater than the value shown by the relation Voc ∕VC2 in state-space averaged model of a quadratic converter is given
Fig. 4. Therefore, a large difference between the PV array by:
voltage and the output voltage reduces the operational duty
diL1
cycle range of the converter. The use of a duty cycle below L1 = vCi d − (1 − d)vC1 ,
the limit of the curve implies that the voltage of the PV array dt
di
is equal to Voc , where the converter and the PV array do not L2 L2 = vCi + vC1 − (1 − d)vC2 ,
supply power. dt
dvCi
It is important to notice that voltage conversion ratio, Ci = ipv − iL1 d − iL2 , (12)
operating point and duty cycle operational limit are valid dt
dv
for the continuous conduction mode (CCM) operation of the C1 C1 = (1 − d)iL1 − iL2 ,
converter. Then, in this operation mode, the inductor values dt
dvC2
should satisfy the following inequalities: C2 = (1 − d)iL2 − io ,
[ √ / ] dt
1 − VCi V VCi 2
T where d(t) is the averaged control signal, iL1 (t) and iL2 (t)
L1 >
C2
, (8)
2Ppv are the averaged inductor currents, vCi (t) is the voltage of
the coupling capacitor that is equal to the voltage of the PV
[ √ / ] array, vC1 (t) is the storage element voltage, vC2 (t) the voltage
1 − VCi V VCi VC2 T of the output capacitor that is equal to the dc bus voltage,
L2 >
C2
, (9) ipv (t) is the supplied current from the PV array, and io (t) is
2Ppv
the current supplied to the dc bus. For ease of exposition,
where T is the switching period of the converter, and Ppv is the dc bus system is represented by an ideal voltage source
the power of the PV array. Vs , and the connection between the quadratic converter PV
In the converter, the operating condition in the continuous system and the dc bus is realized with a series resistance Rs.
or discontinuous conduction mode is related to the param- Therefore, the current io is given as follows:
eters k and kcrit . A procedure to determine these parameters ( )
vC2 − Vs
is described in [28]. These parameters can be defined by: io = . (13)
Rs
2L1 Ipv 2L2 Ipv
k1 = , k2 = (10) The nonlinear model of the converter (12) can be used for
VC2 T VC2 T
analysis and controller design under nonlinear methodologies.
Technical literature demonstrates that linear techniques are a
kcrit(1) = D(1 − D)2 , kcrit(2) = D (11) suitable choice for the control of this kind of systems, since the
implementation is simpler. In this sense, the nonlinear model
The converter operates in the CCM when the inequality can be linearized at the equilibrium point. Thus, a perturbed
kn > Kcrit(n) holds. It is important to notice that a reduction representation of the dynamics is obtained as follows:
in the solar irradiance ( Ipv reduction) or an increment of the
output voltage implies a decrement of kn. The discontinuous d̃x
= Ãx + B̃u, (14)
conduction mode (DCM) operation of the converter mean dt
that one or both of the inductor currents reaches a value of where the state vector is x̃ = [̃iL1̃iL2 ṽ Ci ṽ C1 ṽ C2 ]T , the input
zero in a short interval of time. This condition increases the corresponds to ũ = d̃ , and A and B are:
current stress on the semiconductor devices. The behavior
[ ]T
of the converter in the DCM is interesting. However, that is (VCi +VC1 ) VC2 I I I
B= − CL1 − CL1 − CL2 ,
outside the scope of this paper. L1 L2 i 1 2

⎡ 0 0 D
− (1−D) 0 ⎤
⎢ L1 L 1 ⎥
3 Modeling of quadratic converter ⎢ 0 0 1
L2
1
L2
− (1−D)
L2
⎥
⎢ ⎥
A=⎢ − CD − C1 0 0 0 ⎥.
A state-space averaged model of a converter can be determined ⎢ ⎥
i i
(1−D)
− C1 0 0 0
by average modeling techniques, which are approach widely ⎢ C1 1 ⎥
⎢ 0 (1−D)
0 0 − R 1C ⎥
used for power electronics circuits. An averaged model is able ⎣ C2 s 2 ⎦
to adequately predict the steady-state and dynamic behavior
of switching converters, as demonstrated in [29, 30]. The

13
Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking in high-gain photovoltaic…

This model describes the behavior of the quadratic con- where the coefficients pn > 0 . Then, the transfer functions
verter up to one half of the switching frequency. In addition, are stable if the roots of p(s) are negative.
this model is valid in the continuous conduction mode (CCM) On the other hand, the transfer function of the input volt-
of operation. age-to-duty ratio ṽ Ci (s)∕d(s)
̃ has a negative sign (see the gain
The linear model (14) can be used for controller design pur- ki). This fact suggests that in feedback control, it is necessary
poses, where a transfer function model is a useful representa- to interchange the feedback and the reference signals or to
tion. The transfer function can be obtained by taking a Laplace establish a negative controller gain [31].
transform of the linear model to establish the input–output
relation of the variables of interest. For the proposed converter,
the transfer function ̃iL1 (s)∕d(s)
̃ is as follows: 4 Control design
( )
̃iL1 (s) s s3 + a3 s2 + a2 s + a1 The controller design for switching converters to process
= k1 ( ) (15)
̃
d(s) s5 + p s4 + p s3 + p s2 + p s + p
4 3 2 1 0 the power from a PV array is an important issue. In this
application, the controller, through a quadratic converter, has
Ipv [(1−D)Ci −DC1 ]
where: k1 = (1−D)𝛿
L1
, a3 = C 1R + (1−D)Ci C1 𝛿
, the task of regulating the input voltage (voltage in the ter-
[ ]
minals of a PV array) even in the presence of perturbations.
2 s
Ipv L2 (1−2D)+Rs 𝛿 C2 (3−4D)+C1 (1−D)3
a2 = L2 Ci C2 Rs (1−D)𝛿
, The design process followed in this work is shown in Fig. 5,
{2[(1−D)Ci −DC1 ]+C1 } 2(1−D)Ipv [(1−D)Ci −DC1 ] where transfer functions and a frequency response analysis
a1 = + , p4 = C 1R ,
L2 Ci C1 C2 Rs (1−D) L 2 C i C1 C2 𝛿 2 s are required to design the inner and outer loops.
(1−D)2 (L1 C12 +L2 Ci C2 )+C2 [C1 (L1 +L2 D2 )+L1 Ci ]
p0 = 1
p, = , In this context, a multiloop control scheme is used, whose
L1 L2 Ci C1 C2 Rs 3 L 1 L 2 C i C1 C2
[ 2
]
Ci L1 +(1−D) L2 +C1 [L1 +D2 L2 ]
[
C2 +(1−D)2 Ci (1−D)2 +C1 D2
] block diagram model is shown in Fig. 6.
p2 = L1 L2 Ci C1 C2 Rs
, p1 = L 1 L 2 Ci C1 C2
, In the block diagram;G1 (s) and G2 (s) are transfer func-
[ ] tions that represent the quadratic converter; M = 1∕Vp is
with 𝛿 = + Vs .
(1 − D)2 Ipv Rs
The transfer function ̃iL2 (s)∕d(s)
̃ , which is related to the the model of the modulator, where Vp is the amplitude of
inductor L2, is given by: the sawtooth signal; G is the feedback gain for the inductor
(4 ) current; H is the feedback gain for the voltage vpv ; Gc (s) is
̃iL2 (s) s + b3 s3 + b2 s2 + b1 s + b0 the controller; and the −1 gain is used to interchange the
= k2 ( ), (16) feedback and the reference signal, which is suggested in [31]
̃
d(s) s5 + p s4 + p s3 + p s2 + p s + p
for stability, given the negative gain of the transfer func-
4 3 2 1 0

where: k =
2
(1−D) Ipv Rs +Vs
, b0 = − L C CpvC R 𝛿 ,
I tion ṽ Ci (s)∕d(s)
̃ . The reference signal ṽ r is related to the v∗
pv
[ 2 2 L2 ] 1 i 1 2 s signal, which is generated by the block MPP searching, see
1 Ipv Rs (1−D) Ci C1 −C2 (Ci +C1 )
b3 = C2 Rs
+ Ci C1 C2 Rs 𝛿
, Fig. 1. The parameters and specifications of the PV mod-
Ipv (Ci +C1 )
b2 =
2(1−D)2 Ci +(2D−1)DC1
− CC C R𝛿, ule (LUXEN LNSA-160P) and the converter are given in
L 1 Ci C1 [ ]
(1−D)2 (2Ci −DC1 )+D3 C1
i 1 2 s
Ipv Rs {(1−D)2 Ci (1−D)2 +C1 D2 −C2 } Tables 1 and 2.
b1 = + .
L 1 C i C1 C2 L 1 Ci C1 C2 𝛿 Using the parameters of Tables 1 and 2, the transfer func-
Finally, the transfer function of the duty ratio-to-input volt- tions associated with the inductor current iL1 and iL2 as well
age corresponds to: as the input voltage vCi with respect to the duty cycle are
(4 ) given in (19–21). In these, the transfer function ̃iL2 (s)∕d(s)
̃
ṽ Ci (s) s + g3 s3 + g2 s2 + g1 s + g0
= ki ( ) (17) exhibits nonminimum phase dynamics, whereas ̃iL1 (s)∕d(s) ̃
̃
d(s) s5 + p s4 + p s3 + p s2 + p s + p exhibits a minimum phase dynamics. In addition, since a
4 3 2 1 0

I
[
2(1−D) (1−D)2 Ipv Rs +𝛿
] zero is very close to a pole, the order of the transfer function
where: ki = − Cpv , g0 = Ipv L1 L2 C1 C2 Rs
, can be reduced. The function ṽ Ci (s)∕d(s)
̃ presents a negative
i

g3 =
Ipv L1 L2 +C2 Rs [L1 +(1−D)DL2 ](Ipv Rs +Vs )
, gain, as expected in power converter with PV generators [6,
Ipv L1 L2 C2 Rs
(1−D)[L2 C2 +2L1 C1 (1−D)] [L1 +(1−D)DL2 ]𝛿 31, 32].
g2 = L1 L2 C1 C[2
+ I LLCR ,
] pv 1 2 2 s ̃iL1 (s)
(1−D){Ipv L2 +Rs 2C2 +C1 (1−D)2 D 𝛿 } 119631s(s + 45450.5)(s + 625.32 ± j3377.09)
g1 = . = ,
I L L C C R
pv 1 2 1 2 s
̃
d(s) (s + 45450.4)(s + 0.767 ± j3771.16)(s + 1.316 ± j1507.94)
For the above transfer functions of interest, the pole- (19)
zero localization defines the dynamic characteristics of the ̃iL2 (s) 35750.8(s − 501.37)(s + 45499.3)(s − 566.12 ± j3928.95)
converter. The poles of the transfer function depend on the ̃d(s)
=
(s + 45450.4)(s + 0.767 ± j3771.16)(s + 1.316 ± j1507.94)
,
polynomial: (20)
p(s) = s5 + p4 s4 + p3 s3 + p2 s2 + p1 s + p0 , (18)

13
 D. de la Rosa Romo et al.

Table 1  Specifications of a LNSA-160P PV Module

Power in MPP, Ppv 160 W

Voltage in MPP, Vpv 18.3 V
Current in MPP, Ipv 8.75 A
Open-circuit voltage, Voc 22.4 V
Short-circuit current, Isc 9.21 A
Efficiency 16.14%

Table 2  Parameters of a quadratic converter

Inductor, L1 400𝜇H
Inductor, L2 3.5 mH
Capacitor, C1 47𝜇F
Capacitor, C2 220𝜇F
Capacitor, Ci 470𝜇F
Voltage gain, H 0.05
Amplitude sawtooth, Vp 3
Switching frequency 50 kHz
Nominal duty cycle, D 0.617

ṽ Ci (s) G (s)G2 (s)

= 1 , (22)
ṽ c (s) Vp + GG1 (s)

where G1 (s) = ̃iLj (s)∕d(s)

Fig. 5  Flow diagram of the controller design process
Fig. 6  Block diagram of a multiloop control scheme
ṽ Ci (s) −18602.5(s + 12007.8)(s + 45444.1)(s + 270.9 ± j3714.56)
= .
̃
d(s) (s + 45450.4)(s + 0.767 ± j3771.16)(s + 1.316 ± j1507.94)
(21)
The internal closed-loop transfer function ṽ Ci (s)∕̃vc (s) is
given by the next representation:
̃ and G2 (s) = ṽ Ci (s)∕̃iLj (s) with
j = 1, 2. At this point, the selection of the gain G is given so
that the dynamics of the system are reduced. Figure 7 shows
the pole-zero pattern and frequency response of ṽ Ci (s)∕̃vc (s)
considering the current of the inductor L1 ( j = 1) for differ-
ent values of G . As observed, the open-loop system (G = 0)
presents two resonant peaks, which are associated with the
poles close to the imaginary axis, s = −1.316 ± j1507.9 and
s = −0.767 ± j3771.16. The increment of the gain G reduces
these resonance peaks, due to the complex poles shifting
to the left in the complex plane, where two of them change
to negative real poles. Then, the gain G is selected so that
the resonance peak of the high frequency complex poles is
below 0 dB. As a result, with a gain of G = 0.6, the system
has one dominant low-frequency pole ( s = −116.67), one
high-frequency complex pole (s = −697.56 ± j3446.32), and
two high-frequency poles (s = −22418.7 and s = −45450.2).
In addition, the inner current loop changes the fifth-order
dynamics of the system into a single dominant pole sys-
tem. A test considering the current of the inductor L2 results
in complex poles in the right-hand side of the complex
plane, due to the right-hand-side zeros of (20), which is
undesirable.
In the external control loop, the function Gc (s) represents
the controller, which is realized with a proportional-inte-
grative controller. The transfer function of the controller is
given by:

13
Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking in high-gain photovoltaic…
(a)
(b)
̃ : a pole-zero
Fig. 7  Responses of ṽ Ci (s)∕̃vc (s) considering ̃iL1 (s)∕d(s)
pattern; b frequency response (magnitude)
( )
kP s + kI ∕kP
Gc (s) =
s
Selection of the proportional ( kP ) and integrative ( kI )
gains is based on the relative stability criterion using Bode
plots. For this purpose, considering the loop transfer func-
tion of the system shown in Fig. 6, the criteria imply that
(a) the magnitude of the Bode plot exhibits a slope at a
crossover of approximately of −20 dB/dec, and (b) the gain
and phase margin are both positive. The resulting Bode plot
of the loop transfer function, with kP = 5 and kI = 454 , is
shown in Fig. 8.
The resulting Bode plot satisfies the slope criteria, and
it has an infinite gain margin and phase margin of 87.9◦. In
addition, the system presents a high gain at low frequencies,
which improves the steady-state accuracy.
The multiloop control scheme (Fig. 6) applied to the
quadratic converter is able to regulate the voltage at the
terminals of the PV module ( vpv = vCi ) to a desired volt-
age Vr . A simple method to calculate the signal Vr is by
the fractional open-circuit voltage method in [3]. Therefore,
the voltage in the MPP of the PV module can be calcu-
lated empirically, where Vmpp is close to 70–80% of the PV
module open-circuit voltage under standard atmospheric
Fig. 8  Frequency response of a loop transfer function
conditions [4]. Then, the point of maximum power is given
by Vmpp ≈ kVoc . Since the voltage of the PV module is uses
as feedback with a gain of H by the multiloop control, the
reference signal corresponds to:
Vr = HkVoc . (24)
Then, the constant k depends on the PV array technology,
and it is necessary to determine k through measurements of
Vmpp and Voc at different values of irradiance and tempera-
ture [3]. Experimental tests on the LUXEN LNSA-160P PV
module show that the constant k is approximately of 67.1%
( k = 0.671). Since the voltage gain H = 0.05, the reference
signal for control purposes is calculated by Vr = 0.03355Voc.
(23)
5 Experimental results
In order to verify the operation of the noncascading quad-
ratic converter in a PV application, as well as the perfor-
mance of the multiloop control applied to a converter, a pro-
totype was built. The parameters of the converter are given
in Table 2. Circuit diagram of the switching regulator are
shown in Fig. 9. In this system, a PV module LNSA-160P
with the nominal data given in Table 1 is used. The output
port of the converter is connected to a resistive load and a
dc voltage source to simulate a dc network. The reference
signal Vr is obtained through (24), where the voltage Voc is
measured from a second PV module that is not connected
to the power converter.
In the development of different tests on the system of
Fig. 9, the PV modules were operated with a solar irradiance
of around 941 W/m2 and an average operating temperature
of 65.4 °C.
The operational range of the converter is determined
by the characterization of the system in open-loop. For
13

(a)
(b)
Fig. 9  Switching regulator using a noncascading quadratic converter:
a circuit diagram; b experimental setup
this purpose, the duty cycle is changed step by step from a
value of 0.4–0.8. In the test, at the beginning of the test it is
not considered a Vbus voltage. After that, it is considered a
clamped Vbus voltage of 100 V, 125 V and 150 V. Figure 10
shows experimental results of the voltage at the terminals
of the PV module and the output voltage (VC2 = Vbus ). As
observed in Fig. 10a, when the Vbus is not clamped, the
converter has a wide operative range, where the vpv volt-
age is reduced from the Voc voltage (0.4 duty cycle), which
increases the power delivered from the PV module. In this
scenario, vC2 changes in concordance with the converter
gain, losses and power balance. In the case of a clamped
voltage (VC2 = Vbus ), the minimum operative gain of the
converter is done by the relation Voc ∕Vbus. Therefore, a high
Vbus voltage requires a greater duty cycle to enter the opera-
tive region of the PV module (Fig. 4), as shown in Fig. 10a.
Here, it is important to notice that the maximum gain of the
converter is 14.02 , for Vbus = 150 V and D = 0.8, which is
in accordance with the reported gains of similar topologies
[23].
The characterization of a PV module under real condi-
tions shows that the maximum power (98.65 W) occurs at
a voltage of Vmpp = 13.56 V. Therefore, this voltage is used
13
D. de la Rosa Romo et al.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10  Converter voltage characterization: a photovoltaic module
voltage; b converter output voltage
as the reference signal Vr (see Fig. 9) to verify the perfor-
mance of the multiloop control. Figure 11 shows the time
response of the system under nominal operating conditions.
Figure 11a shows the output voltage (Vbus) fixed at a value of
125 V, whereas the PV module voltage is regulated to 13.5 V,
which represents a converter gain of 9.26. Figure 11b shows
the voltage transitions in the active switch, where the correct
operation of the converter is observed. The duty cycle is 0.74
under this condition. Figure 11b shows that the operation of
the semiconductor devices induces voltage spikes in the sig-
nal Vpv, which are associated with the turn-on and turn-off of
the active switch. However, voltage spikes might appear due
to factors such as the converter layout, switching technique,
snubber design, etc.
The effectiveness of the switching regulator is verified
through the application of output voltage (Vbus) steps. These
changes correspond to an abrupt variation in the output volt-
age from 125 to 63.2 V and vice versa, with a frequency
Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking in high-gain photovoltaic…
Fig. 11  Nominal operating condition: a (top) output voltage, (bottom)
input voltage; b (top) input voltage, (bottom) drain-source MOSFET
voltage
of 1 Hz. Figure 12a shows the time response of vpv when
a step-down voltage transition from 125 to 63.2 V is pre-
sent, which represents an output voltage change of 49.44%.
The controller regulates the input voltage quite well with an
overshoot of 1 V, which corresponds to 7.4% of the nominal
value. Figure 12b shows a Vbus step-up transition from 63.2
to 123 V representing a voltage step of 48.6%. In this out-
put voltage step, the input voltage presents an overshoot of
0.8 V, which corresponds to 5.9% of the nominal value. In
both cases, the vpv voltage is regulated in the presence of the
output voltage steps.
Taking into account that the Vr signal could be changed as
a function of temperature and irradiance conditions, a refer-
ence signal tracking test is proposed. The reference signal
is changed to obtain a vpv voltage from 8.1 to 13.5 V and vice
versa. Figure 13 shows the time responses of the vpv volt-
age. The controller adequately follows the reference signal
changes, where the voltage vpv presents a settling time of
30 ms. Additionally, the voltage vpv presents an exponential
form when following the reference signal step. This behavior
can be linked to a reduction in the system dynamics, which
was changed to a single dominant pole system with the
design of the inner loop. In addition, at the minimum input
voltage value, the converter gain in the closed-loop is 15.43.
Fig. 12  Input voltage response under output voltage changes: a (top)
output voltage from 125 to 63.2 V, (bottom) input voltage; b (top)
output voltage from 63.2 to 123 V, (bottom) input voltage
Finally, the main objective of the switching regulator
when closing the current and voltage loops (as shown in
Fig. 9) is to maintain the voltage at the terminals of the PV
module at a desired value Vr . Here, Vr is calculated through
the fractional open-circuit voltage method using (24). Fig-
ure 14 shows measurements of the global solar irradiance
(partially clouded conditions), the voltage at terminals and
the generated current in the PV module. In this test, the
voltage at the terminals is around 14.71 V. In the ipv plot, the
reduction in the incident global solar irradiance is evident,
since the generated current is proportional to it. Meanwhile,
the voltage vpv has some transitions due to changes in the
open-circuit voltage when clouds are passing by. The voltage
in the PV module ( vpv ) is regulated at the MPP as stated by
Vr = HkVoc, Eq. (24), which extracts the maximum available
power. It must be highlighted that in measurements there
is a marked difference between the global solar irradiance
and the ipv current. This difference is due to the fact that
the pyranometer has a resolution of 1 min, while the elec-
tric variables are measured with a resolution of 10 samples
per second. This occurs because the power converter and
control have fast transient responses to sudden changes in
solar irradiance due to the cloud movement while pyranom-
eter does not. Solar irradiance interpolation can lead to a
13
 D. de la Rosa Romo et al.

Fig. 14  Time responses of a switching regulator as a MPPT control-

Fig. 13  Input voltage response under set-point changes: a (top) out- ler: (top to bottom) measured global solar irradiance, voltage at the
put voltage, (bottom) input voltage for a step-down reference change; terminals of a PV module and generated current of a PV module (par-
b (top) output voltage, (bottom) input voltage for a step-up reference tially cloudy day)
change

misinterpretation of results. Thus, it was not considered in

strategy. Transient responses to step changes of the output
this study.
voltage (dc bus voltage) exhibit the robustness of the pro-
posed multiloop control strategy, where the voltage at the
PV module is adequately regulated. In addition, the test of
6 Conclusion reference signal step changes demonstrates the capability
of the multiloop control to follow a desired signal. Finally,
The utilization of solar-photovoltaic energy depends on the
the generation of a reference signal through the fractional
efficiency of PV modules and their dependency on weather
open-voltage method permits the evaluation of the multi-
conditions. Thus, the maximization of generated power
loop control in a real scenario, where the maximum avail-
through the application of MPPT strategies to power elec-
able power is extracted under sunny and partially cloudy
tronic interfaces is a key point. In this paper, a multiloop
conditions.
control scheme as a MPPT strategy was designed and imple-
In addition, experimental results were obtained to show
mented. It was applied to a high gain dc–dc converter/dc
the performance of the switching converter. Open-loop
bus system. The control scheme was designed to regulate
tests confirm the high gain capability of the converter, with
the voltage of a PV module through the power converter,
maximum gains of 14.02 in the open-loop and 15.43 in the
where a fractional voltage method was used to generate the
closed loop. It can also be seen that an increment in the dc
reference voltage to achieve the MPP. The obtained results
bus voltage results in a decrement of the operational duty
with the MPPT multiloop scheme were adequate, even in the
cycle of the converter, since the gain of the converter is an
presence of dc bus voltage perturbations or solar irradiance
important parameter for interconnecting PV systems with
changes due to the presence of clouds.
high dc voltage applications.
Experimental closed-loop test was realized to dem-
onstrate the application of multiloop control as a MPPT

13
Averaged current mode control for maximum power point tracking in high-gain photovoltaic…
Acknowledgements This research was supported by CONACYT,
México, under project 1982 of Cátedras CONACYT.
References
1. Dubey, S., Narotam-Sarvaiya, J., Seshadri, B.: Temperature
dependent photovoltaic (PV) efficiency and its effect on PV pro-
duction in the world—a review. Energy Procedia 33, 311–321
(2013)
2. Zhang, M., Chen, Z., Wei, L.: An immune firefly algorithm for
tracking the maximum power point of PV array under partial shad-
ing conditions. Energies 12(16), 3083 (2019)
3. Esram, T., Chapman, P.L.: Comparison of photovoltaic array
maximum power point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 22(2), 439–449 (2007)
4. Gomes-de-Brito, M.A., Galotto, L., Poltronieri-Sampaio, L.,
de Azevedo-e-Melo, G., Canesin, C.A.: Evaluation of the main
MPPT techniques for photovoltaic applications. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 60(3), 1156–1167 (2013)
5. Bendib, B., Belmili, H., Krim, F.: A survey of the most used
MPPT methods: conventional and advanced algorithms applied
for photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 637–
648 (2015)
6. Bianconi, E., Calvente, J., Giral, R., Mamarelis, E., Petrone, G.,
Ramos-Paja, C.A., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: A fast current-
based MPPT technique employing sliding mode control. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron. 60(3), 1168–1178 (2013)
7. Femia, N., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: Optimization
of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 20(4), 963–973 (2005)
8. Xiao, W., Dunford, W.G., Palmer, P.R., Capel, A.: Application of
centered differentiation and steepest descent to maximum power
point tracking. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 54(5), 2539–2549
(2007)
9. Baekhoej Kjaer, S., Pedersen, J.K., Blaabjerg, F.: A review of
single-phase grid-connected inverters for photovoltaic modules.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 41(5), 1292–1306 (2005)
10. Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M.: An analog technique for
distributed MPPT PV applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
59(12), 4713–4722 (2012)
11. Espinoza-Trejo, D.R., Bárcenas-Bárcenas, E., Campos-Delgado,
D.U., De Angelo, C.H.: Voltage-oriented input-output lineariza-
tion controller as maximum power point tracking technique for
photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62(6), 3499–
3507 (2015)
12. Tchoketch, G.F., Larbes, C., Ilinca, A., Obeidi, T., Tchoketch, S.:
Study of the intelligent behaviour of a maximum photovoltaic
energy tracking fuzzy controller. Energies 11(12), 3263 (2018)
13. Gil-Antonio, L., Saldivar, B., Portillo-Rodríguez, O., Ávila-
Vilchis, J.C., Martínez-Rodríguez, P.R.: Flatness-based control
for the maximum power point tracking in a photovoltaic system.
Energies 12(10), 1843 (2019)
14. Ali, K., Khan, L., Khan, Q., Ulla, S., Ahmad, S., Mumtaz, S.,
Wahab, F., Naghmash, : Robust integral backstepping based
nonlinear MPPT control for a PV system. Energies 12(16), 3180
(2019)
15. Bani-Salim, M., Hayajneh, H.S., Mohammed, A., Ozcelik, S.:
Robust direct adaptative controller design for photovoltaic maxi-
mum power point tracking application. Energies 12(16), 3182
(2019)
16. Li, W., Xiang, X., Li, C., Li, W., He, X.: Interleaved high step-up
ZVT converter with built-in transformer voltage doubler cell for
distributed PV generation system. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
28(1), 300–313 (2013)
17. Choi, H., Ciobotaru, M., Jang, M., Agelidis, V.G.: Performance
of medium-voltage DC-bus PV system architecture utilizing
high-gain DC–DC converter. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 6(2),
464–473 (2015)
18. Wong, Y.S., Chen, J.F., Liu, K.B., Hsieh, Y.P.: A novel high
step-up DC-DC converter with coupled inductor and switched
clamp capacitor techniques for photovoltaic systems. Energies
10(3), 378 (2017)
19. Frivaldsky, M., Hanko, B., Prazenica, M., Morgos, J.: High gain
boost interleaved converters with coupled inductors and with
demagnetizing circuits. Energies 11(1), 130 (2018)
20. Altin, N., Ozturk, E.: Maximum power point tracking quadratic
boost converter for photovoltaic systems. In: IEEE Electronics,
Computers and Artificial Intelligence International Conference,
pp 35–38 (2016)
21. Ozdemir, S., Altin, N., Sefa, I.: Fuzzy logic based MPPT con-
troller for high conversion ratio quadratic boost converter. Int.
J. Hydrog. Energy 42(28), 17748–17759 (2017)
22. Yuang-Shung, L., Tzu-Han, C., Ling-Chia, Y., Hsin-Wei, H.:
Quadratic high gain boost converter for grid-tie PV system
application. In: 1st International Future Energy Electronics
Conference, pp 382–387 (2013)
23. Amir, A., Seng-Che, H., Elkhateb, A., Abd-Rahim, N.: Com-
parative analysis of high voltage gain DC–DC converter topolo-
gies for photovoltaic systems. Renew. Energy 136, 1147–1163
(2019)
24. Boroyevich, D., Cvetkovic, I., Dong, D., Burgos, R., Wang, F.,
Lee, F.: Future electronic power distribution systems - a con-
templative view. In:12th International Conference on Optimi-
zation of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, pp 1369–1380
(2010)
25. Ahmadi, R., Ferdowsi, M.: Improving the performance of a line
regulating converter in a converter-dominated dc microgrid sys-
tem. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5(5), 2553–2563 (2014)
26. Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Filho, E.R.: Comprehensive approach
to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 24(5), 1198–1208 (2009)
27. Loera-Palomo, R., Morales-Saldaña, J.A.: Family of quadratic
step-up dc–dc converters based on noncascading structures. IET
Power Electron. 8(5), 793–801 (2015)
28. Ismail, E.H., Al-Saffar, M.A., Sabzali, A.J., Fardoun, A.A.: A
family of single-switch PWM converters with high step-up con-
vertion ratio. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 55(4), 1159–1171 (2008)
29. Carbajal-Gutiérrez, E.E., Morales-Saldaña, J.A., Leyva-Ramos,
J.: Modeling of a single-switch quadratic buck converter. IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 41(4), 1451–1457 (2005)
30. Loera-Palomo, R., Morales-Saldaña, J.A., Leyva-Ramos, J.:
Signal flow graphs for modelling of switching converters with
reduced redundant power processing. IET Power Electron. 5(7),
1008–1016 (2012)
31. Viinamaki, J., Jokipii, J., Messo, T., Suntio, T., Sitbon, M., Kuper-
man, A.: Comprehensive dynamic analysis of photovoltaic genera-
tor interfacing dc–dc boost power stage. IET Renew. Power Gener.
9(4), 306–314 (2015)
32. Puukko, J., Nousiainen, L., Maki, A., Messo, T., Huusari, J.,
Suntio, T.: Photovoltaic generator as an input source for power
electronic converters. In: 15th International Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conference, pp 1–8 (2012)
13
 D. de la Rosa Romo et al.

David de la Rosa Romo received
his B.S. degree in Electronics
Engineering and his M.S. degree
in Electrical Engineering from
the Instituto Tecnologico de la
Laguna, Torreón, Mexico, in
1993 and 2010, respectively. He
is presently working towards his
Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engi-
neering at the same institution.
His current research interests
include switched converters for
photovoltaic applications.
Rodrigo Loera‑Palomo received
his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
Electrical Engineering from Uni-
versidad Autónoma de San Luis
Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México,
in 2007 and 2013, respectively.
He is presently working as a Pro-
fessor in the Instituto Tec-
nológico de la Laguna, Torreón,
Mexico, through the Cátedras-
CONACYT program. His cur-
rent research interest include
power electronics systems,
switching conver ters, and
DC-DC power supplies.
Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Morelia, Mexico, where he
is presently working as an Associate Researcher. His current research
interests include renewable energy, magnetohydrodynamics, and ther-
mal energy storage and harvesting.
Francisco S. Sells‑
chopp‑Sanchez (M’93) received
his B.S. degree in Electrical
Engineering from the Instituto
Tecnológico de Tepic, Tepic,
Mexico, in 1994; and his M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical
Engineering from the Instituto
Tecnológico de La Laguna, Tor-
reón, Mexico, in 1999 and 2003,
respectively. He is presently
working as a full-time Professor
at the Instituto Tecnológico de
La Laguna. His current research
interests include electrical
machines and electrical power
systems applied to the analysis of the power quality, state estimation
and power savings.

Michel Rivero received his B.S.

degree in Mechanical Engineer-
ing from the National Polytech-
nic Institute of Mexico, Mexico
City, Mexico, in 2004; and his
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Engi-
neering from the National
Autonomous University of Mex-
ico, Mexico City, Mexico, in
2008 and 2012, respectively.
From 2012 to 2014, he was a
Research Assistant at the Ilme-
nau University of Technology,
Ilmenau, Germany; and from
2014 to 2019, he was a CONA-
CYT Research Fellow at the
InstitutoTecnológico de La Laguna, Torreón, Mexico. In 2019, he
joined the Instituto de Investigaciones en Materiales, Universidad

13