Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Intelligent maximum power point trackers for photovoltaic

applications using FPGA chip: A comparative study
F. Chekired a,e, A. Mellit b,a,c,, S.A. Kalogirou d, C. Larbes e
a
Development Unit of Solar Equipments (UDES)/EPST-CDER, Bousmail 42000, Algeria
Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Renewable Energy Laboratory, Jijel University, Jijel 18000, Algeria
c
The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering, Cyprus University of Technology, P.O. Box 50329, Limassol 3603, Cyprus
e
Laboratory of Communication Devices and Photovoltaic Conversion, National Polytechnic School of Algiers, Algiers 16200, Algeria
b

Received 22 July 2013; received in revised form 28 October 2013; accepted 21 December 2013
Available online 10 January 2014
Communicated by: Associate Editor Elias K. Stefanakos

Abstract
In this paper, various intelligent methods (IMs) used in tracking the maximum power point and their possible implementation into a
recongurable eld programmable gate array (FPGA) platform are presented and compared. The investigated IMs are neural networks
(NN), fuzzy logic (FL), genetic algorithm (GA) and hybrid systems (e.g. neuro-fuzzy or ANFIS and fuzzy logic optimized by genetic
algorithm). Initially, a complete simulation of the photovoltaic system with intelligent MPP tracking controllers using MATLAB/Simulink environment is given. Secondly, the dierent steps to design and implement the controllers into the FPGA are presented, and the
best controller is tested in real-time co-simulation using FPGA Virtex 5. Finally, a comparative study has been carried out to show the
eectiveness of the developed IMs in terms of accuracy, quick response (rapidity), exibility, power consumption and simplicity of implementation. Results conrm the good tracking eciency and rapid response of the dierent IMs under variable air temperature and solar
irradiance conditions; however, the FLGA controller outperforms the other ones. Furthermore, the possibility of implementation of the
designed controllers into FPGA is demonstrated.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Photovoltaic system; Intelligent MPPTs; Co-simulation; Real time implementation; FPGA

1. Introduction
Tracking the maximum power point (MPP) of a photovoltaic (PV) module/array is an indispensable task of a
photovoltaic control system, since it maximizes the power
output of the PV system, and therefore maximizes the PV
module eciency. To improve the conversion eciency
of the electric power generation, a maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) algorithm is usually integrated with the

Corresponding author at: Faculty of Sciences and Technology,

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Jijel University, Jijel 18000, Algeria.
E-mail addresses: adelmellit2013@gmail.com, amellit@ictp.it (A. Mellit).

0038-092X/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.12.026

PV system installations so that the photovoltaic arrays will

be able to deliver the maximum power available under all
possible system-operating conditions.
In the last decade, several researchers have presented
various algorithms to track the maximum power of photovoltaic module/arrays (Reisi et al., 2013). These algorithms
vary in many aspects, such as the number of required sensors, cost and complexity, range of eectiveness, convergence speed, robustness, correct tracking when irradiation
and/or temperature change, and hardware needed for the
implementation.
Articial intelligence (AI) techniques have been widely
used in photovoltaic applications for modelling, prediction,

84

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

Nomenclature
STC
standard test conditions
VHSIC very-high-speed integrated circuit

Terminology
ANFIS adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
ANN articial neural network
ASIC application specic integrated circuit
CLBs congurable logic blocks
DSP
digital signal processor
FL
fuzzy logic
FPGA eld programmable gate array
GA
genetic algorithm
HDL hardware description language
IncCond incremental conductance
ISE
integrated software environment
MPP maximum power point
MPPT maximum power point tracking
OTP
one-time programmable
P&O perturb and observe
PV
photovoltaic
PWM pulse width modulator
RTL register transfer level

Symbols
D
duty cycle
E
error
G
irradiation (W/m2)
K
Boltzmanns constant
m
the diode ideality factor
P
power (W)
q
the charge of the electron (Cl)
T
the temperature at standard test conditions (K)
Ta
air temperature (C)
Greek
l
g
DE
DIL
Dv0

control and optimisation (Mellit and Kalogirou, 2008).

Additionally, the use of the intelligent techniques-based
MPP trackers should be noted. These are recently developed and used to improve energy conversion eciency
under uniform and non-uniform insolation (Chao and Li,
2010; Kulaksiz and Akkaya, 2012; Salam et al., 2013; Liu
et al., 2013; Shaiek et al., 2013; Reisi et al., 2013). As example, Table 1 summarizes a comparison between a number
of classical algorithms and methods based on AI techniques. Generally, MPPT-based AI techniques are more
ecient, have fast response, and are more complex with
respect to the previous methods that are simple, slow,
low eciency and inexpensive. An extensive comparative
study can be found in Subudhi and Pradhan (2013).
Advances in intelligent techniques embedded into a eld
programmable gate array (FPGA) allowed the application
of such technologies in real engineering problems; however,
the application of such technologies in the solar energy eld
is still relatively limited. The embedded intelligent algorithm
into programmable devices such as FPGA may play a very
important role in PV systems, for example in Koutroulis

membership function
eciency
change of the error E (W)
inductor ripple current (A)
output voltage ripple amplitude (V)

et al. (2009) and Mekki et al. (2010) intelligent PV emulators

for stand-alone PV systems have been developed.
Conventional MPPT methods such as perturb and
observe (P&O), variable step-size P&O, incremental conductance (IncCond) and new improved P&O have been
implemented into FPGA due to the simplicity of implementation (Khaehintung et al., 2006; Youssef et al., 2010;
Mellit et al., 2011; Chettibi et al., 2012). However, these
algorithms are not as ecient as the MPPT methods based
on articial intelligence techniques such as, fuzzy logic,
neural network, etc. (Mellit and Kalogirou, 2008; Salam
et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013).
In this work, we are implementing the MPPT system using
recongurable FPGAs. This chip oer lower cost implementation since the functions of various components can be integrated onto the same FPGA chip as opposed to digital signal
processor (DSPs), which can perform only DSP-related
computations. In addition, FPGAs can provide equivalent
or higher performance with the customization potential of
Application Specic Integrated Circuits (ASIC). Because
FPGAs can be reprogrammed at any time, repairs can be

Table 1
Comparison between some previous MPPT methods and MPPT-based AI techniques.
Methods

Eciency

Complexity level

Response/speed

Hardware implementation

Cost

Power consumption

P&O
IncCond
Open circuit voltage
Fuzzy logic
Neural networks
Genetic algorithm

Low
Moderate
Low
High
High
High

Simple
Simple
Simple
High
High
Moderate

Slow
Medium
Medium
Fast
Fast
Fast

Easy
Easy
Easy
Relatively easy
Dicult
Dicult

Inexpensive
Inexpensive
Inexpensive
Expensive
Expensive
Expensive

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

performed in situ while the system is running, thus providing

a high degree of robustness (Persen, 2004). In some cases,
(e.g. in simple applications) the use of a microcontroller is
very suitable. However, some critical mathematic processing, such as DSP, would need real-time processing that is
time critical. The same applies to advanced control based
on AI techniques. In these situations, FPGAs would be a
good solution. FPGAs have a key impact on hardware or
software co-design and they are used as devices for rapid prototyping, and for nal products.
In our previous research, some intelligent MPPT controllers have been designed and implemented into FPGA
chip (Chekired et al., 2011, 2012). This paper aims to
develop and verify the eectiveness o our intelligent controllers, fuzzy logic (FL), neural networks (NN), adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and FL-optimized
genetic algorithm (FLGA) for tracking the MPP in photovoltaic systems under uniform and rapid variation of
weather conditions.
Initially, Matlab/Simulink is used to simulate and verify
the designed intelligent MPPT controllers. Secondly, a hardware description language HDL (VHSIC: very-high-speed
integrated circuits) is employed to design the dierent parts
of the overall system. Finally, the ISE (Integrated Software
Environment) tools of Xilinx and ModelSim software are
used to simulate and implement the designed intelligent
MPPTs into an FPGA chip (Virtex-5 ML501- XC5VLX50).
Additionally, a comparative study between the above MPPT
controllers is provided, taking into account the eciency,
implementation complexity, exibility, power consumption
as well as the response time of each controller.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the
developed intelligent MPPT controllers based on; FL,
ANN, ANFIS and FLGA. A complete Matlab/Simulink
simulation of the developed MPPT controllers is presented
in Section 3. Section 4 gives a detailed description of the
procedure of the implemented controllers into a recongurable FPGA as well as their hardware co-simulation.
Finally, a comparative study is provided in Section 5.

85

2. MPPT-based articial intelligence controllers

With reference to Fig. 1 the photovoltaic system
employed includes: a photovoltaic module (BP solar
MSX 120 Wp), a buck DCDC converter, a MPPT control
unit, a battery and a load (static or dynamic). Maximum
power point tracking means that the photovoltaic module
or generator is always tuned to operate at its maximum
output voltage/current rating. An MPP-tracker is a stepdown DCDC converter that sets the photovoltaic module
or generator to operate at MPP independently of the load.
Hence, the main function of an MPP-tracker is to adjust
the PV module output voltage to a value in which the PV
module produces the maximum power output Pmax and
transfer maximum energy to the load. The control unit
contains one intelligent controller to track the MPP. These
controllers are described in the following sections.
2.1. MPPT-based fuzzy logic controller
It has been demonstrated that fuzzy control technique is
a viable option to apply in tracking the maximum power of
photovoltaic systems. Although fuzzy logic controller is
ecient in tracking the MPP, it requires good design to
select appropriate fuzzication, inference mechanism, rule
base, and defuzzication processes. The shape of the membership functions associated to the fuzzy logic controller
(FLC) linguistic variables are often piecewise linear functions (triangular or trapezoidal). The MPPT using the
Mamdanis FLC approach, which uses the minmax fuzzy
combination law is designed in a manner that the control
task try to continuously move the operation point of the
PV module as close as possible to the MPP. The two inputs
of the FLC are the tracking error (E) and the change of the
error (DE), which are dened as (Messai et al., 2011a):
En

P n  P n  1
V n  V n  1

DEn En  En  1

Load

DC-DC Buck
converter
Battery

PV module
BP MSX120Wp

Intelligent MPPT controller (insideFPGA)

Control unit

Fig. 1. Schematic block diagram of the considered stand-alone photovoltaic system.

86

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

where n is the sampling time, P(n) is the instant power of

the PV generator and V(n) is the instant corresponding
voltage. These inputs are chosen so that the instant value
of E(n) shows if the load operation power point is located
on the right or in the left compared to the actual position of
Pmax. The DE(n) expresses the moving direction of this
operation point. The output variable is the Pulse Width
Modulation (PWM) signal called the duty cycle (D), which
is transmitted to the buck DCDC converter to drive the
load. After the rules have been applied, the centre of area
is used as the defuzzication method to nd the actual
value of the duty cycle, which is given by the following
equation (Messai et al., 2011a):
Pn
j1 lDj  Dj
3
D Pn
j1 lDj

Fig. 2. Surface view created by the FL controller.

The following rule bases of the fuzzy sets are used to

express the inputs and outputs in linguistic variables; PB
(positive big), PS (positive small), ZE (zero), NS (negative
small), NB (negative big). Table 2 presents the rules of
fuzzy controller where the inputs are fuzzy sets of E and
the DE and the output is the parameter D.
Each variable is described with 5 membership functions,
as illustrated in Chekired et al. (2011). The linguistic description of the rules is expressed in terms of a knowledge-based
system consisting of if . . . then linguistic labels and fuzzy
logic inference mechanism, such as:
Rule 1 : If E is PB and DE is NB Then D is NB
Rule 2 : If E is PS and DE is NB Then D is NS
..
.

Fig. 3a. The employed neural network architecture for the MPPTANN
controller.

and so forth:
The basic idea is that if the last change in the duty ratio
(D) has caused the power to rise, keep moving in the same
direction; otherwise, if it has caused the power to drop
move it in the opposite direction. Fig. 2 depicts the surface
of the fuzzy logic controller. It should be noted that, fuzzy
logic methods depend on a careful selection of parameters,
denition of membership functions, and fuzzy rules.
2.2. MPPT-based neural network controller
ANNs are widely accepted as a technology oering an
alternative way to solve complex problems. The developed
neural network architecture for the MPPT controller is
given in Fig. 3a, the input variables are E, DE and the
output variable is the parameter D. These values are
Table 2
Fuzzy logic inference table (Messai et al., 2011a).
DE=E

NB

NS

ZE

PS

PB

NB
NS
ZE
PS
PB

ZE
ZE
PS
NS
NB

ZE
ZE
ZE
NS
NB

PB
PS
ZE
NS
NB

PB
PS
NB
ZE
ZE

PB
PS
NS
ZE
ZE

calculated based on the measured current and voltage from

the IV curves at dierent conditions. The developed structure consists of three layers as:
 The input layer consists of two neurons, whose role is to
transmit the input values that correspond to the variables (E, DE) to the next layer called the hidden layer.
 The hidden layer consists of a number of neurons whose
activation function is the tangential sigmoid. The number of neurons in the hidden layer was empirically optimized during the learning phase by trial-and-error.
Various tests carried out have shown that the most accurate structure is composed of ve neurons.
 The output layer has only one neuron representing the
control signal D with a linear activation function.
The database employed consists of 1200 patterns of E,
DE and D variables, which has been divided into two
sub-databases, 70% of the samples are used to train the
ANN, and the rest 30% are used to test and validate the
network. These patterns were collected using measurements of the IV characteristics at dierent solar irradiance
and air temperature conditions.
It should be noted that the choice of activation function
in the hidden layer has not been adopted arbitrarily, but it

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

was chosen after several tests, which showed that the tangential sigmoid function converges faster compared to the
exponential sigmoid function during the learning phase.
The well-known LevenbergMarquardt (LM) algorithm
was used to train the network and the root mean square
error is used as criterion to stop the training process.
Fig. 3b shows the evolution of the performance error for
the designed ANN-controller. As can be observed, the
mean squared error during the training process is about
105 for ve neurons in the hidden layer. The calculated
duty cycle versus the desired one is given in Fig. 3c and
as it can be seen a good agreement between ANN-predicted
and calculated D is observed; the relative error is about 1%.
2.3. MPPT-based ANFIS controller
Combining fuzzy logic and neural networks is a powerful tool in control, prediction and modelling of complex
systems such as photovoltaic systems. MPP tracking using

87

this technique has been demonstrated in Chekired et al.

(2012). Neural networks are based on data training, while
fuzzy logics are based on expert knowledge. When both
data and knowledge of the underlying system are available,
a neuro-fuzzy or adaptive network-based fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) approach is able to exploit both sources
so usually it is more ecient.
The designed ANFIS controller has also two inputs
(E, DE) and one output (D). The two input variables generate a control signal which is applied to the converter to
adjust the duty cycle, so that to ensure the maximisation
of the power supplied by the photovoltaic module. The
ANFIS controller consists of ve layers presented in Chekired et al. (2012). This controller allows automatic generation of fuzzy rules based on Sugeno inference model:
Rule 1 : If E is A1 and DE is B1 Then D1 f E; DE
Rule 2 : If E is A1 and DE is B2 Then D2 f E; DE
..
.
Rule 25 : If E is A5 and DE is B5 Then D25 f E; DE
where A1, A2. . . A5, B1, B2 . . . B5 are the fuzzy sets.
The formula of the duty cycle D is given by the following equation:
D

w1 D1 w2 D2    w25 D25
w1 w2    w25

where wi are the weights.

The variation of the duty cycle D with the error E and
the change of the error DE is shown in the surface plot
of Fig. 4. Table 3 shows the rules table of the ANFIS controller where the inputs are fuzzy sets of E and the change
of error DE, while the output is the parameter D.
2.4. MPPT-based FLGA controller
Fig. 3b. Evolution of the performance error.

Developing FLCs need expert knowledge and good

experimentation in choosing parameters and membership
functions. Although the operator skills and knowledge at
the level of the inference rules and the membership functions are embedded into the controller, some faults may
appear. To improve the eciency of the MPPT-based

0.5
D desired
0.45
D calculated

Duty cycle (%)

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1
0

50

100

150

Time (S)

Fig. 3c. Calculated against desired duty cycle.

Fig. 4. Surface view created by the ANFIS controller.

88

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

Table 3
ANFIS inference table (Chekired et al., 2012).
DE=E

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

A1
A2
A3
A4
A5

D1
D6
D11
D16
D21

D2
D7
D12
D17
D22

D3
D8
D13
D18
D23

D4
D9
D14
D19
D24

D5
D10
D15
D20
D25

FLC, Gas are used to nd the optimal membership functions and parameters as reported in Larbes et al. (2009)
and Messai et al. (2011b). This is achieved by implementing
the following stages.
2.4.1. The optimization criterion
The quadratic criterion to be minimized is Larbes et al.
(2009):
Z
2
J P max  P dt
5
where P the desired power and Pmax the maximum power
delivered by the module under the STC (T = 25 C and
G = 1000 W/m2).The aim of this choice is to improve the
response time and reduce the uctuations.
2.4.2. Creation of the initial population
In the design of the proposed optimal FLC, two inputs
(E, DE) and one output (D) are used. Each variable is

described with ve membership functions. The population

consists of a set of individuals; each individual is composed
of three chromosomes: E, DE and D as reported in Larbes
et al. (2009).
2.4.3. Optimal FLC membership functions
It can be noted that the GAs have made the system to
converge gradually towards an optimal solution represented by the best individual of the last population. This
individual gives the values of the required parameters.
The obtained optimal solution gives the shape of the membership functions shown in Fig. 5. A 100 individuals population has been taken to reach the optimal solution. The
stop criterion is carried out when the maximum number
Table 4
Parameters of the GA.
Parameters

Value

Representation
Population size
Generations
Number of genes Ng
Rate of crossover

Binary
100
50
12
100%

Mutation method
Reintegration method
Rate of mutation
Distribution index

Continuous variables
Elitist
1/12 = 8.33%
n=5

Fig. 5. Optimal FLC membership functions.

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

89
Rs

of generations reaches 50 that is where the tness function

is at its minimum. Table 4 summarizes the GA parameters.

3. Matlab/Simulink-based simulation of the developed

intelligent MPPT controllers

Id
Rsh

To simulate the behaviour of the designed intelligent

MPPT controllers, the PV system described in Fig. 1 is developed under Matlab/Simulink environment (see Fig. 6a). It
consists of a PV module, a buck DCDC converter, a MPPT
controller, a battery and a resistive load. The dierent
elements of the system are modelled as described below.

Iph

Fig. 6b. The equivalent electrical circuit of one diode model.

3.1. PV module modelling

The general electrical circuit of one diode model is used
to model the PV, shown in Fig. 6b. A single diode model is
given as (Sera et al., 2007):
 V IRs
 V IR 
s

Vt
1 
I I Ph  I 0 e
6
Rsh
where Iph is the photo-generated current in STC, I0 is the
dark saturation current in STC, Rs is the panel series resistance, Rsh is the panel parallel (shunt) resistance, Vt is the
thermal voltage, given by:
Vt

mKT STC
q

where K is Boltzmanns constant, q is the charge of the

electron, T STC K is the temperature at standard test conditions (STC), and m is the diode ideality factor. These ve
parameters are determined by solving the transcendental
equation (Eq. (6)) using the Newton Raphson algorithm
based only on the datasheet of available parameters. The
PV module specication is reported in Appendix A.
3.2. Buck DCDC converter modelling
The equivalent electric circuit of the employed buck
DCDC converter is illustrated in Fig. 6c. When the switch
in Fig. 6d is closed t 2 [0;DTs], the diode will be reverse
biased and a current ows through the inductor into the
load (Fig. 6c). As soon as the switch is open t 2 [DTs,Ts],
the inductor will maintain the current ow to the load,

Fig. 6c. Electrical circuit of a DCDC buck converter.

but the loop closes through the now forward biased diode
(Fig. 6c). Controlling switch position the output voltage
can be maintained at a desired level lower than the input
source voltage. Thus, the buck converter can be described
by the following set of equations:
diL mL V i  V O  RL I L

dt
L
L
dV c1 iC1 I i  I L


dt
C1
C1

and

8
dV C2 iC2 I L  I O


dt
C2
C2

Rewriting the previous equations in the form of state

equations by taking the inductor current and the capacitors
voltages as the states of the system, the following state
equations are obtained:
I Lcc 2DI L

V i  V O  RL I L
DTs
L

Fig. 6a. Matlab/Simulink based simulation of the designed MPPTs for a stand-alone photovoltaic system.

10

90

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

Fig. 6d. Inductor current ripple in the buck DC-DC converter.

V icc

Ii  IL
DTs and
C1

V occ

IL  Io
DTs
C2

11

where ILcc is the value of the inductor current, Vicc and Vocc
are the values of capacitors voltages. While the output voltage ripple amplitude Dmo usually ranges within 1% of the
DC component Vo, the amplitude of the inductor current
ripple DIL I Lmax  I Lmin varies by as much as 1020% of
its DC value IL (Erickson, 1997). The values of L, C1
and C2 can be calculated as:
Vi  Vo  RL I L
DTs
2DI L
Ii  IL
IL  Io
C1
DTs and C 2
DTs
2DVi
2DV o
L

12
13

Fig. 6d shows the inductor current in continuous

conduction mode. Therefore, the calculated values of the
dierent components of the converter are: L = 3.5 mH,
C1 = 5.6 mF, C2 = 5.6 mF, Frequency = 20 kHz, Switch
(S) = IRFP360, Diode (D) = UF5402.
3.3. Leadacid battery modelling
With regard to the battery modelling, the mathematical
model given in Salameh et al. (1992) has been employed.
The equivalent electric circuit of the leadacid battery is
shown in Fig. 6e. The required parameters for this model
are Rbs, Rb1, Rbp, Cb1 and Cbp and which are generally
Cb1
Ib

f s

4:2920e5S 2 1:3218e8S 1:0003e4

330157100S 2 4:6501e7S 1

14

It should be noted that each model is represented by a

Simulink block; PV panel: embedded Matlab function is
used; Buck converter: Sim Power Systems Simulink is used
to add power elements (diode, capacitor, etc.); Battery
model: embedded Matlab function is used, and the MPPT
controller by using Matlab/Simulink block.
3.4. MPPT-controller eciency
The tracking eciency (g) is an important decisive
factor of an MPPT algorithm. This value is calculated as:
Rt
P MPPT tdt
g R0 t
15
P tdt
0 max
where PMPPT represents the output power of the PV system
with MPPT, and Pmax is the output power at true MPP.
The developed intelligent controllers have been tested
under constant and variable weather conditions (temperature and irradiance). To test their eectiveness, two performance parameters have been used: the eciency and
response time.
3.5. Simulation results

Rbs

Cbp

Rbp

Voc

Rb1
Vb

reported in the datasheet (Lu et al., 1995) Rbs = 0.0013 X,

Rb1 = 2.84 X, Rbp = 1 K X, Cb1 = 2.5 F and Cbp = 4.6501 KF. Thus, the transfer function of the mathematical model
of the employed battery is given by the following equation
using Matlab/Simulink:

Fig. 6e. Electrical circuit of a leadacid battery.

3.5.1. Constant variation of irradiance and temperature

Fig. 7a shows the evolution of the simulated PV power
and duty cycle of the designed controllers versus time at
STC. After a short transitional time (03 s) the FLGA
controller follows very fast the expected MPP with negligible oscillation. FL and ANN controllers stabilize after
about 12 s, with few oscillations. However, ANFIS controller is the slowest one as it stabilizes after about 16 s.
The duty cycle value is stabilized at the value of 0.6, after
approximately 20 s for all controllers. Table 5 reports the

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

91

120

Module power (W)

100
80
60
40
20
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Dudy cycle D

0.5
0.4

Neural networks

0.3

ANFIS

0.2

Fuzzy optimized by GA
Fuzzy logic

0.1
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Time (S)

Fig. 7a. PV power evolution of the simulated MPPT and its corresponding duty cycle D during a test period (from 0 to 20 s) at STC.

Table 5
Eciency, response time and duty cycle rate of each technique in STC.
MPPT-controller

Eciency
g (%)

Response
time (s)

Duty cycle
rate D (%)

FL
FLGA
ANFIS
ANN

98.12
98.72
98.33
98.43

12.03
3.03
15.88
11.96

58.11
59.8
59.44
59.55

calculated eciency, response time and duty cycle rate of

each technique at STC. With respect to this table, the eciency is about 98% for all techniques, but the GAFL is
the most ecient and converges quickly to the MPP.
3.5.2. Rapid variation of weather conditions
1st case: rapid variation of solar irradiance
In this case, solar irradiance is set to 1000 W/m2 from
t = 0 s to t = 20 s, and 500 W/m2 from t = 25 s to
t = 35 s. The period from t = 20 s to t = 25 s is a transition
time in which the irradiance decrease from 1000 to 500 W/
m2. However, the air temperature was kept at 25 C during
the test period. Simulation results are illustrated in Fig. 7b.
It can be observed that, the FLGA controller track the
MPP after 3 s with negligible oscillations, while the rest
of controllers tested track the expected MPP after 8 s with
few oscillation around the MPP. However, when the irradiance decreases from 1000 to 500 W/m2 during a short period of 5 s, all intelligent controllers developed can detect
quickly the new MPP with negligible oscillations. During
the simulation period, from 0 to 35 s, the duty cycle follows
well the variation of solar irradiance, except a few

variations in the transition period. The duty cycle changed

from 58% to 42%, which is due to the variation of solar
irradiance. Estimated eciency, response time and duty
cycle rate of each technique under the rapidly changing
conditions of irradiance are presented in Table 6. With
respect to this table, the eciency is varied between 96%
and 97% for all techniques; the GAFL always performs
better and converges quickly to the MPP and generally,
all controllers exhibit good performance in the case of
rapid variation of irradiance.
2nd case: rapid variation of air temperature
In this case, air temperature is set to 45 C from t = 0 s
to t = 20 s, and 25 C from t = 25 s to t = 35 s. The period
from t = 20 s to t = 25 s is a transition time in which the
temperature decrease from 45 to 25 C. However, the
solar irradiance was kept at 1000 W/m2 during the test
period. Simulation results are presented in Fig. 7(c). As
observed, the FLGA controller track very fast the
MPP after 3 s,while the rest of controllers track the
expected MPP after 8 s with a few oscillations around
the MPP. The expected power is about 110 W due to the
inuence of the temperature (45 C). However, when the
air temperature decrease from 45 C to 25 C the developed intelligent algorithm again track quickly the new
expected MPP (120 W) with a few oscillations. The duty
cycle also exhibits few variations at the transition period,
which is negligible. Eciency, response time and duty
cycle rate of each technique in the rapidly changing conditions of temperature are presented in Table 7. As can be
seen, the eciency varied between 97% and 98% for all
techniques and the controllers are not inuenced by this
variation in temperature.

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

S(W/m2)

92
1000
800
600
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

120

Module power (W)

100
80

Neural networks

60

Fuzzy logic

40

Fuzzy optimized by GA
ANFIS

20
0
0

10

15

10

15

0.6

Dudy cycle D

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Time (S)

Fig. 7b. PV power evolution of the simulated MPPT and its corresponding duty cycle D in rapid variation of irradiance (from 1000 W/m2 to 500 W/m2
during a transition time of 5 s), air temperature was kept at 25 C.

Table 6
Eciency, response time and duty cycle rate of each technique in rapidly
changing conditions of irradiance.
MPPT-controller

Eciency
g (%)

Response
time (s)

Duty cycle
rate D (%)

FL
FLGA
ANFIS
ANN

96.4
97
96.25
96.66

8.15
3.12
7.92
7.84

42.98
43.07
42.32
42.87

4. Co-simulation and hardware implementation of intelligent

MPPT controllers
The dierent steps to realize and simulate a project into
FPGA are summarized as follows:
Write a program in HDL (VHDL, Verilog, schematics) or use System Generator (Matlab/Simulink).
Simulate (using ModelSim, or co-simulation with
Matlab/Simulink).
Synthesis (Develop the RTL schematic and technology, etc.).
Place and route (place and route of the designed
project, estimate the consumption power, pins, etc.).
Timing, maximum clock rate is determined by tools.
Generating the bit-stream into the FPGA.
Congure the target device and download it into a
FPGA.

ModelSim, Matlab/Simulink and ISE software are used

for this subject.
4.1. FPGAs
FPGAs are programmable semiconductor devices that
are based around a matrix of congurable logic blocks
(CLBs) connected through programmable interconnections
(Xilinx, Inc.). The following are some of the most important advantages of FPGAs, which motivated us to implement intelligent MPPT controllers:
Programmed and reprogrammed many times and
consolidation of multiple components into a single
component.
Eliminating the costs associated with re-design or
manually updating electronic systems and higher
speed compared with Microcontroller or DSP.
Much faster than software-based logic and
improved design update and enhancement options.
Relatively lower implementation costs; however,
microcontrollers
are
low-cost
and
power
consumption.
Flexible, it means that you can add subtract the
functionality as required, this cannot be done in
microcontroller.

T (K)

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

93

320
310
300
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

120

Module power (W)

100
80
Neural networks
60

Fuzzy logic

40

Fuzzy optimized by GA
ANFIS

20
0

10

15

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

Dudy cycle D

0.6

0.4

0.2

Time (S)

Fig. 7c. PV power evolution of the simulated MPPT and its corresponding duty cycle D in rapid variation of air temperature (from 45 C to 20 C during
a transition time of 5 s), solar irradiance was kept at 1000 W/m2.
Table 7
Eciency, response time and duty cycle rate of each technique in rapidly
changing conditions of air temperature.
MPPT-controller

Eciency
g (%)

Response
time (s)

Duty cycle
rate D (%)

FL
FLGA
ANFIS
ANN

98.07
98.20
97.52
97.86

8.23
2.97
7.87
7.75

58.8
58.67
58.9
58.93

Concurrent, its means that you can take sequential

functionality like adding soft processor core. While
the microcontroller as always sequential. This makes
FPGAs better suited for real-time applications such
as executing DSP algorithms.
FPGA is used mainly for programmable logic but
microcontroller is mainly for hard-core processing.
4.2. VHDL code implementation
VHDL stands for VHSIC hardware description language. The language is formally dened by IEEE Standard
1076. The standard was ratied in 1987 (referred to as
VHDL 87), and revised several times. This paper mainly
follows the revision in 1993 (referred to as VHDL 93).
VHDL is intended for describing and modelling a digital
system at various levels and is an extremely complex language (Pong, 2008). Implanting a VHDL code is principally a two-step process, i.e., synthesis and placementand-routing (Ruelland et al., 2003) described below:

Synthesis
Synthesis involves compiling the VHDL code with
tools (e.g. Xilinx Foundation ISE 11.1i) which is a commercially available tool. The result of this compilation is
a ip-op and logic function transcription of the
high-level functionalities. Some functions can be resolved
in dierent ways, depending on the target component.
VHDL codes can be simulated using ModelSim Xilinx
or other tools.
Placement-and-Routing
The result of the Placement-and-Routing is the nal
code to be implanted on the FPGA. An auxiliary result is
the VHDL le giving the operation of the implanted code
and taking the propagation times of the target device into
account. This le can be used in co-simulation and this
result in a representation of a virtual prototype. This allows
checking that the Placement-and-Routing has not
altered the performance and that the synchronization of
all signals is compatible with the propagation times.
4.3. The designed VHDL-modules
The controllers have been designed using the VHDL,
integrated with the Xilinx foundation ISE11.1i tools
(Xilinx, Inc.). The dierent designed VHDL-modules can
be summarized to main and secondary blocks, as:

94

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

4.3.1. Main block

4.3.2. Secondary blocks

MPPT algorithm

Frequency divider

The MPPT algorithm is the main block; it represents the

VHDL-module to be tested. It corresponds to one intelligent MPPT controller (ANN, FL, etc.). As an example,
Figs. 8a8c depict the RTL (Register Transfer Level) of
the designed controllers; FLCGA, neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS)
and NN controller, respectively; the FL controller has
practically similar structure as FLGA controller.

This VHDL-module generates a clock signal at 1 Hz

from the internal clock signal of 100 MHz.
Decoder
In this VHDL-module, the value of the power or
the duty cycle, as selected by the user, is translated into

Fig. 8a. Register transfer level view of the FLGA controller.

Fig. 8b. Register transfer level view of the neuro-fuzzy controller.

Fig. 8c. Register transfer level view of the neural controller.

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

95

7-segments format and adapted to be displayed on LCD

displayer available on the development board.
ROM
The main aim of this VHDL-module is to store some
measured PV characteristics used to test the controller
in real-time.
Control block
The control VHDL-module is used to reset the system
with a new value of duty cycle. The user can enter the
desired initial value of the duty cycle D acting on the input
8 bits switch to start the search.
4.4. Simulation results using ModelSim and ISE
The ModelSim software is an HDL simulator manufactured by Mentor Graphics Corporation and can run
independently without ISE. The simulation results are
based on ModelSim Altera Starter version 6.5e (Altera,
Inc.). Initially, the selected MPP-controller (i.e., the FL
GA), starts to work with a low value of duty cycle, e.g.
D = 10%, and subsequently the controller behaviour is
observed and then the required time to reach the maximum
power point is calculated automatically (in the screen of
ModelSim software).The simulated output power and the
duty cycle of the designed FLGA controller in the case
of rapid variation of solar irradiance are shown in
Fig. 9a. As can be seen, the designed controller reaches
the MPP very fast with negligible oscillation, which conrms the accuracy of the developed code under VHDL as
well as the implementation of this controller. Fig. 9b shows
also the oor planning of the FPGA implementing the
MPPT controller and interface circuits. It is clearly

Fig. 9b. Floor planning of the FPGA implementing the MPPT (FLGA)
controller and interface circuits (routing circuit).

observed that the used Virtex 5 is largely sucient to implement the FLGA controller. With regard to the memory
space (area) and power consumption required by each
intelligent controller, Table 8 reports the FPGA logic
resources used to develop each controller. It is well known
that power consumption is strongly dependent on the target circuit including resource utilization, low-level features
such as logic partition, mapping, placement and route. As
can be seen from Table 8 the consumption power for each
model is less than 1 W. X power analyzer available in ISE
tool is used to evaluate the power consumption. The total
power consists of the sum of dynamic and static power;
the dynamic is due to the component activity while static
power represents the power consumed by the leakage current. ChipScope Pro Analyser of ISE could be also used
to analyse the designed controller.

Fig. 9a. The evolution of the PV power and duty cycle vs. time of the designed FLGA for rapid variation of solar irradiation and air temperature
(G = 700 W/m2, 24 C ! G = 300 W/m2, Ta = 19 C ! G = 700 W/m2, Ta = 24 C).

96

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

4.6. Test and verication

The co-simulation is a technique, which helps to evaluate how well a control algorithm operates in the device target, FPGA chip. To test the developed MPPT controllers
in real-time hardware co-simulation, two IV characteristics measured in our laboratory for BP Solar 120 Wp module have been employed. Fig. 10a shows the laboratory
facilities, it depicts also the measured IV curves used here
(Fig. 10b). A Virtex-5 ML501-XC5VLX50 development kit

(Xilinx, Inc.) has been employed to create an inexpensive

hardware implementation for photovoltaic system applications, it provides a complete solution for developing design
and applications based on the XilinxVirtex-5 FPGA family
(Xilinx, Inc.) (see Fig. 11a). Thus, the results obtained by
dierent MPPT-controllers as well as their performance
can be visualized in real-time. Fig. 11b shows the duty cycle
generated by the designed FLGA controller, which is displayed in PWM form with a scope under constant conditions, using real measured IV curve at G = 700W/m2

Table 8
Device utilization summary and power consumption for each MPPT controller.
Device utilization summary Virtex-5
(XC5VLX50)

Fuzzy logic
controller

Neural
controller

ANFIS
controller

Optimal fuzzy logic

controller

Available

Number of slice LUTs (look up tables)

Number of slice registers
Number used as logic
Number of bonded IOBs (input output
blocs)
Number of BUFCs (buer clocks)
Number of DSP48Es (digital signal
processor)
Total dynamic power (W)
Total quiescent power (W)
Total estimated Power consumption (W)
Junction temperature (C)

3448 (11%)
164 (1%)
3453 (11%)
18 (4%)

5029 (17%)
0 (0%)
3381(11%)
18 (4%)

457 (1%)
107 (1%)
457 (1%)
18 (4%)

3773 (13%)
224 (1%)
3756 (13%)
18 (4%)

28,800
28,800
28,800
440

2 (6%)
2 (4%)

2 (6%)
2 (4%)

2 (6%)
47 (98%)

4 (12%)
1 (2%)

32
48

0.04146
0.42532
0.46678
52.1

0.00072
0.42459
0.42531
51.9

0.03738
0.42528
0.46266
52.1

0.04260
0.42538
0.46798
52.1

5
4

Current (A)

Used PV module BP Solar

MSX 120 Wp PV

BP Solar MSX 120W

6

G=700 W/m
Tc=24 C

(a)

3
2
1

Laboratoryfacilities
Jijel Univ.

10

12

14

16

18

20

Voltage (V)
BP Solar MSX 120W

2
1.8
1.6

G=300 W/m
Tc=19 C

Current (A)

1.4

(b)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

12

14

16

18

Voltage (V)

Fig. 10. Laboratory facilities (a) measured IV characteristic (G = 700 W/m2, Ta = 24 C) and (b) measured IV characteristic (G = 300 W/m2,
T = 19 C).

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

97

Fig. 11. (a) The FPGA chip used for co-simulation, and (b) the duty cycle D generated by the FLGA controller, displayed in PWM form under constant
conditions (G = 700 W/m2, Ta = 24 C) using real measured IV curve.

and T = 24 C. This is the nal step, which conrms the

implementation of designed intelligent controllers into
FPGA chip. It should be noted that the employed Virtex
5 is more powerful compared to Virtex 2 used in our controllers designed previously (Chekired et al., 2012); it is also
very fast and has more memory space and facilities and low
power consumption.
The implementation of such intelligent controllers into
FPGA for the tracking of the MPP is very promising and
also the VHDL barrier could now be resolved using a
new package, called system generator created by Matlab/
Simulink, which allows Xilinx chips to be programmed
with the common Matlab programming environment, Simulink (Xilinx, Inc. 2008). System generator automatically
compiles designs into low-level representations. It can also
make a co-simulation and rapid prototyping design. Experiments using hardware generation can suggest the hardware speeds that are possible and, through the resource
estimation, give a rough idea of the cost of the design in
hardware. If a promising approach is identied, system
generator can create the bit stream (physical level) to the
FPGA. It can also generate equivalent representations of
the design, at the same or lower level, and furthermore
equivalent high-level module that performs a specic function in applications external to system generator (ModelSim hardware co-simulation) (Xilinx, Inc. 2008).
5. Comparative study
Table 9 presents a comparison of dierent intelligent
MPPT controllers according to their complexity level, quick
response (rapidity), eciency, power consumption and

space (area) memory required in the FPGA. As shown in

the results presented above, the developed intelligent controllers provide accurate tracking of the MPP and improve
considerably the eciency of the PV system. With reference
to this table, the following key conclusions can be made:
It is clearly shown that the FL-optimized GA controller track the MPP very fast with insignicant
uctuation in the steady state even under a time
varying environment. Memory space requested is
about 45%. Thus, the method is more ecient and
accurate especially in rapid variation of weather
conditions. However, its implementation is relatively
complex and needs high technical knowledge and
skills in this area and it asks for a heavy programming in VHDL language. Nevertheless, this problem
could be resolved using system generator.
The ANN-controller is relatively slow and less ecient compared to FLGA controller, its main
advantage is that this technique is easy to be implemented and requires less memory space. However, it
requires the heuristic sense and it works as a black
box. In addition, its robustness depends on the good
training parameters. Although, better performance
is observed in case of rapid variation of the weather
conditions, the main disadvantage of this technique
is that it could fail when the PV modules start to be
degraded at approximately 10%, in this case training
with new data should be carried out periodically.
Therefore, this is the most important point, which
is not cited in almost any published paper using an
ANN to track MPP.

Table 9
Comparison of dierent intelligent MPPT controllers according to their complexity level, rapidity, eciency and space memory required in the FPGA.
Controllers

Complexity level

Response time (Rapidity)

Eciency

Oscillation around the MPPT

Space memory (%)

FLGA
FL
ANN
ANFIS

Complex
Simple
Medium
Medium

Very fast
Relatively fast
Fast
Relatively fast

More ecient
Ecient
Ecient
Ecient

Negligible
Low
Low
Low

45
45
25
12

98

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

The ANFIS controller exhibits good results compared to the ANN-controller for the point of view
of time response, eciency and required space memory. However, its robustness depends on the tuning
of FL parameters and it is relatively easy to be
implemented compared to FLGA. It performs also
better in rapid variation of weather conditions.
The fuzzy controller also can provide acceptable
results and require large memory space and easy
implementation compared to other techniques.
However, the shortcoming of fuzzy computation is
obtaining the correct fuzzy rules and membership
functions, which heavily rely on the prior knowledge
of the system and has an impact on the robustness
and reliability of the method. It could also be used
in the case of rapid variation of weather conditions.
Low power is consumed by the designed MPPT controller, which is less than 0.5 W. Space memory in
this Virtex 5 FPGA is largely sucient to implement
our controllers.

6. Conclusions and perspectives

In this paper, four intelligent methods for tracking the
MPP in photovoltaic systems have been designed in order
to improve the eciency of PV systems under variable
weather conditions (air temperature and solar irradiance).
The eectiveness of these methods has been evaluated with
dierent simulation studies under Matlab/Simulink and
ModelSim. The advantages of the intelligent methodsbased MPPT controller are: they oer an alternative
approach to conventional MPPT controllers; they exhibit
a faster converging speed, good performance, eciency,
less oscillation around the MPP under steady-state conditions, low power consumption, and no divergence from
the MPP during varying weather conditions.
The implementation of these techniques has been demonstrated and co-simulated using FPGA chip Virtex
5.The main disadvantage of these methods is that advanced
technical knowledge and skills are required, especially in
FPGA design and VHDL code. However, using Mathworks Simulink and Xilinxs system generator, which
oers a rapid prototyping implementation platform, rapid
evaluation, is achieved.
It should be noted that for the case of partially shading
conditions, these methods should be modied or combined
with other classical techniques. In the future, we will devote
our eort to the development of intelligent MPPT methods
operating under partial showing and their possible implementation into FPGA plat form in real time photovoltaic
applications.
Acknowledgments
The second author would like to thank the International
Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste (Italy) for

providing the materials and the computer facilities for performing the present work. This work was also supported by
the TWAS under Grants (Ref. 09-108 RG/REN/AF/
AC_C: UNESCO FR:3240231224, 12-194RG/REN/AF/
AC_C: UNESCO FR:3240270869).
Appendix A
PV module specications.
Designation
Nominal power
Voltage at MPP
Current at MPP
Short-circuit current
Open-circuit voltage

BP Solar MSX120(W)
120 W
17 V
7.06 A
7.92 A
21.2 V

References
Altera, Inc. <http://www.altera.com>.
Chao, K.H., Li, C.J., 2010. An intelligent maximum power point tracking
method based on extension theory for PV systems. Expert Syst. Appl.
37, 10501055.
Chekired, F., Larbes, C., Mellit, A., 2012. Comparative study between two
intelligent MPPT-controllers implemented on FPGA: application for
photovoltaic systems. Int. J. Sustain. Energy, 742896. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.
Chekired, F., Larbes, C., Rekioua, D., Haddad, F., 2011. Implementation
of a MPPT fuzzy controller for photovoltaic systems on FPGA circuit.
Energy Procedia 6, 541549.
Chettibi, N., Mellit, A., Drif, M., 2012. FPGA-based implementation of
IncCond algorithm for photovoltaic applications. In: IEEE, 24th
International Conference on Microelectronics, Algeria, December
2012, pp. 1720. doi:10.1109/ICM.2012.6471401.
Erickson, R.W., 1997. Fundamentals of Power Electronics. Chapman &
Hall, 115 Fifth Avenue, New York, USA.
Kulaksz, A.A., Akkaya, R., 2012. A genetic algorithm optimized ANNbased MPPT algorithm for a stand-alone PV system with induction
motor drive. Sol. Energy 86, 23662375.
Khaehintung, N., Wiangtong, T., Sirisuk, P., 2006. FPGA Implementation of MPPT using variable step-size P&O Algorithm for PV
Applications. In: IEEE International Symposium on Communication
and Information. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCIT.2006.340033, pp.
212215.
Koutroulis, E., Kalaitzakis, K., Tzitzilonis, V., 2009. Development of an
FPGA-based system for real-time simulation of photovoltaic modules.
Microelectron. J. 40, 10941102.
Larbes, C., AtCheikhS, M., Obeidi, T., Zerguerras, A., 2009. Genetic
algorithms optimized fuzzy logic control for the maximum power point
tracking in photovoltaic system. Renew. Energy 34, 20932100.
Liu, Y.H., Liu, C.L., Huang, J.W., Chen, J.H., 2013. Neural-network-based
maximum power point tracking methods for photovoltaic systems
operating under fast changing environments. Sol. Energy 89, 4253.
Lu, C.F., Liu, C.C., Wu, C.J., 1995. Dynamic modelling of battery energy
storage system and application to power system stability. IEE Proc.
Generation Transm. Distribution 142, 429435.
Mekki, H., Mellit, A., Kalogirou, S.A., Messai, A., Furlan, G., 2010.
FPGA-based implementation of a real time photovoltaic module
simulator. Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 18, 115127.
Mellit, A., Kalogirou, S.A., 2008. Articial intelligence techniques for
photovoltaic applications: a review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34,
574632.

F. Chekired et al. / Solar Energy 101 (2014) 8399

Mellit, A., Rezzouk, H., Messai, A., Medjahed, B., 2011. FPGA-based
real time implementation of MPPT controller for photovoltaic
systems. Renew. Energy 36, 16521661.
Messai, A., Mellit, A., Guessoum, A., Kalogirou, S.A., 2011a. Maximum
power point tracking using a GA optimized fuzzy logic controller and
its FPGA implementation. Sol. Energy 85, 265277.
Messai, A., Mellit, A., Massi Pavan, A., Guessoum, A., Mekki, H., 2011b.
FPGA-based implementation of a fuzzy controller (MPPT) for
photovoltaic module. Energy Convers. Manage. 52, 26952704.
Persen, E.T., 2004. FPGA-based design of a maximum-power-point
tracking system for space applications. Master Thesis. Orlando,
Florida.
Pong, P.C., 2008. FPGA prototyping by VHDL examples: Xilinx
SpartanTM-3Version. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
Reisi, A.R., Moradi, M.H., Jama, S., 2013. Classication and comparison
of maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic system:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 433443.
Ruelland, R., Gateau, G., MeynardT, T.A., Hapiot, J.C., 2003. Design of
FPGA-based emulator for series multicell converters using co-simulation tools. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 18, 455463.

99

Shaiek, Y., BenSmida, M., Sakly, A., Mimouni, M.F., 2013. Comparison
between conventional methods and GA approach for maximum power
point tracking of shaded solar PV generators. Sol. Energy 90, 107122.
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, 135148.
SalamehZ, M., Casacca, M.A., Lynch, W.A., 1992. A mathematical model
for leadacid batteries. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 7, 9398.
Sera, D., Teodorescu, R., Rodriguez, P., 2007. PV panel model based on
datasheet values. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2007.4374981, pp. 23922396.
Subudhi, B., Pradhan, R., 2013. A comparative study on maximum power
point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 4, 8998.
Xilinx Corporation, Inc. <http://www.xlinx.com>.
Xilinx, System Generator for DSP User Guide, Release 10.1, March 2008.
Youssef, E.B., Stephane, P., Bruno, E., Corinne, A., 2010. New P&O
MPPT algorithm for FPGA implementation. In: IECON 2010, 36th
Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 710,
November 2010, pp. 28682873. doi:10.1109/IECON.2010,5675079.