Small-signal Model of Photovoltaic Power Converter for Selection of

Perturb and Observe Algorithm Step Time

Michael Sokolov, Tim C. Green, Paul D. Mitcheson Doron Shmilovitz

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, School of Electrical Engineering
SW7 2AZ, London, UK Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
Fax: +44 / (0)20 – 7594 62 82. Fax: +972 / (0)3 – 641 01 89.
E-Mail: {m.sokolov08, t.green, paul.mitcheson}@ic.ac.uk E-Mail: shmilo@eng.tau.ac.il
URL: http://www.imperial.ac.uk URL: http://www.eng.tau.ac.il

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Mr. Alan Howard and the Energy Futures Lab for the financial support of this work.

Keywords
«Photovoltaic», «Solar cell system», «Control methods for electrical systems», «Renewable energy
systems», «Modelling».

Abstract
This paper describes small-signal analysis of a photovoltaic boost converter with an emulated load
controller and a resistive load. The simulation results of the derived model are compared to time-
domain large-signal simulation results for verification. This analysis helps select the time interval
between iterations of Perturb and Observe algorithm. It was found that output voltage takes longer
time to reach steady-state than input voltage and current, however, the Perturb and Observe algorithm
step time can be shorter than output voltage convergence time.

Introduction
Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) is an important part of a Photovoltaic (PV) system. Many
algorithms have been developed for MPPT, but the Perturb and Observe (P&O) algorithm is most
widely used [1]. The P&O algorithm has two parameters that need to be adjusted for correct operation:
the step size and the time between algorithm iterations. There is a trade-off in choosing the step size as
large step size allows fast tracking, but small step size is needed for better accuracy [2]. The time
intervals between algorithm iterations should be short to allow faster tracking, but they must be longer
than the settling time of the PV current and voltage for reliable signal measurements. Therefore the
analysis of a PV system dynamics is required to determine the P&O time intervals. Recently, an
emulated PV array load control scheme was introduced [3]. This control scheme was designed for
faster Maximum Power Point (MPP) tracking with smaller P&O step size for accuracy. The emulated
PV array load characteristic is matched to intersect with the PV characteristics near the MPPs and the
MPPT controlled needs to perform only small adjustments. The emulated PV array load characteristic
is described by (1) and it shown in Fig. 1.
v pv − i pv r − v ref = 0 (1)
 4.5
MPP Vref
4 1 Sun
The emulated
0.9 Sun
3.5 load
0.8 Sun characteristic
3
0.7 Sun

2.5

Current [A]
0.6 Sun

0.5 Sun
2
0.4 Sun
1.5
0.3 Sun
1 0.2 Sun

0.5 0.1 Sun

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Voltage [V] Vref

Fig. 1 The PV characteristics at different irradiation levels and the emulated PV array load
characteristic.

The controller that implements this emulated PV array load with a boost dc-dc converter and a
resistive load is shown in Fig. 2. This paper provides analytical small-signal models of this system.
The MPPT controller in Fig. 2 is implemented by the P&O algorithm. The feedback controller of this
system was implemented as shown in Fig. 3 and consists of three cascaded elements: integrator, gain A
and first order low pass filter with cut-off frequency ωf. Modelling of system with a resistive load
means that the output capacitor Co in the small signal model cannot be ignored as it was in the
previously developed model for constant voltage load [4]. This adds additional state to system’s space-
state model and extra dynamics.
ipv iL + vFW - io
+ +
RL L D1
vpv Ci Q Co v0 RLoad
- iCi iCo -

PV Array ipv
r
PWM
vpv -
+ d
y controller
Ipv MPPT V - e
ref +
Vpv controller

Fig. 2 PV system consists of boost dc-dc converter, controller and resistive load.

e LPF ef d
ωf A

Fig. 3 Controller of the PV system.

Model development
A small-signal model of the system shown in Fig. 2 was developed. The PV array was represented,
using the small-signal PV model from [5], by the dynamic resistance rpv. The value of the parameter
rpv varies from –400 kΩ at low PV voltage to –0.6 Ω at low PV current while at the MPP rpv= – 4 Ω.
This representation is shown in Fig. 4.
 i Linear small-signal
PV represenatation

Operation
point

PV characteristic
v
Fig. 4 PV characteristic and its linear representation.

The liniarized state-space model of the open-loop system is described by (2) and (3).

⎡ 1 1 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 0 −
⎡vˆ pv ⎤ ⎢ rpv C i C i ⎥ ⎡vˆ ⎤ ⎢ 0
⎥
⎥ pv
d ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 1 − D ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢⎢ i ⎥
⎥ dˆ
vˆo = 0 − vˆo ⎥ + − L
dt ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ RLOAD C o Co ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ Co ⎥
⎢⎣ iˆL ⎥⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢⎣ iˆL ⎥⎦ ⎢ ⎥
1 1− D R Vo + VFW
⎢ − − L⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ L L L ⎥⎦ ⎣ L ⎦
(2)
⎡vˆ ⎤
⎡ r ⎤ ⎢ pv ⎥
yˆ = ⎢1 − 0 0⎥ ⎢ vˆo ⎥
⎣⎢ rpv ⎦⎥ ⎢ iˆ ⎥
⎣ L ⎦ (3)
The closed-loop system liniarized state-space model is described by (4).

⎡ 1 1 ⎤
⎢ r C 0 − 0 0 ⎥
Ci
⎡vˆ pv ⎤ ⎢ pv i
⎥ ⎡vˆ pv ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ vˆ ⎥ ⎢ 1 1− D iL
0 − − 0 ⎥ ⎢ vˆo ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ o ⎥ ⎢ RLOAD C o Co Co ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
d ˆ
⎢ iL ⎥ = ⎢ 1 1− D R Vo + VFW ⎥ ⎢ iˆL ⎥ + ⎢ 0 ⎥ vˆref
dt ⎢ ˆ ⎥ ⎢ − − L 0 ⎥⎢ ˆ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢d ⎥ ⎢ L L L L ⎥⎢ d ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ eˆ f ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 A ⎥ ⎢ eˆ ⎥ ⎢ω ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢ (r − rpv )ω f ⎥⎣ f ⎦ ⎣ f ⎦
⎢ 0 0 0 −ωf ⎥
⎣ rpv ⎦ (4)
The state variables in these models are the signals v̂ pv , v̂o , iˆL , d̂ and ê f and they are small
perturbations around the steady-state signals of PV voltage Vpv, load voltage Vo, inductor current IL,
duty cycle D and filtered error Ef respectively. Other symbols used in these models represent
components of the system described in Fig. 2.

Simulation results
In order to verify the developed model, the small-signal model simulation results were compared to
results of component-level large-signal simulation in Simulink and SimPowerSystems toolbox. In the
large-signal simulation the PV array was represented by accurate model developed in [6]. The
Simulink model is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5 Simulink model of the discussed system.

Simulations of the system were preformed using the following system parameters: L = 380 µH, RL =
0.2 Ω, Ci = 330 µF, r = 0.8 Ω and VFW = 0.6 V, Co = 1000 µF, RLOAD = 48 Ω, A = –3 and ωf = 500
rad/sec. In these simulations the response of the load voltage vo, inductor current iL, duty cycle d and
filtered error ef was tested as a result of step of 0.5 V (from 12 V to 12.5 V) in the input signal vref. The
PV voltage in these simulation was near the MPP for which the small-signal PV parameter rpv = –4 Ω.
The steady-state values for the small-signal model were: D = 0.716, IL = 3.65 A and Vo = 48.4 V
corresponding to an output power of 50 W. The large and small signal simulations results are shown in
Fig. 6. A good match between time domain and small-signal simulation can be noticed. It should be
noted that the time-domain simulation shows the complete system signals and their ripples while
small-signal simulation shows only deviations from steady-state values and average signals.
Step Response
Vpv [V]

15.2 0.5
V pv

15
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0
Vo [V]

48.4 0.1
Vo

48.3 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
4
-0.1
IL [A]

3.5 0
Amplitude
iL

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 -0.1
<IL> [A]

3.6
-0.2
3.5 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0.716 -0.005
d

0.714
0.712
d

0.71 -0.01
0.708
0.706 0.5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0.5
ef

0
ef [V]

0
-0.5
-0.5 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Time [sec] Time [sec]

(a) (b)
Fig. 6 System response to a step of 0.5 V in vref. (a) Time-domain Simulink simulation, top to bottom:
PV array voltage vpv, output voltage vo, inductor current iL, average inductor current <iL>, duty cycle
d, filtered error ef. (b) small-signal model, top to bottom: PV array voltage vpv, output voltage vo,
inductor current iL, duty cycle d, filtered error ef.

This simulation shows that the signals vpv, iL, d, and ef converge at nearly the same time (25 ms), but
the output voltage vo takes longer time to converge (80 ms). Even though the whole system settling
time is long (80 ms), the signals of interest for the P&O algorithm (PV voltage and current) converge
much faster (25 ms) and the time interval between iterations can be set to a shorter time than the whole
system settling time. Fig. 7 shows Simulink simulation results of system response to a step in vref that
occurs before output voltage vo reaches steady state. The first step of 0.5 V occurs at time 0 s and the
second step occurs after 25 ms when the PV voltage vpv reaches the steady state but output voltage vo is
still changing. It can be seen that after the second step the PV voltage again converges within 25 ms.

13.5
13
Vref [V]

12.5
12
11.5
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

15.8
15.6
Vpv [V]

15.4
15.2
15
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
48.5

48.4
Vo [V]

48.3

48.2
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Fig. 7 Response of the system to a step in vref that occurs before output voltage vo reaches steady state.

Conclusion
A small-signal model of a PV system consisting of PV array, dc-dc boost converter, emulated PV
array load controller and resistive load is presented. The model was verified by comparing the results
to the results of time domain simulation. This model helps to choose the time intervals between
iterations of the P&O algorithm and taking in account the output parameters and to see how different
system element influence on the dynamics. It was shown that the time interval does not need to be
long enough to allow full system convergence to steady-state (i.e. the output voltage) but must be long
enough to allow convergence of the PV voltage and current.

References
[1] T. Esram, P.L. Chapman, “Comparison of Photovoltaic Array Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques,”
IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion., vol.22, no.2, pp. 439–449, June, 2007.
[2] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, M. Vitelli, “Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point
tracking method,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol.20, no.4, pp. 963–973, July 2005.
[3] M. Sokolov, D. Shmilovitz, “A Modified MPPT Scheme for Accelerated Convergence,” IEEE Transactions
on Energy Conversion, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1105–1107, Dec. 2008.
[4] M. Sokolov, T.C. Green, P.D. Mitcheson, D. Shmilovitz, “Dynamic Analysis of Photovoltaic System with
MPP Locus Emulation”, 2010 IEEE 26th Convention of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in Israel, IEEEI,
Eilat, Nov. 2010, pp. 212–215.
[5] Xiao Weidong, W.G. Dunford, P.R. Palmer, A. Capel, “Regulation of Photovoltaic Voltage,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol.54, no.3, pp. 1365–1374, June 2007.
[6] G.R. Walker, “Evaluating MPPT converter topologies using a MATLAB PV model”, Australasian
Universities Power Engineering Conference, AUPEC'00, Vol. 1, Brisbane, 2000, pp. 138–143.