Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

MPPT for photovoltaic system using nonlinear backstepping controller with T

integral action
⁎
Muhammad Arsalan, Ramsha Iftikhar, Iftikhar Ahmad , Ammar Hasan, K. Sabahat, A. Javeria
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The energy generating capability of a Photovoltaic (PV) system depends on the environmental conditions and the
Photovoltaic (PV) variations in the load connected to it. The performance of controller used for maximum power point tracking
MPPT (MPPT) can improve the efficiency of the PV system. PV array is a nonlinear system, so a nonlinear controller is
Buckboost converter more suitable for MPPT applications. However, the performance of nonlinear controllers completely depend
Backstepping
upon the nonlinear model of the system under consideration. Since all the real world systems are subjected to
Lyapunov stability
vary with time, it is not feasible to dynamically remodel the system as well as the controller all the time. These
variations introduce steady state error in the output which degrades the efficiency of the controller. To reduce
this error, a nonlinear Backstepping controller with integral action has been proposed to improve the perfor-
mance of recently proposed Backstepping controller for MPPT. The study uses a regression plane to generate the
reference peak power voltage for MPPT using non inverting DC – DC Buckboost converter. Global Asymptotic
stability of the whole system has been proved using Lyapunov stability criteria. MATLAB/Simulink is used to test
the performance of the proposed controller under varying irradiance and temperature conditions. To further
validate its performance, we have compared it with modified Perturb and Observe (P&O) algorithm, nonlinear
Backstepping controller and Fuzzy Logic Based nonlinear controller under rapidly varying environmental con-
ditions.

1. Introduction
Every day, Sun bestows limitless energy to our earth that is readily
available to everyone and everywhere, which can be converted into
electricity using PV Cell. PV cells don’t produce any form of pollution
and can be connected directly to the electrical load, but their efficiency
varies with the variation in the operating point of the cell. The char-
acteristic curves of a PV module are shown in Fig. 1. It can be observed
that the current drawn from the PV array changes with variation in its
output voltage. The efficiency of the array varies accordingly, making
direct connection of load with the array inefficient. A DC-DC converter
is hence used as an interface between the array and the load, and its
duty cycle is varied in such a way that the PV module is operated at
peak power voltage (VMPP ) and maximum current (IMPP ) is drawn from
it. This ensures that maximum power is drawn from the PV module and
is operated at Maximum Power Point (MPP) (Ammar Al-Gizi, 2017).
Therefore, the PV cell should always be operated at its peak power
voltage. However, according to the one diode model of PV cell
(Naghmash and Arsalan, 2017), continuous variation in a number of
environmental variables such as irradiance and temperature keeps on
changing this peak power voltage. Consequently, tracking this voltage
is a major task, essential for an efficient PV system.
Rigorous research is being carried out in recent times to strive for
robust and efficient MPPT algorithms. Mostly, these algorithms either
try to operate the PV cell at IMPP or VMPP , which eventually enables the
system to extract maximum power from it. Similarly, some algorithms
exploit the fact that only a single MPP can occur in the characteristic
curves of a PV cell and hence use analytical solutions to reach MPP
(Chenni, 2016). We can classify these algorithms or techniques into
following categories:
• Conventional MPPT Algorithms
• Bio-Inspired MPPT Algorithms
• Fuzzy and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Based Algorithms
• Linear Controllers for MPPT
• Nonlinear Controllers for MPPT
To operate PV arrays at MPP, hill climbing techniques are used
conventionally. These techniques include a number of variants of two
basic algorithms, namely: Perturb and Observe (P&O) and Incremental

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marsalan.msee15seecs@seecs.edu.pk (M. Arsalan), riftikhar.msee15seecs@seecs.edu.pk (R. Iftikhar), iftikhar.rana@seecs.edu.pk (I. Ahmad),
ammar.hasan@seecs.edu.pk (A. Hasan), skiran.msee16seecs@seecs.edu.pk (K. Sabahat), jahmed.msee16seecs@seecs.edu.pk (A. Javeria).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.061
Received 9 January 2018; Received in revised form 26 April 2018; Accepted 28 April 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Arsalan et al.
Fig. 1. Characteristic curves of a PV module.
Conductance (IC). Both of these techniques try to find the maxima of
the Power vs Voltage curve of the PV module shown in Fig. 1. P&O
algorithm perturbs the output voltage of a PV array (VPV ) and observes
any variation in the extracted power. This perturbation is introduced by
slightly varying the duty cycle of the converter. If increasing the VPV
results in generation of more power, i.e. ΔPower > 0 , then the voltage
will be further increased. But, if ΔPower < 0 , then the duty cycle will be
varied in such a way that VPV is reduced. This process repeats itself and
the system eventually reaches MPP. However, each perturbation takes
some time for the system to react and reach a stable output voltage of
PV module, increasing the time of convergence to reach MPP. The al-
gorithm keeps on searching for the new MPP and hence, introduces
oscillations in VPV , even if MPP is reached. Hence, overall efficiency of
the system is reduced (Bashar Zahawi, 2012; Kamarzaman, 2014;
Ebrahimi, 2015).
According to Fig. 1, if a PV cell is operated at MPP, then at that
single point, ΔPower /ΔVPV = 0 . In other words,
Δ(VPV IPV )/ΔVPV = VPV (ΔIPV /ΔVPV ) + IPV = 0 . Thus, at MPP, the sum of
incremental conductance (ΔIPV /ΔVPV ) and instantaneous conductance
(IPV / VPV ) is equal to 0 (Bashar Zahawi, 2013, 2012). This is the working
principle of IC algorithm. Duty cycle of the converter is varied to search
for the MPP. IC algorithm is more efficient than P&O because once the
MPP is reached; it causes less oscillations about the MPP. Similarly,
under rapidly changing weather conditions, IC algorithm outperforms P
&O (Laszlo Mathe and Kerekes, 2013; Lyden, 2015). However, it does
require additional control circuitry for its successful operation (Reisi
and Moradi, 2013) which makes it complex.
PV modules are connected in large number in series and parallel
combinations to generate more power. It is possible that some of these
modules receive different irradiance due to partial shading. In such an
event, multiple peaks of local maxima appear in the characteristic
curves of a PV module. Since hill climbing techniques search for a peak
without considering the global response, they are liable to converge to
one of these local maxima which make these techniques inefficient
(Jubaer Ahmed, 2017). Similarly, other conventional methods such as
Fractional Open-Circuit Voltage (FOCV) and Fractional Short-Circuit
Current (FSCC) do not actually track the MPP. Instead, they assume a
linear relationship between VMPP and open circuit voltage of PV module
(VOC ) or IMPP and short circuit current of PV module (ISC ) . It result in
power loss as there is no such relationship between VMPP and VOC or IMPP
and ISC (Reisi and Moradi, 2013; Farahat and Enany, 2015; Chenni,
2016). Ripple Correlation Control (RCC) technique exploits the ripples
produced in the output voltage of a PV array due to the switching
process of power electronics converter. However, it increases the time
of convergence to reach MPP and is also incapable to track MPP at low
irradiance (Kamarzaman, 2014; Chenni, 2016; Lyden, 2015).
193
Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200
Bio-inspired algorithms such as Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),
Genetic Algorithm (GA), Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA) and
Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) can successfully resolve the issue of
partial shading (Hugues Renaudineau and Donatantonio, 2015; Mouna
Smida, 2015; Zengrui Yang and Duan, 2017; Sundareswaran and
Sankar, 2016). Most of these techniques follow a similar pattern or
procedure to achieve optimization. Firstly, a population of different
individuals or particles is generated in a region where the solution
exists and each individual represents a distinguished solution which is
initialized randomly. These individuals then interact or socialize with
each other to produce their offsprings or new states, which are then
compared with their parents using a cost function. The one with better
performance becomes the next generation and this procedure continues
till all the individuals converge to the desired solution. When these
algorithms are used, the likelihood of reaching maximum power point
is very high, as the initial population is generated randomly with
completely unrelated parameter values (Eberhart, 1995; Logeswaran,
2013; Kamarzaman, 2014).
Though Bio-inspired techniques can successfully solve the problem
of partial shading, yet their performance depends completely on the
selected parameters as well as the initial conditions. In fact, all of these
techniques require a lot of parameters and processes which increase
their steady state time and computational complexity (Kamarzaman,
2014; ElKhozondar and ElKhozondar, 2016). Moreover, these algo-
rithms do have a tendency to converge on local maxima as well,
especially if the population is not initialized randomly. Lastly, when
these algorithms are used, there is a trade off involved between se-
lecting convergence accuracy and time of convergence. Increasing po-
pulation size and the number of generations/iterations will result in an
increase in steady state time to reach MPP. Conversely, convergence
accuracy has to be compromised if steady state time is to be reduced
(Logeswaran, 2013).
Many MPPT techniques consider the mathematical model of the
system to determine the value of control input. But Fuzzy logic (FL)
based algorithms rely completely on the human knowledge and in-
formation about that particular system. The inputs and outputs are
mapped using a fuzzy if – else rule base, which entirely depends on the
designer (Ahmad Khateb, 2016). Less information about a system will
result in designing of a crude control and vice versa. Artificial In-
telligence (AI) based MPPT algorithms are similar to FLC based algo-
rithms, since they don’t require the mathematical model of the system,
but they do require a training data set to train the input output relation.
Once deployed, they increase their data set and improve their perfor-
mance with time (Elobaid, 2015).
Fuzzy logic controllers (FLC) with fuzzifier and defuzzifier are used
extensively for MPPT (Adly, 2011; Maissa Farhat, 2015). These
M. Arsalan et al.
Fig. 2. Proposed control methodology.
controllers are flexible enough to be used with a number of conven-
tional and bio-inspired MPPT algorithms as well (Adly, 2012). In these
hybrid algorithms, bio-inspired techniques are used to tune to para-
meters of the FLC to achieve optimum results (Noureddine, 2017;
Ajiatmo, 2016). When compared with IC and P&O, FL based MPPT
algorithms outperforms them because of their robustness (Ammar
Ghalib, 2016). Similarly, when FLC is used, PV array shows oscillations
of smaller magnitude which greatly improves its efficiency (Dalila
Beriber, 2013).
A different type of fuzzy logic based controller (FLBC) i.e. Takagi-
Sugeno (TS) fuzzy logic controller was implemented in Naziha Harrabi
(2017) for MPPT using Buck converter. The study used an algorithm
similar to that of IC to reach MPP but the perturbations in duty cycle
were introduced in accordance with the fuzzy rules. An artificial neural
network (ANN) has also been used along with FLC for MPPT of PV
module (Ammar Ghalib, 2017). ANN was used to train a data set con-
taining peak power voltage under varying weather conditions. This data
was then used to generate reference voltage for the FLC to reach MPP
under varying environmental conditions. Both Fuzzy and ANN based
MPPT algorithms outperform bio-inspired and hybrid algorithms be-
cause of their robust response, ability to improve their performance by
learning on their own and low power consumption. However, compu-
tational cost, complexity of implementation and tendency to converge
at local maxima in case of partial shading are the disadvantages (Zekry,
2014; Ali Nasr and Saied, 2012). Similarly, both of these controllers
also require periodic maintenance as the electrical characteristics of PV
array normally changes with age (ElKhozondar and ElKhozondar, 2016;
Lyden, 2015).
Numerous linear controllers can also be used along with different
algorithms for MPPT. The parameters or gains of PID controller were
optimized in Roshdy Abdelrassoul (2016) to extract maximum power
from the PV system. Similarly, in Besheer (2012), the author used ACO
to optimize the gains of PI controller for stand alone PV systems. The
performance of PID controller was improved using gradient descent
optimization method to optimize its gains in Roshdy Abdelrassoul
(2011). Similarly, if reference voltage perturbation is used as the con-
trol parameter for any hill climbing method, then linear controllers can
be used to smoothly adjust the duty ratio of power electronics converter
accordingly (Bashar Zahawi, 2012, 2013, 2012).
Recently, a lot of research work is being carried out in the field of
nonlinear control. Many nonlinear controllers are also implemented to
track MPP of PV module, including backstepping and sliding mode
control (Naghmash and Arsalan, 2017; Emilio Mamarelis and Petrone,
2014). A PV cell is itself nonlinear in nature. Similarly, converters are
also modelled with the assumption that they respond linearly to the
varying duty cycle. However, they also depict nonlinear behavior. The
robustness and stability that a nonlinear controller can achieve while
tracking the MPP, cannot be achieved by any other controller. A smart
grid connected PV array system is proposed in Aranzazu Martin and
Cano (2015) to power up telecom towers using nonlinear backstepping
approach. To generate reference PV array voltage, IC algorithm was
proposed in Abderrahim Taouni and Abbou (2016), so that
194
Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200
backstepping controller can track it. Similarly, to purify water using
solar energy and desalination process, backstepping controller was
implemented to dissipate the maximum generated power in resistive
load (Hanen Nafaa and Farhat, 2017). The generated heat is then used
to evaporate water which is then condensed and further treated to get
drinkable water.
Backstepping controller is very efficient and robust but its perfor-
mance completely depends on the nonlinear system modelling. The real
world systems are subjected to variation with time, so the equations
used to model them can vary. Hence, as a result, the performance of
backstepping controller can deteriorate. A small modification in con-
troller, i.e. introduction of integral action can solve this problem.
In this research work, a nonlinear backstepping controller with in-
tegral action has been proposed for MPPT of PV module, using a non
inverting Buckboost converter. The proposed methodology has been
presented in Section 2. Similarly, to generate reference of the peak
power voltage, a regression plane has been presented in Section 3 using
the data recorded from the PV array under varying temperature and
irradiance conditions. Mathematical modelling of Buckboost converter
has been presented in Section 4, whereas, the derivation of the pro-
posed controller has been presented in Section 5. Asymptotic stability of
the whole system has also been proved using Lyapunov stability criteria
in Section 5. The performance of the system has been analyzed using
MATLAB under varying environmental conditions in Section 6 and it
has also been compared with the backstepping controller proposed in
Naghmash and Arsalan (2017). The comparisons between the analyzed
controllers is summarized in a tabular form in Section 7 and the article
is finally concluded in Section 8.
2. Proposed control methodology
The working principle of conventional and proposed algorithm is
quiet different. The proposed system senses the temperature and in-
cident irradiance on PV module and provide this information to the
regression plane block, as shown in Fig. 2. The regression plane uses a
relation between VMPP (i.e. Voltage @ MPP) and
{Irradiance,Temperature} to provides reference peak power voltage
(VPVref ) which can be tracked by the proposed nonlinear controller. The
controller has been derived using the mathematical model of Non-in-
verting Buckboost converter and generates an output signal μ , which
controls the duty ratio of the PWM signal provided to the converter
switches.
The flow chart diagram of the proposed technique is explained in
Fig. 3, whereas, the close loop control has been explained in Fig. 4. The
regression plane generates the reference x1ref = VPVref which is com-
pared with VPV = x1 ( x1: the first state of the converter) to generate an
error signal, which is supplied to the Integral Backstepping Controller.
The controller generates the control input μ , which controls the PWM
signal width and drives the converter to track the reference voltage.
Any variation in temperature or irradiance will generate a new unique
reference. In fact, each set of unique temperature and irradiance values
will generate a unique reference in return. Hence, operating the PV
module on this reference voltage will ensure that maximum power is
generated by the system.
3. Reference voltage generation by regression plane
PV characteristic curve changes for each particular value of tem-
perature and irradiance. A slight variation in any one of them will result
in a new curve, hence changing the MPP, as shown in Fig. 1. Multiple
MPPs have been recorded, first by keeping the irradiance level constant
at 1000 W/m2 and varying the temperature uniformly from 5 °C to 75 °C.
Then more points have been recorded by varying irradiance levels from
200 W/m2 to 1400 W/m2 at constant temperature of 25 °C. Using linear
regression, a three dimensional regression plane has been generated
from these data points shown in Fig. 5. Hence, for any temperature and
M. Arsalan et al. Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200

Fig. 6. Non inverting buckboost converter.

4. Modeling of non-inverting buckboost converter

Non-Inverting DC – DC Buckboost converter can both step up and

step down the output voltage. The circuit diagram of the converter is
shown in Fig. 6. It is assumed to be operated in continuous conduction
mode (CCM) throughout this paper. Furthermore, this model is derived
while considering ideal semiconductor switches and diodes. Similarly,
the resistance of inductor and capacitor is also assumed to be zero for
the purpose of simplicity. It has two Modes of operation. In Mode1, both
the switches S1 and S2 are closed/turned on and both the diodes D1 and
D2 are reverse biased i.e. they are not conducting. By Kirchoff’s current
and voltage law,

⎧iC1 = iPV −iL

vL = vC1
⎨i = − vC2
⎩ C2 R (2)

In Mode2 , both switches are off and diodes are forward biased, i.e.,
they are conducting. Using Kirchoff’s current and voltage law:

⎧iC1 = iPV
vL = −vC 2
⎨i = i − vC2
Fig. 3. Flow chart. ⎩ C2 L R (3)

By utilizing inductor’s volt second balance and capacitor’s charge bal-

ance, we can write:
dvC1 iPV i
⎧ dt
= − Lu
C1 C1
⎪
di v v
L
= CL1 u− CL2 (1−u)
Fig. 4. Close loop control. ⎨ dt
⎪ dvC 2 = iL (1−u)− vC 2
⎩ dt C2 RC2 (4)

Averaging the model over one switching period and assuming x1,x2 and
μ to be the average value of vC1,vC 2 and u, we can write:

⎧ x1 = 〈vC1 〉
⎪ x2 = 〈iL 〉
⎨ x3 = 〈vC 2 〉
⎪ μ = 〈u〉
⎩ (5)

Hence, Eq. (4) takes the form:

iPV x
⎧ x1̇ = − 2μ
C1 C1
⎪ x1 x
x2̇ = L
μ− L3 (1−μ)
⎨
x2 x
⎪ x3̇ = (1−μ)− RC3
⎩ C2 2 (6)

This averaged state space model is then used to track the reference peak
power voltage.

Fig. 5. Regression plane.

5. Integral backstepping control

irradiance level, peak power voltage (vPVR) or VMPP can be calculated as: Nonlinear backstepping control is modified by introducing integral
action in it to track the generated reference voltage for PV array. The
vMPP = 332−1.34∗T −0.00964∗I (1) designed controller provides the input μ , that will determine the duty
ratio for the switches of the converter. The reference vMPP generated in
where T is Temperature and I is Irradiance.
Section 2 is termed as x1ref , since it is the first state of the modelled
converter. Assuming ε1 to be the error between actual and required PV
array output voltage, given as:

195
M. Arsalan et al. Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200

ε1 = x1−x1ref (7) ε2̇ = x2̇ −β ̇ (24)

The goal is to converge the error signal ε1 to zero. Taking time deriva-
C1 ⎛ i̇ μ̇ i
tive of Eq. (7) and simplifying using Eq. (6), we get β̇ = K1 ε1̇ + PV −x¨1ref + κζ ⎞̇ − 2 C1 ⎛K1 ε1 + PV −x1̇ ref + κζ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

μ ⎝ C1 ⎠ μ ⎝ C1 ⎠ (25)
i x
ε1̇ = x1̇ −x1̇ ref = PV − 2 μ−x1̇ ref
C1 C1 (8) Simplifying β ̇ using Eqs. (7), (10), (18) and (22), we get
Integral action is added into this error term as shown below: C1 ⎛ ⎛ ε2 i̇ C μ̇
β̇ = ⎜K1 −K1 ε1−
⎜ μ−κζ ⎞ + PV ⎞⎟− 1 (x¨1ref −κε )− β
⎟

e1 = ε1 + ζ (9) μ ⎝ ⎝ C1 ⎠ C1 ⎠ μ u (26)
where ζ is given as: Inserting β ̇ from Eq. (26) in Eq. (24), ε2̇ becomes
t
ζ= ∫0 (x1−x1ref ) dt (10) ε2̇ = x2̇ −
C1 ⎛ 2 Kε i̇ C μ̇
−K1 ε1− 1 2 μ−K1 κζ + PV ⎞ + 1 (x¨1ref −κε ) + β
⎜ ⎟
μ ⎝ C1 C1 ⎠ μ u (27)
Let V1 be a positive definite Lyapunov function candidate for
checking the convergence of ε1 to 0. Now, to guarantee convergence of both ε1 and ε2 to zero, a new
composite Lyapunov function VC is defined whose time derivative
1 2 κ
V1 = ε1 + ζ 2 should be negative definite so that our system can reach MPP.
2 2 (11)
1 2
where κ is a positive definite real number. To ensure asymptotic sta- VC = V1 + ε2
2 (28)
bility, time derivative of the Lyapunov function must be negative de-
finite. By taking time derivative of Eq. (11), we get Taking the time derivative of Eq. (28) and using Eq. (23), we get:
V1̇ = ε1 ε1̇ + κζζ ̇ (12) VĊ = V1̇ + ε2 ε2̇ = −K1 ε12−
ε1 ε2
μ + ε2 ε2̇
C1 (29)
Using Eq. (8) and time derivative of Eq. (10), we get

i x ε
V1̇ = ε1 ⎛ PV − 2 μ−x1̇ ref ⎞ + κζ (x1−x1ref )
⎜ ⎟
VĊ = −K1 ε12 + ε2 ⎛ε2̇ − 1 μ⎞
⎜ ⎟

⎝ C1 ⎠ (30)
⎝ C1 C1 ⎠ (13)
simplifying Eq. (13) using Eq. (7) For V1̇ to be negative definite, let
ε1
i x ε2̇ − μ = −K2 ε2
V1̇ = ε1 ⎛ PV − 2 μ−x1̇ ref + κζ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
C1 (31)
⎝ C 1 C1 ⎠ (14)
For V1̇ to be negative definite, let where K2 is a positive constant, so VĊ can be written as:

iPV x2 VĊ = −K1 ε12−K2 ε22 (32)

− μ−x1̇ ref + κζ = −K1 ε1
C1 C1 (15)
Using Eqs. (6) and (27) in Eq. (31), we get:
where K1 is positive definite. So, V1̇ becomes
x1 x K 2 C1 ε1 K C κζ i ̇ C1 x¨1ref C1 κε1
V1̇ = −K1 ε12 −K2 ε2 = μ− 3 (1−μ) + 1 + K1 ε2 + 1 1 − PV + −
(16) L L μ μ μ μ μ
Rewriting Eq. (15) as μ̇ ε1
+ β− μ
u C1 (33)
C1 ⎛ i
x2 = K1 ε1 + PV −x1̇ ref + κζ ⎞
⎜ ⎟

μ ⎝ C1 ⎠ (17) Solving Eq. (33) for μ̇

Let Eq. (17) be the reference or desired current for inductor, given by μ ⎛ x1 x3 K 2 C1 ε1 ⎞ μ ⎛ K1 C1 κζ i̇
μ̇ = ⎜−K2 ε2− μ + (1−μ)− 1 ⎟ + ⎜−K1 ε2− + PV
β ⎝ L L μ ⎠ β ⎝ μ μ
C1 ⎛ i
β= K1 ε1 + PV −x1̇ ref + κζ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
C1 x¨1ref ⎞ μ
μ ⎝ C1 ⎠ (18) − ⎟ +
⎛ C1 κε1 + ε1 μ⎟⎞
⎜
μ ⎠ β ⎝ μ C1 ⎠ (34)
Another error ε2 is defined to track x2 to β
where 0 < μ < 1 and β ≠ 0 Eq. (34) is used to provide μ to control the
ε2 = x2−β (19)
duty cycle of the signal given to switches S1 and S2 . This μ̇ , from Eq.
Rewriting Eq. (19) (34), proves the asymptotic stability of the controller, since the deri-
x2 = ε2 + β (20) vative of Lyapunov function becomes negative definite, which ensures
the convergence of error ε1 to zero.
Putting Eq. (20) in Eq. (8) gives
iPV ε2 + β 6. Simulation & results
ε1̇ = − μ−x1̇ ref
C1 C1 (21)
To verify the performance of the proposed controller, MATLAB/
Substituting β from Eq. (18) in Eq. (21), we get
SIMULINK is used to perform simulations. The parameters of the pro-
ε2 posed controller and the designed converter are mentioned in Table 1.
ε1̇ = −K1 ε1− μ−κζ
C1 (22) Whereas, Table 2 contains the parameters of PV array used for this
Hence, Eq. (12) becomes study. The results are presented in five subsections. The performance of
the proposed controller under varying irradiance and temperature is
ε1 ε2
V1̇ = ε1 ε1̇ + κζζ ̇ = −K1 ε12− μ analyzed in the first two subsections. The next subsection constitutes
C1 (23)
the comparison of the proposed controller with P&O algorithm with
Here, the first term in Eq. (23) is negative definite, but we are not sure improved performance due to the inclusion of PID controller. Similarly,
about the second term. By taking the derivative of Eqs. (18) and (19) the proposed controller is compared with the Backstepping controller
and simplifying the expressions, we have and Fuzzy logic based controller in the next two subsections.

196
M. Arsalan et al. Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200

Table 1
Parameters of controller & converter.
Parameter Value

k1 2870.18
k2 1551.65
κ 1510
Input capacitor, C1 67 uF
Inductor, L 11 mH
Output capacitor, C2 480 uF
Load resistor, R 20 Ω
Switching frequency, fs 100 kHz

Fig. 8. Generated power under varying irradiance.

Table 2
Parameters of PV array.
Parameter Value

PV module per string 10

Parallel connected strings 1
No of cells per module 60
Open circuit voltage 363 V
Short circuit current 7.84 A
Voltage at MPP 290 V
Current at MPP 7.35 A
Maximum power per module 213.15 W

Fig. 9. Output waveforms under varying irradiance.

Fig. 7. Tracking of PV module voltage under varying irradiance.

Fig. 10. Tracking of PV module voltage under varying temperature.

6.1. Test under varying irradiance
To test the proposed controller under rapidly varying conditions,
the initial Irradiance is kept at 1000 W/m2 , which is abruptly changed to
800 W/m2 after 0.05 s. Similarly, after 0.1 s, it is changed to 600 W/m2 .
During this experiment, the temperature of PV module has been
maintained ar constant temperature of 25 °C. The regression plane
successfully generates the tracking peak power voltage which is suc-
cessfully tracked by the controller, as shown in Fig. 7. It is also clearly
visible that the system tracks the reference with zero steady state error.
However, an overshoot of 13.8 V (4.7% of steady state value) was ob-
served in the response. Similarly, in Fig. 8, the variation in power as a
result of variation in irradiance is depicted. Both the generated power
(by PV array) and the power available at load, i.e. output power are
shown in Fig. 8. The PV module reaches at MPP within 2 ms with al-
most negligible ripple. Moreover, the converter successfully transmits
maximum power to the load with more than 95% efficiency. Converter
output waveforms ar shown in Fig. 9.1
6.2. Test under varying temperature
In this test, the initial temperature is first maintained at 30 °C which
is then increased to 45 ° C and then to 60 ° C after regular intervals of
0.5 s respectively. The irradiance is kept at 1000 W/m2 throughout this
experiment. The controller yet again successfully tracks the reference
voltage, as shown in Fig. 10. The steady state error between the re-
ference and the actual VPV is zero. Yet, a small overshoot of 7.44 V
(2.6% of steady state value) was observed, as shown in Fig. 10. Simi-
larly the controller is robust enough to maximize the power by reaching
MPP with in less than 1 ms. The generated power under varying tem-
perature and the output power transmitted to the load by the converter
are shown in Fig. 11. Whereas, the converter output voltage and current
waveforms are shown in Fig. 12. Again, the efficiency of the converter
is observed to be more than 95%.
6.3. Comparison with perturb & observe algorithm

Conventional P&O is modified by the introduction of PID controller

1
To test the proposed controller more rigorously in a realistic environment, real power
electronics switching devices, with forward voltage drops and resistances have been
considered for simulation purpose. Due to which, some power is lost in the converter. The
controller does not have any information regarding these changes as it was derived using
the ideal model of Buckboost converter.
(Anto and Asumadu, 2016) to improve its performance and is then
compared with the proposed controller. The comparison is done under
both varying temperature and irradiance conditions, mentioned in
previous two subsections. The proposed controller clearly outperforms
the modified P&O algorithm. The comparison of the generated power

197
M. Arsalan et al.
Fig. 11. Generated power under varying temperature.
Fig. 12. Output waveforms under varying temperature.
Fig. 13. Power comparison under varying temperature.
Fig. 14. Power comparison under varying irradiance.
under varying temperature is shown in Fig. 13. Similarly, the power
generation comparison under varying irradiance is shown in Fig. 14. It
can be observed that the modified P&O has improved its performance
when compared with the conventional P&O as is much more robust. But
it still takes considerable amount of time to reach MPP whenever the
array is subjected to massive parameter variations. Moreover, these
comparisons also validate the performance of the proposed controller as
it is not only tracking the PV array voltage but also achieving MPPT
robustly.
198
Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200
Fig. 15. PV array voltage comparison under varying irradiance.
Fig. 16. PV array voltage comparison under varying irradiance.
Fig. 17. PV array voltage comparison under varying temperature.
Fig. 18. PV array voltage comparison under varying irradiance.
6.4. Comparison with backstepping controller
When backstepping controller is implemented for the application of
MPPT (Naghmash and Arsalan, 2017), a small steady state error has
been noticed in both the scenarios of varying temperature as well as
irradiance. Integral backstepping on the other hand completely di-
minishes any error, and perfectly tracks the peak power voltage. The
results for varying temperature are shown in Fig. 15, whereas, Fig. 16
M. Arsalan et al.
Table 3
Comparison.
Method RT (ms) ST 5% Criteria (ms) ST 2% Criteria (ms)
Backstepping 2.42 3.1
P&O 2.22 19
FLBC 2.17 3 8.4
IBS 2.17 2.9
shows the comparison at varying irradiance. Moreover, it can be ob-
served that the proposed controller is also more robust as its rise time is
2.2 ms, whereas, it is 2.5 ms with the backstepping controller. Similarly,
a small overshoot of 8.2 volts (2.8%) can also be observed in case of
integral backstepping controller.
6.5. Comparison with fuzzy logic based controller
The performance of proposed controller has been further validated
by comparing it with that of Fuzzy logic based nonlinear controller for
MPPT, proposed in Bhanu and Sanam (2017). Fig. 17 compares the two
controllers under varying temperature condition. Similarly, Fig. 18
shows the response under varying irradiance. Fuzzy logic based non-
linear controller also shows promising results. The response is robust
but oscillations of larger magnitude around the MPP can be observed,
which are negligible in the case of the proposed controller. Similarly, in
case of integral backstepping controller, smaller overshoot is observed.
7. Comparison between analyzed techniques
The analyzed techniques presented in the research work vary the
duty cycle of the converter to control the output voltage of PV array.
The results are presented in Table 3. The table is formulated by com-
paring the analyzed techniques on the basis of Rise Time (RT), Settling
Time (ST) (2% and 5% criteria), Steady State Error (SSE), Overshoot
and Ripples in VPV measured in Volts (peak to peak). Both Integral
Backstepping (mentioned as IBS in Table 3) and FLBC responded swiftly
to the control signal as they exhibit the lowest RT. Though the differ-
ence is not very significant in comparison with the remaining techni-
ques. However IBS not only achieves steady state more rapidly, when
compared with other techniques, but it also attained zero steady state
error. VPV of PV array, also depicts the least magnitude of ripples in its
waveform. The only drawback is the overshoot voltage which is again
less than 5% of the steady state value. The biggest overshoot and the
largest ripples were observed in the case of P&O. These ripples can be
reduced but the trade off will be between ripple magnitude and the rise
time or robustness of the algorithm. Similarly, ripples of larger mag-
nitude are also noticeable in the case of FLBC. Hence, the results pre-
sented in Table 3 validates the superiority of the proposed controller
over others.
8. Conclusion and future work
In this paper, nonlinear Integral Backstepping controller has been
proposed for the application of MPPT using non-inverting Buckboost
converter. The peak power voltage reference has been generated using
regression plane and global asymptotic stability has been proved using
Lyapunov stability criteria. To validate the performance of the proposed
controller, it has been compared with modified P&O, nonlinear
Backstepping controller and Fuzzy Logic based nonlinear controller.
The proposed controller performed well in comparison with all of them
and it completely removes the steady state error as well. Although the
controller is exceptional in its performance, but it is completely de-
pendant on the authenticity of the regression plane. Since, the PV arrays
are subjected to wear and tear in real world, so maintenance of re-
gression plane is necessary for the controller’s optimal performance.
199
Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200
SSE (V) Overshoot (V) Ripples (V)
3.8 1 0 0.65
NA 6 74 19
0.5 15.4 3.6
3.2 0 13.94 0.63
Similarly, the reference generation under partial shading may require
the integration of other techniques such as PSO and ACO to successfully
generate maximum power.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Abderrahim Taouni, M.A., Abbou, Ahmed, 2016. Mppt design for photovoltaic system
using backstepping control with boost converter. In: 2016 International Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC). IEEE, pp. 469–475.
Adly, I., 2011. Maximum power point tracker for a pv cell using a fuzzy agent adapted by
the fractional open circuit voltage technique. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference
on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011). IEEE, pp. 1918–1922.
Adly, B., 2012. An optimized fuzzy maximum power point tracker for stand alone pho-
tovoltaic systems: ant colony approach. In: 2012 7th IEEE Conference on Industrial
Electronics and Applications (ICIEA). IEEE, pp. 113–119.
Ahmad Khateb, M.N., 2016. Fuzzy logic controller based sepic converter for maximum
power point tracking. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 50, 2349–2358.
Ajiatmo, R., 2016. A hybrid fuzzy logic controller-firefly algorithm (flc-fa) based for mppt
photovoltaic (pv) system in solar car. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Power and Renewable Energy. IEEE, pp. 606–610.
Ali Nasr, M.Z.M.T.M.A.M., Saied, M.H., 2012. A survey of maximum ppt techniques of pv
systems. In: 2012 IEEE Energytech. IEEE, pp. 1–17.
Ammar Al-Gizi, A.C., 2017. Improving the performance of pv system using genetically-
tuned flc based mppt. In: 2017 International Conference on Optimization of Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM) & ACEMP. IEEE, pp. 642–647.
Ammar Ghalib, S.J., 2016. Study of flc based mppt in comparison with p&o and inc for pv
systems. In: 2016 International Symposium on Fundamentals of Electrical
Engineering (ISFEE). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Ammar Ghalib, S.J., 2017. The use of ann to supervise the pv mppt based on flc. In: THE
10th International Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering. IEEE,
pp. 703–708.
Anto, P.Y.O.E.K., Asumadu, J.A., 2016. Pid control for improving p&o-mppt performance
of a grid-connected solar pv system with ziegler-nichols tuning method. In: IEEE 11th
Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA). IEEE, pp. 1842–1847.
Aranzazu Martin, F.S., Cano, 2015. Backstepping control of smart grid-connected dis-
tributed photovoltaic power supplies for telecom equipment. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 30, 1496–1504.
Bashar Zahawi, M.E., 2012. Evaluation of perturb and observe mppt algorithm im-
plementation techniques. In: 6th IET International Conference on Power Electronics,
Machines and Drives (PEMD 2012). IET, pp. 1–6.
Bashar Zahawi, M.E., 2012. Assessment of perturb and observe mppt algorithm im-
plementation techniques for pv pumping applications. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 3
(1), 21–33.
Bashar Zahawi, M.E., 2013. Assessment of the incremental conductance maximum power
point tracking algorithm. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4 (1), 108–117.
Besheer, A., 2012. Ant colony system based pi maximum power point tracking for stand
alone photovoltaic system. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Industrial
Technology. IEEE, pp. 693–698.
Bhanu, P.H.C., Sanam, S.K., 2017. A fuzzy logic based mppt method for solar power
generation. In: International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control
Systems (ICICCS). IEEE, pp. 1182–1186.
Chenni, A.S.R., 2016. A survey of maximum peak power tracking techniques used in
photovoltaic power systems. In: 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC). IEEE,
pp. 430–443.
Dalila Beriber, A.T., 2013. Mppt techniques for pv systems. In: 4th International
Conference on Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives. IEEE, pp.
1437–1442.
Eberhart, J.K.R., 1995. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of
the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995.
IEEE, pp. 39–43.
Ebrahimi, M.J., 2015. General overview of maximum power point tracking methods for
photovoltaic power generation systems. In: 30th International Power System
Conference (PSC2015). Niroo Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
ElKhozondar, K.M.H.J., ElKhozondar, R.J., 2016. A review study of photovoltaic array
maximum power tracking algorithms. Renew.: Wind, Water, Solar.
Elobaid, A.M., 2015. Artificial neural network-based photovoltaic maximum power point
tracking techniques: a survey. IET Renew. Power Gener. 9, 1043–1063.
M. Arsalan et al.
Emilio Mamarelis, G.S., Petrone, Giovanni, 2014. Design of a sliding-mode-controlled
sepic for pv mppt applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 61, 3387–3398.
Farahat, A.N.M.A., Enany, M.A., 2015. Assessment of maximum power point tracking
techniques for photovoltaic system applications. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy.
Hanen Nafaa, S.L., Farhat, Maissa, 2017. A pv water desalination system using back-
stepping approach. In: 2017 International Conference on Green Energy Conversion
Systems (GECS). IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Hugues Renaudineau, G.P., Donatantonio, Fabrizio, 2015. A pso-based global mppt
technique for distributed pv power generation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62,
1047–1058.
Jubaer Ahmed, Z.S., 2017. An accurate method for mppt to detect the partial shading
occurrence in pv system. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 13, 2151–2161.
Kamarzaman, C.W.T.N.A., 2014. A comprehensive review of maximum power point
tracking algorithms for photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 585–598.
Laszlo Mathe, D.S., Kerekes, Tamas, 2013. On the perturb-and-observe and incremental
conductance mppt methods for pv systems. IEEE J. Photovolt. 3 (3), 1070–1078.
Logeswaran, A.S.T., 2013. A review of maximum power point tracking algorithms for
photovoltaic systems under uniform and non-uniform irradiances. In: 4th
International Conference on Advances in Energy Research 2013, ICAER 2013.
ELSEVIER, pp. 228–235.
Lyden, M.H.S., 2015. Maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic sys-
tems: a comprehensive review and comparative analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 1504–1518.
Maissa Farhat, O., 2015. A stable flc-based mppt technique for photovoltaic system. In:
2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT). IEEE, pp.
890–895.
Mouna Smida, A.S., 2015. Genetic based algorithm for mppt for grid connected pv sys-
tems operating under partial shaded conditions. In: 7th International Conference on
200
Solar Energy 170 (2018) 192–200
Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC 2015). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Naghmash, I.A., Arsalan, Muhammad, 2017. Backstepping based non-linear control for
maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system. Sol. Energy 159, 134–141.
Naziha Harrabi, M.S., 2017. Peak power tracker based on t-s fuzzy model for photovoltaic
system. In: 2017 25th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED).
IEEE, pp. 547–552.
Noureddine, D., 2017. Flc based gaussian membership functions tuned by pso and ga for
mppt of photovoltaic system: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Systems and Control. IEEE, pp. 317–322.
Reisi, S.A.R., Moradi, M.H., 2013. Classification and comparison of maximum power
point tracking techniques for photovoltaic system: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 433–443.
Roshdy Abdelrassoul, Y.A., 2011. Optimized pid controller for both single phase inverter
and mppt sepic dc/dc converter of pv module. In: 2011 IEEE International Electric
Machines & Drives Conference (IEMDC). IEEE, pp. 1036–1041.
Roshdy Abdelrassoul, Y.A., 2016. Genetic algorithm-optimized pid controller for better
performance of pv system. In: 2016 World Symposium on Computer Applications and
Research. IEEE, pp. 18–22.
Sundareswaran, S.P., Sankar, Peddapati, 2016. Development of an improved p&o algo-
rithm assisted through a colony of foraging ants for mppt in pv system. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Inform. 12, 187–200.
Zekry, M.E.E.T.A.Y.A.A., 2014. Intelligent techniques for mppt control in photovoltaic
systems: a comprehensive review. In: 4th International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence with Applications in Engineering and Technology. IEEE, pp. 17–22.
Zengrui Yang, Z.X., Duan, Qichang, 2017. Analysis of improved pso and perturb & ob-
serve global mppt algorithm for pv array under partial shading condition. In: 2017
29th Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE, pp. 549–553.