On the control of photovoltaic maximum power

point tracker via output parameters

D. Shmilovitz
Abstract: A new approach for tracking the maximum power point of photovoltaic arrays is
presented. The maximum power point tracker output voltage and current are used for control
purposes, rather than for its input voltage and current. It is shown that using the output parameters
simplies the maximum power point tracker controller. Moreover, using this approach, only one
out of the two output parameters needs to be sensed. This observation is general and applies
regardless of the power stage or the realisation control algorithm. Contrary to what might have
previously been assumed, it is theoretically shown that the MPPT control that uses a single output
control parameter applies to nearly all practical load types, regardless of the load nature.
1 Introduction
Photovoltaic (PV) power generation has stimulated con-
siderable interest over the past two decades. While solar
energy is the only available energy source in space, it is an
important alternative for many terrestrial applications. In
the early 1980s it was thought to be a possible solution to
the worlds energy crises and oil shortage. As the PV cell
price did not decrease in the amount expected at that time,
PV generation was used in restricted applications such as in
remote terrestrial sites not supplied by the utility grid and
on board yachts in battery chargers. In recent years, as it is
an environmentally renewable energy source, grid-con-
nected photovoltaic generation has gained increased
importance, due to advantages such as the absence of air
pollution and fuel costs as well as no noise and low
maintenance resulting from the absence of moving parts.
Additionally, in grid-connected applications the energy
demand from the grid is reduced, which shaves the peak
load demand [1].
At a given temperature and insolation level, PV cells
supply maximum power at one particular operation point
called the maximum power point (MPP). Unlike conven-
tional energy sources, it is desirable to operate PV systems at
its MPP. However, the MPP locus varies over a wide range,
depending on PVarray temperature and insolation intensity.
Instantaneous shading conditions and ageing of PV cells
also affect the MPP locus. In addition, the load electrical
characteristics may also vary. Thus, to achieve operation at
the MPP, a time varying matching network is required that
interfaces the varying source and possibly the varying load.
The role of this matching network, called the maximum
power point tracking network (MPPT) is to ensure
operation of the PV array at its MPP, regardless of
atmospheric conditions and load variations [2]. MPPT
circuits should ensure extraction of maximum available
power from the PV array, by its loading at the MPP. MPPT
circuits are realised by means of switched mode DCDC
converters, most commonly with pulse width modulation
(PWM) control. Many algorithms have been proposed for
MPP tracking, the most widely used ones are the perturb
and observe (P&O) and the incremental conductance
algorithms. In the rst, voltage and current at the PV
generator output (i.e. MPPT converter input) are sensed and
the power is calculated successively by their multiplication.
Then, the MPP is approached in an iterative process. Other
algorithms also require sensing of the PV array output
voltage and current, in order to indicate the actual operation
point. This information is than processed, by various
possible algorithms, in order to generate the incremental
correction towards operation at the MPP [14]. The use of
load voltage and/or current for MPP tracking was suggested
in just a few papers. Even fewer researchers proposed to
sense only the load parameters, while assuming special load
types (e.g. maximisation of the load current when the load is
an electrolysis pool whose production is proportional to its
current [5]). In other cases, approximation a battery type of
load by a constant voltage source (neglecting voltage
variation with battery charge) was suggested. Under this
assumption, the load power is proportional to its current, so
that load current can be maximised rather than PV array
power [6]. The observation that many loads might be
modelled by their Thevenin equivalent led to a control
algorithm based solely on the load voltage [7]. In that paper
[7] the output instantaneous power was calculated from the
output voltage, which increases complexity and requires
knowledge of systems parameters.
In this paper sensing the MPPT converters output
voltage or current is suggested rather than its traditionally
used input ones, basing the controller operation on these
quantities. As will be shown, the proposed alternative
implies considerable advantages in terms of track ability
and, more signicantly, in terms of controller simplicity. It
is shown that sensing of a single load parameter (either
current or voltage) sufces for the tracking of the MPP.
That results in a reduction in the hardware involved
(sensors) and simplication of the control algorithm (no
multiplication needed for the calculation of power). It is
shown that tracking of the maximum value of the load
current (or voltage) implies operation of the PV system at its
The author is with the Faculty of Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv,
Israel
r IEE, 2004
IEE Proceedings online no. 20040978
doi:10.1049/ip-epa:20040978
Paper rst received 25th September 2003 and in revised form 20th July 2004.
Originally published online: 12th January 2005
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005 239
MPP. It should be noted that, in the majority of practical
PV systems with battery backup, the MPPTs output
voltage and current are monitored anyway, for the sake of
charge control and battery protection. Thus, sensing of the
PV array output voltage and current is actually cancelled
with no additional cost.
The suggested approach does not assume familiarity with
the load type or its linearity. It applies to any load type
provided it has non-negative incremental impedance. The
principle proposed here applies not only to PV systems but
to any system in which MPP tracking is needed, such as in
wind energy systems [8].
2 MPPT role in matching the PV array and the
load
PV arrays have nonlinear varying IV characteristics.
Assume a PV array is composed of evenly illuminated
identical cells, all at the same temperature. Its output
characteristics may be written as:
i(v) = I
sc
1
exp v=V
th
( ) 1
exp V
oc
=V
th
( ) 1
_ _
(1)
where i and v are the PV arrays terminal current and
voltage, and I
sc
and V
oc
its short circuit current and open
circuit voltage, respectively. V
th
is the arrays thermal
voltage. The nonlinear characteristics of PV cells are
depicted in Fig. 1, where R denotes insolation level and T
the PV arrays temperature. Evidently, the MPP occurs at a
lower voltage when the insolation is lower (i.e. R
2
oR
1
yields V
M
(R
2
)oV
M
(R
1
)). These curves vary with the PV
array ambient condition. In particular, the MPP locus
varies with temperature, insolation intensity and shading
conditions as well as with the ageing of the PV cells. Thus, if
directly connected to the load, operation of the PV array at
the MPP cannot be ensured even for constant loads.
Moreover, practical load electrical characteristics might
vary, due to parameters such as the charge condition of
batteries and its ageing or the loading and speed of DC
motors powered by the PV array.
Thus operation at the MPP cannot be achieved unless a
tunable matching network is used that interfaces the load to
the PV array, see Fig. 2. The main components of the
MPPT circuit are its power stage and the controller. As the
power stage is realised by means of a switched mode power
converter, most commonly with PWM control, the control
input is denoted by the duty cycle d. Customarily, the power
stage input voltage and current are used by the controller
for the purpose of MPP tracking, as depicted in Fig. 2a. In
the scheme of Fig. 2a, the power stage control parameter d
is continuously tuned until the PV array is loaded at its
MPP. It should be noted, however, that the quantity of
actual interest (the one to be maximised) should be the one
power fed to the load, that is the MPPTs output power p
o
.
The customarily used maximisation of the MPPTs input
power p
i
via the sensing of i
in
and v
in
may be justied by the
high efciencies reached by the MPPTs power stage. Thus,
maximisation of the input power is equivalent to maximisa-
tion of the output power.
It should be noted that controlling the input power
necessitates the sensing of both parameters i
in
and v
in
,
regardless of the control algorithm used. For instance, with
the perturb and observe algorithm, the input power is
successively calculated by multiplying i
in
and v
in
.
oc
V
(R
1
)
p
v
V
M
(R
1
)
P
M
(R
2
)
P
M
(R
1
)
sc
I
i
V
M
v
I
M
oc
V
MPP(R
1
,T)
MPP(R
2
,T)
R
1
R
2
R
1
= 2*R
2
a
b
Fig. 1 The output characteristics of PV cells at a particular
temperature and two insolation levels, R1 and R2, R1=2R2
a current versus voltage
b power versus voltage
load
control
d
+

v
in
i
in

in
i
in
+

out
MPPT
power
stage
MPPT
power
stage
i
out
PV array
a
load
PV array
control
d
+

in
i
in

out
i
out
+

out
i
out
b
Fig. 2 Functional blocks of a PV system with MPPT
a traditional control via input parameters i
in
v
in
b suggested approach with control via output parameters i
out
v
out
240 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005
If the incremental conductance algorithm is used, [4], i
in
and v
in
are used or calculation of the incremental and
absolute conductances. The high efciency power stage may
be realised and modelled by one of three power-conserva-
tive networks: a controllable transformer [9], a loss free
resistor [10] or a gyrator [11].
3 DC transformer and loss-free resistor models of
the MPPT
3.1 MPP tracking by means of controllable
transformers
It has been shown in many pieces of research that steady-
state operation of pulse width modulated power converters
in a continuous conduction mode can be well modelled by
time variable transformers [1014]. Time variable transfor-
mers modelling of the power stage is therefore used in this
description.
In a PV system, the time variable transformer couples the
PV array to the load. This transformer transfers an
unmatched load at its output, into a matched one at its
input (where it connects to the PV array). As mentioned
earlier, the PV array conditions as well as the load may
vary, therefore this transformer has a tunable turns ratio,
see Fig. 3 [10].
The transformer model implies:
v
out
i
out
_ _
=
k
1
0
0 k
_ _
v
in
i
in
_ _
(2)
The controller sets the transfer ratio k, based on the sensed
parameters v
s
and i
s
(which are, traditionally, the MPPTs
input voltage, and current v
in
and i
in
). This model
transformer couples DC voltages and currents and is
commonly realised by means of PWM switched-mode high-
efciency converters. The effective transfer ratio k is
controlled via the duty cycle d at which the converter is
operated [1214]. Consider a load typically applied in PV
systems, which may be represented as a series connected
voltage source E and a resistor R:
v
out
= E i
out
R (3)
This load has a linear load line in the v
in
i
in
plane,
determined by the transformer turns ratio.
v
in
= k E i
in
k
2
R (4)
Figure 4 shows the interaction of the load (referred to the
MPPTs input) and the PV array (where V
M
, I
M
and P
M
denote the MPP) for three values of transfer ratio k. An
unmatched load is assumed in this example, which if
connected directly, would load the PV array at a voltage
lower than V
M
.
At k=1 the PV array operates as if directly connected to
the load. In this case the resulting operation point is at a
voltage lower than V
M
(see Fig. 4a). The power consump-
tion yield is lower than P
M
, as seen in Fig 4b, where the load
line is parabolic.
p
in
=
v
2
in
k E v
in
k
2
R
(5)
As k increases, v
in
increases and so does p
in
. When k reaches
k
*
, matching is achieved and maximum power P
M
is
supplied by the PV array. If k is further increased (k4k
*
) v
in
keeps raising but p
in
decreases, due to the abrupt fall of i
in
.
Thus p
in
(k) has a maximum point P
M
at k
*
where k
*
can be
expressed in terms of the PV array and load characteristics:
k
+
=

E
2
4 P
M
R
_
2 I
M
R
(6)
In practical applications (6) cannot be used to set k because
P
M
, I
M
and E are not constants and R might be unknown.
Thus a control algorithm is iteratively applied until
maximum available power is obtained. Therefore, p
in
must
be successively calculated by multiplying i
in
and v
in
.
3.2 MPP tracking by means of loss-free-
resistors
Other power conservative tunable circuits might be used as
MPPT, for instance, converters with resistive input
characteristics [3]. Such converters may be realised either
by means of a closed loop control [10], or by the converter
inherent properties, such as a yback converter operated in
MPPT
k:1
+ +

load
PV array
i
in

out
out

in
i
control
k
s
v
s
i
Fig. 3 The tunable transformer model of the MPPT power stage
V
M
k > k*
k=k*
k=1
P
M
p
in
v
in
i
in
k=1
v
in
I
M
k > k*
k=k*
V
M
P
M
a
b
Fig. 4 PV array and transferred load characteristics during
variation of the transfer ratio, k
a in the i
in
v
in
b in the p
in
v
in
plane
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005 241
discontinuous operation mode [10]). A loss-free-resistor
(LFR) network models these converters. The model is a
two-port network consisting of an emulated resistance R
e
at
the input and a power source at the output, as shown in
Fig. 5. The power source is dened as an element, which
outputs a certain power regardless of the load character-
istics, with that of the power absorbed at the resistive input
port.
The equations describing the LFR model are:
v
i
t ( ) = R
e
i
i
t ( )
p
0
t ( ) = R
e
i
2
i
t ( ) \Z
L
; \t
_ _
(7)
This equation describes a power conservative two-port
network in which the input terminals have a pure resistive
characteristic, which is buffered from the output. To apply
for MPPT, the value of the emulated resistance R
e
must be
controllable. In this case, the LFR model should be
augmented by a control terminal to which a control signal
v
c
(t) is applied, see Fig. 6.
In this case the emulated resistance is determined by the
control signal. In principle, this control terminal does not
supply or consume power, so a controllable LFR is
described by:
v
i
t ( ) = R
e
i
i
(t)
R
e
= R
e
(v
c
(t))
p
c
= 0 \t
P
0
t ( ) = R
e
i
2
i
(t) \Z
L
; \t
_

_
_

_
(8)
where p
c
is the power at the control terminal. A family of
constant power hyperboles describes the output character-
istics of the controllable LFR. The effective hyperbole is
determined by the control signal v
c
(t).
In such MPPTs, the value of the resistance, emulated by
the MPPT, is tuned so as to draw maximum power from
the PV array. This power is transferred to the output, which
has power source characteristics [3]. The tracking process is
described in Fig. 7.
Even though an ideal voltage source type of load E is
assumed in this example, the PV array sees a pure resistive
o

o
i
P
o

out
P
e
R i

e i
R i P
2
=
LFR
i
i
o
i
a
b
Fig. 5 The LFR model as a two port element (a) and the power
source characteristics (b)
o

out
p
i

e
i
R i p
2
=
controlled LFR
i
i
o
i
V
c
(t)
R
e
(
c
(t))
o

o
i
p
out
(
c
(t))
a
b
Fig. 6 The controlled LFR model (a) and the output character-
istics (b)
i
in

in
R
e1
R
e3
R
e2
V
M
I
M
i
out
p
1
p
2
p
3

out
E
R
e
>
R
e
>
a
b
Fig. 7 MPP tracking process with an LFR based converter
a as viewed at the converters input
b at the load side
242 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005
load. The emulated resistance is varied until it is equal to the
PV arrays optimal load R*, when maximum power is
drawn from the PV array.
R+ =
V
M
I
M
(9)
The value of R
e
denes the PV operation point and the
input power. Suppose the initial value of R
e
is R
e1
, it is
increased until maximum input power is reached at R
e2
(R
e2
=R*). If the emulated resistance is further increased
(R
e
=R
e3
), the input power decreases. Each input-emulated
resistance sets a corresponding hyperbole of constant power
in the output plane, Fig. 7b. The particular load operation
point is determined by the intersection of the hyperbole
p(R
e
) and the load line (in this example constant voltage
type of load). As in the controllable transformer case, (9)
cannot be used in practice to set R
e
because V
M
and I
M
are
not constants, so a control algorithm is iteratively applied
until maximum available power is obtained. Thus, in this
case too, i
in
and v
in
must be sensed and p
in
successively
calculated by multiplying i
in
and v
in
. A 350 watt LFR based
MPPT circuit is described [3], in which the resistive input
characteristics were achieved by operating yback con-
verters in discontinuous current conduction mode. The
emulated resistance was controlled via the duty ratio at
which these converters were operated.
4 Control via output parameters
The potential control of MPPT converters via output
parameters has been noticed in the past [6, 1517]. In [16]
the possibility of sensing only output current was shown for
a constant voltage load. This method, however, uses a
power derivative sign, which might cause inaccuracies and
unrecoverable state from error. Positive current feedback is
used in [17], which is based on curve tting. It is revealed in
this paper that this method results in a which is restricted to
situations in which only small variations in the insolation
level and PV panel temperature are present and where the
PV generators characteristics are precisely known.
In the present work it is stressed that true-maximum-
power-point-seeking is achieved for nearly all practical
loads (not only for constant voltage load types) and the PV
generators characteristics do not need to be known.
Two incentives call for a control approach based on the
output parameters i
out
and v
out
rather than on the input
ones. First, the power converter used might have an
efciency curve that yields maximum output power at an
operation point that does not coincide with maximum input
power in which case maximum output power is the choice
of preference. Second, the output parameter-based con-
troller is simpler and requires fewer sensors. Regardless of
the particular control algorithm employed, input para-
meter-based controller requires sensing of i
in
and v
in
.
It is shown that, in contrary, output parameter-based
controllers requires sensing of only one output parameter
i
out
or v
out
. This is a general feature of output parameter-
based controllers, which applies to a wide range of load
types, including nonlinear ones, provided that the load does
not encompass negative impedance characteristics.
4.1 MPP tracking by means of controllable
power conservative matching network in
case of linear load
Consider a PV array and a linear load coupled by a tunable
power-conservative matching network as shown in Fig. 8. It
is well known that this type of load, consisting of a resistor
in series with a voltage source, models a wide range of
practical loads via their Thevenin equivalent scheme.
Any combination of linear DC loads, such as resistors,
batteries and motors can be represented by its Thevenin
equivalent, described in (3) [7]. It is assumed that this
matching network has an internal controllable parameter
a(v
c
) that affects the power ow through the network.
The matching network might be a controllable trans-
former, loss-free resistor, or gyrator or even a nonlinear
power conservative network.
For instance, if the matching network is implemented by
a controllable transformer, a is its transfer ratio k. whereas
if implemented by a loss-free-resistor, ! a is its emulated
resistance R
e
. In a gyrator-based matching network, the
internal controllable parameter would be its gyration
conductance g. As the controllable parameter is varied,
the input power changes and peaks at a particular value of
the controllable parameter a(v
c
) = a*, see Fig. 9. Since the
matching network is assumed to be power conservative, the
output power equals the input power. The variation of load
power implies variation of load current and voltage:
i
out
=

4 R p
out
E
2
_
E
2 R
;
v
out
=

4 R p
out
E
2
_
E
2
(10)
Evidently, i
out
and v
out
monotonically increase as the output
power increases, thus maximum output current (or voltage)
implies maximum output power. In other words, maximum
output current (or voltage) tracking is equivalent to MPP
tracking. As a(v
c
) changes (say increases), the operation
point changes along the curve in Fig. 9a, from point 1 to the
MPP (point 3). If a(v
c
) keeps increasing, the power decreases
as the operation point becomes point number 4, Fig. 9a.
This process is also shown on the current-power plane
(Fig. 9b) and voltage-power plane (Fig. 9c). Since the power
changes, the output current also changes (10). Maximum
current is reached at maximum power. As a(v
c
) is further
increased the operation point changes from point 3 to point
4, returning on the same ip curve (Fig. 9b). For instance,
operation points 2 and 4, though different, coincide on the
ip curve (Fig. 9b). The same explanation holds for load
voltage variation as shown in Fig. 9c. Thus a control
strategy, different from the conventional one, can be
applied. It is possible to continuously change a(v
c
) while
observing i
out
. As long as i
out
increases as a result of the a(v
c
)
variation, it should still be changing in the same direction. If
i
out
decreases as a result of changing a(v
c
), the tendency of
a(v
c
) variation should be reversed. In this manner the
operation point should converge to the MPP (i
outmax
, P
M
).
Thus an MPPT algorithm may be based on a single
output parameter. In this algorithm the output current or
output voltage is maximised rather than the power. The
power
conservative
matching
network
(
c
)
load

out
i
out
PV array
i
in

in
+

E
R

c
p
out
p
in
Fig. 8 PV array and a linear load coupled by a tunable power-
conservative matching network
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005 243
maximisation of output power follows automatically, thus
eliminating the need for sensing a second parameter as well
as the multiplier. The derivative of i
out
(or v
out
) with respect
to the control variable a or the duty cycle d may be used in
search of the MPP. The MPP is found via the simple
iterative algorithm whose owchart is plotted in Fig. 10. It
can be seen that, unlike in previously reported MPPT
controllers, the power is never calculated in this owchart,
nor is multiplication applied.
4.2 Sensor choice
Some linear load examples are described in Fig. 11: voltage
source, pure resistive, series combination of a voltage source
and a resistor and current source types (represented by lines
14 respectively). Hyperboles representing lines of constant
power are also plotted. The loads might operate at any
point, drawing power that is not greater than P
M
, the PV
array maximum available power.
Consider the voltage source type of load (load line 1).
When k=0, neither current nor power is fed to the load. As
k increases i
out
also increases. This process continues until
MPP is reached (when the load line hits the maximum
power hyperbole). Further increase of k yields a reduction
in the current i
out
as well as in the power p
out
. Thus
maximum output current implies maximum power. This
conclusion is valid for other load types but current source
type of loads in which power may be maximised by
maximisation of output voltage. It should be noted that
i
out
v
outmax
p
P
M
out
1
4
3
out
E
P
M
v
out
out
p
P
M
p
3
i
out
1
3
1
i
outmax
2
2/4
2/4
a

b
c
Fig. 9 Output power versus the controllable parameter
a output current versus output power
b output voltage versus output power (c)
read
d(0), d
d >1
d = d+d
d = d d
sense i
o
(0)
sense i
o
(k+1)
i
o
(k+1) > i
o
(k)
start
d =1
yes
yes
no
no
Fig. 10 Flowchart of the control algorithm
244 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005
most of the practical loads applied in PV systems can be
modelled by a voltage source, or a resistor, or by a
combination of both (such as realistic battery with internal
resistance or a DC motors). Thus the MPP may be reached
by maximisation of either v
out
or i
out
without sensing of the
second parameter, nor multiplication (as would have been
required with conventional input power control). Thus,
with voltage-source type loads, MPP can be reached via
maximisation of the output current, whereas with current-
source type of loads it would be reached via maximisation
of the output voltage. With other load types such as
resistors or voltage source and resistor (see Fig. 11), either
output current or output voltage can be chosen. The sensed
parameter is then chosen for ease of implementation
(usually voltage sensing is easier to implement) and sensing
accuracy.
To evaluate the accuracies, the sensitivity of the power to
the sensed parameter should be compared. Sensitivity is
dened as:
S
p
out
i
out
=
@p
out
@i
out

i
out
p
out
_ _
; S
p
out
v
out
=
@p
out
@v
out

v
out
p
out
_ _
(11)
For instance, applying the sensitivity comparison to the
voltage source and resistor combination (3), yields:
S
p
out
i
out
=
E 2 R i
out
E R i
out
; S
p
out
v
out
=
2 v
out
E
v
out
E
(12)
It can be easily shown that S
p
out
v
out
4S
p
out
i
out
. Therefore, it is
preferable to sense the output current (as the same relative
error in sensing output voltage will cause a higher error in
the power).
4.3 Generalisation for nonlinear loads
So far, load linearity has been assumed when developing the
single output parameter control. However, nonlinear loads
are not rare in PV systems such as gas discharge lamps and
electronic circuits. In this Section, it is shown that the single
output parameter control also applies to nonlinear loads, on
condition that it exhibits nonnegative impedance character-
istics. This condition is expressed in (13):
dv
o
di
o
_ 0;
di
o
dv
o
_ 0 \ v
o
; i
o
( ) p
o
_ P
M
[ [ (13)
where dv
o
/di
o
=0 describes an ideal voltage source and di
o
/
dv
o
=0 an ideal current source (which is quite rare, yet
current sink type loads do exist, for instance, current fed
converters loads). The above is true for nearly all practical
loads (unless the load shows negative resistance or
oscillatory characteristics). Equation (13) implies that v
o
(i
o
)
and i
o
(v
o
) are monotonically nondecreasing functions. That
means that increasing just one of the output parameters (v
o
or i
o
) guarantees an associated rise in the output power:
dp
o
di
o
;
dp
o
dv
o
40 \ v
o
; i
o
( ) p
o
_ P
M
[ [
p
o
= v
o
(i
o
) i
o
= i
o
(v
o
) v
o
_
(14)
At a given operation point (v
o
, i
o
), the output power is p
o
.
p
o
= v
o
(i
o
) i
o
(15)
Suppose i
o
has increased by Di
o
, the new operation point
determined by the load yields a new output power:
p
o
(i
o
Di
o
) = v
o
(i
o
Di
o
) (i
o
Di
o
) (16)
Equation (16) implies:
v
o
(i
o
) _ v
o
(i
o
Di
o
) (17)
Therefore:
p
o
(i
o
Di
o
)4p
o
(i
o
) (18)
A similar procedure with respect to increased output
voltage would show:
p
o
(v
o
Dv
o
)4p
o
(v
o
) (19)
Figure 12 illustrates how increased current implies increased
voltage and vice versa. The associated power consumption
is proportional to the area dened by the operation point.
Evidently, it is increased as well.
Thus, it can be stated that, for non-negative impedance
loads (except for the voltage source and current source type
of loads), the power is a monotonically increasing function
of both load voltage or load current. In the marginal case of
voltage source type of load (corresponding to an incre-
mental impedance tending to 0), the load power is
proportional to the load current, whereas, in the case of
current source type of load (corresponding to an incre-
mental impedance tending to
N
), the power consumption is
proportional to the load voltage.
5 Experimental results
The experimental setup consists of a 200 watt PV array with
I
sc
=10amp, V
oc
=22 volt and P
M
=200 watt (@ 1 Sun,
281C). A synchronous-buck converter was used for the
power stage, which can be modelled as a tunable
transformer as discussed previously. The converter scheme
is shown in Fig. 13. Both switches were implemented by
FDB035AN06A0 power MOSFETs (Rds(on) =3.2mO).
The converter was operated in continuous conduction mode
4
2
3
P
1
< P
2
< P
M
P
1
P
2
P
M
i
out

out
1
Fig. 11 Different load types in the i
out
v
out
. 1-voltage-source type
load, 2-resistive load, 3-resistive & voltage source type load, 4-current
source type load
i
out

out

o

o

o
+
i
o
i
o
i
o
+
Fig. 12 An arbitrary, nonlinear nonnegative impedance load line
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005 245
with PWM control. To reduce switching losses, the
switching frequency was chosen to be 25kHz. Indeed
power conversion efciency up to 98.5% was achieved
(typical efciency in the range of operation was 97.0%).
The inductor value L is 70mH and it has negligible losses.
Input capacitance C
in
is 2.82mF and output capacitance
C
out
is 1.88mF.
Voltages were sensed using 1% accuracy resistor voltage
dividers and currents by LA 55-TP/SP27 current sensors.
Four control strategies were compared:
(a) conventional input parameter-based perturb and
observe
(b) output power maximisation (similar to (a), but where
output parameters are used)
(c) output current maximisation (as described in Fig. 10)
(d) output voltage maximisation, (similar to (c), but where
output voltage is sensed).
These control algorithms were implemented in a micro-
controller with 10-bit ADC (microchip, PIC18F452).
Tracking effectiveness of the different controllers was
compared. Tracking effectiveness TE is dened as
TE=p
*
/P
M
, where p
*
is the power actually supplied to
the load, due to the MPPT controller action. P
M
is dened
as the maximum available load (output) power. P
M
was
found by disabling the MPPTs controller and manually
varying the duty ratio (by a pulse generator) until maximum
output power was reached. Results typical for resistive load
are listed in Table 1 for a load resistor: R
load
=1O.
The second load type tested was a lead acid 12V battery
feeding a resistor in parallel, see Fig. 14.
This load represents a PV system with battery backup.
The battery internal resistance r
s
was 0.22O and the parallel
load R
p
was 1.2O.
Experimental results for the second load type are given in
Table 2.
It can be seen that quite high tracking efciency was
achieved with both load types under all control strategies.
Also, it can be seen that use of the simpler single-output
parameter control does not sacrice tracking efciency. On
the contrary, in both load cases the best results are achieved
by output current control. It may be noted that the duty
ratio reading does not exactly comply with the inputoutput
voltage ratio. That is because the actual duty ratio varies
continually during the tracking operation and the reading
presented in the Table represents some average value
(performed by oscilloscope).
Since the focus at this stage was tracking efciency in the
steady state, the duty-cycle increment Dd was set to 50ns,
allowing ne-tuning near the MPP. This is illustrated in
Fig. 15, which shows the voltage across Q2 (Fig. 13). The
different trailing edges show the variation in duty cycle
while operating near MPP (in increments of Dd).
Another performance criterion is the transient MPPT
behaviour. Optimisation for a transient response is out
of the scope of this paper, yet a simple comparison
will demonstrate the superiority of the proposed
output parameter-based control over the conventional
one. Output current, voltage and power variation for a
sudden load change are shown in Fig. 16. A resistor
load was stepped from B1.62O to twice this value. It
can be seen that the overall recovery time is 6.4s. Some
time periods may be noted during which the MPPT
does not progress towards the MPP (periods of
constant output current, voltage and most evidently power).
Similar behaviour was observed when stepping the load
in the opposite direction with an overall convergence
time of 6.5s.
The response to the same step for output voltage-based
control is shown Fig. 17. Evidently the convergence process
is smooth and continuous, yielding an overall settling time
of less than 2s. It should be stressed that other system
parameters are the same (controller sampling time 20ms,
duty cycle change step of 50ns).
load
C
in
C
L
+

in
+

out
out
i
in i
out
Q1
Q2
D1
D2
Fig. 13 The experimental power stage
Table 1: Tracking efciency
Control strategy v
in
*
[V] i
in
*
[A] v
out
*
[V] i
out
*
[A] Duty cycle [%] TE [%]
1. Input parameter
maximization
19.75 8.72 12.67 13.10 66 97.6
2. Output parameter
maximization
19.70 8.80 12.69 13.14 65.7 98.0
3. Output current
maximization
19.62 8.9 12.77 13.22 67.0 98.8
4. Output voltage
maximization
19.96 8.56 12.6 13.27 64.7 98.3
Resistive load, R
1
D1O, P
M
=170watt.
+

E
r
s
R
p
Fig. 14 The experimental load representing ad PV system with
battery backup
246 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005
6 Conclusions
It has been shown analytically and validated experimentally
that MPPT control via output parameters is possible and
advantageous. It has been shown that controlling MPPTs
via its output parameters facilitates sensing of a single
output parameter and removes the need for a multiplier in
the controller. A major contribution of this work is showing
that single output parameter control is, in general, possible
for nearly all practical load types, regardless of load nature.
In addition, it has been experimentally shown that no
deterioration in the systems steady-state tracking-efciency
results from the single output parameter control. Moreover,
single output parameter control is signicantly superior to
conventional input parameters control in terms of dynamic
response.
In small PV systems with an analogue controller,
omission of the multiplier provides a major advantage as
it simplies the hardware. In PV systems with a digital
controller, omission of the multiplier implies algorithm
simplication. In both cases one of the usual employed
sensors (voltage or current) is saved.
Issues related to the MPPT system transient response
such as the inuence of converter dynamics and its
interaction with the controller have not been explored and
call for further investigation.
7 Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Israeli ministry of
Industry and trade, within the framework of the Large Scale
Rural Telecommunication Consortium, under grant 1956.
Mr Ozeri Shaul is acknowledged for his dedicated and
competent technical support.
Table 2: Tracking efciency
Control strategy v
in
*
[V] i
in
*
[A] v
out
*
[V] i
out
*
[A] Duty cycle [%] TE [%]
1. Input parameter
maximization
18.1 9.64 12.23 13.80 68.5 99.3
2. Output parameter
maximization
19.9 9.14 12.21 13.87 65.8 99.6
3. Output current
maximization
19.1 9.21 12.25 13.86 66.2 99.9
4. Output voltage
maximization
17.74 9.76 12.20 13.81 70.8 99.1
Battery load, P
M
=170watt.
Fig. 15 Experimental results during operation in steady state
a Voltage across Q2, upper trace 10V/div, 10msec/div.
b Zoom on trailing edge, lower trace, 5V/div, 100nsec/div.
Tek Stopped
2
M1
Ch1 Ch2 25V 100mV B
w
M 400ms 1.25KS/s 800us/pt
power
current
voltage
A Ch2 \ 476mV
Math1 45.4 mVV 400ms

1 Acqs 24 Jun 04 05:59:09

Fig. 17 Response to load step (1.62O-3.65O) with output
voltage based control. Output current-blue trace 1A/div, 1sec/div.
Output voltage-yellow traces 2.5V/div, 400sec/div. Output power
variation-red trace 4.5W/div, 400sec/div.
Tek Stopped
2
M1
Ch1 Ch1 25V 200mV B
w
M 400ms 1.25KS/s 800us/pt
power
current
voltage
A Ch2 \ 372mV
Math1 141 mVV 400ms

1 Acqs 24 Jun 04 06:53:40

Fig. 16 Response to load step (1.62O-3.65O) with conventional
PV panel voltage and current control. Output current-blue trace 1A/
div, 1sec/div. Output voltage-yellow traces 2.5V/div, 1sec/div.
Output power variation-red trace 4.5W/div, 1sec/div.
IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005 247
8 References
1 Bulatov, O., Obuchov, S., Polyakov, V., Obgerin, E., and Ertan, B.:
Main synchronized low cost solar conversion for household
application. 9th Int. Conf. Exhibition on Power Electronics and
Motion Control, EPEPEMC 2000 Kosice Proc. Tech. Univ., Kosice,
Slovakia, 2000, 4, pp. 4153
2 Appelbaum, J.: Starting and steady-state characteristics of DC
motors powered by solar cell generators, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., 1986, EC-1, (1), pp. 1725
3 Valderrama-Blavi, H., Alonso, C., Martinez-Salamero, L., Singer, S.,
Estibals, B., and Maixe-Altes, J.: AC-LFR concept applied to
modular photovoltaic power conversion chains, IEE Proc. Electr.
Power Appl., 2002, 149, (6), pp. 441448
4 Hussein, K.H., Muta, I., Hoshino, T., and Osakada, M.: Maximum
photovoltaic power tracking: an algorithm for rapidly changing
atmospheric conditions, IEE Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 1995, 142,
(1), pp. 5964
5 Muhida, R., Minwon, P., Dakkak, M., Matsuura, K., Tsuyoshi, A.,
and Michira, M.: A maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic-
SPE system using a maximum current controller, Solar Energy Mater.
Solar Cells, 2003, 75, (3-4), pp. 697706
6 Case, M.J., Joubert, M.J., and Harrison, T.A.: A novel photovoltaic
array maximum power point tracker. EPE-PEMC 2002, Dubrovnik,
Croatia, 2002, pp. T5005
7 Veerachary, M., Senjyu, T., and Uezato, K.: Maximum power
point tracking of coupled inductor interleaved boost converter
supplied PV system, IEE Proc. Electr. Power Appl., 2003, 150, (1),
pp. 7180
8 Ermis, M., Ertan, H.B., Akpinar, E., and Ulgut, F.: Autonomous
wind energy conversion system with a simple controller for maximum-
power transfer, IEE Proc. B, Electr. Power Appl., 1992, 139, (5),
pp. 421428
9 Newcomb, R.W.: The Semistate description of non linear time-
variable circuits, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Syst., 1981, 28, pp. 6271
10 Erickson, R.W., and Maksimovic, D.: Fundamentals of power
electronics, 2nd Edn. (Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2001)
11 Ehsani, M., Husain, I., and Bilgic, MO.: Power converters as natural
gyrators,, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., 1993,
40, (12), pp. 946949
12 Wester, G.W., and Middelbrook, R.D.: Low-frequency characteriza-
tion of switched DCDC converters,, IEEE Trans. Circuits and Syst.,
1973, 9, pp. 376385
13 Sanders, S.R., and Vergese, G.C.: Synthesis of averaged circuit
models for switched power converters,, IEEE Trans. Circuits and
Syst., 1991, 38, (8), pp. 905915
14 Czarkowski, D., and Kazimierczuk, M.K.: Energy-conservation
approach to modeling PWM DCDC converters,, IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 1993, 29, (3), pp. 10591063
15 Snyman, D.B., and Enslin, J.H.R.: Simplied maximum power point
controller for PV installations. IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf.,
Louisville, KY, USA, 1993, pp. 12401245
16 Sullivan, C.R., and Powers, M.J.: A high-efciency maximum power
point tracker for photovoltaic arrays in a solar-powered race vehicle.
IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf., Seattle, USA, 1993, pp.
574580
17 Kislovski, A.S., and Redl, R.: Maximum-power-tracking using
positive feedback. IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conf., Taipei,
Taiwan, 1994, 2, pp. 10651068
248 IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl., Vol. 152, No. 2, March 2005