Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

A novel maximum power point tracking strategy based on

optimal voltage control for photovoltaic systems under
variable environmental conditions
Jian Zhao a, Xuesong Zhou b,⇑, Youjie Ma b, Wei Liu b
a
College of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300071, China
b
School of Electrical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin 300384, China

Received 30 June 2015; received in revised form 22 September 2015; accepted 28 September 2015
Available online 10 November 2015

Communicated by: Associate Editor Elias Stefanakos

Abstract

From the engineering cybernetics perspective, determining the output voltage of a solar cell corresponding to the maximum power
point (MPP) under variable temperature and irradiation conditions is essential for tracking the maximum power point. However, con-
ventional methods could not effectively achieve this goal, and approaches for utilizing this information do not exist, including the output
voltage and duty cycle at MPP, in the control process. This paper describes a novel method for maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
control in parameter optimization corresponding to variable environmental conditions. The results show a definable nonlinear relation
between variable environmental parameters and the output voltage of a solar cell at MPP both theoretically and experimentally. Addi-
tionally, this research gives the mathematical expression for it. Then, MPPT control rules are created based on the findings from a non-
linear relation that can respond at high speeds to variations in irradiation and the temperature of a solar cell. In view of this relationship,
we found that the output voltage at MPP is robust to irradiance in a certain range, and this directs the choices of irradiance in exper-
iments. Therefore, MATLABÒ/SimulinkÒ numerical simulations are presented to illustrate that this control algorithm can implement the
MPP of a PV generation system efficiently even in the low solar irradiation condition.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: PV generation system; MPPT; Variable environmental condition; Optimal voltage control

Abbreviations: PV, photovoltaic; MPPT, maximum power point tracking; P&O, perturbation and observation; HC, hill climbing; INC, incremental
conductance; NN, neural network; MP, maximum power; DC, direct current; MPP, maximum power point; P, output power of solar arrays (in watt); I,
output current of solar arrays (in ampere); V, output voltage of solar arrays (in volt); Vpmax, Voltage at MPP is calculated by dV dP
¼ 0 (in volt); VOVC,
operating voltage at MPP by using OVC method (in volt); V pmax , operating voltage at MPP by using INC method (in volt); Ipmax, output current at MPP
by calculation (in ampere); Pmax, output power at MPP by calculation (in watt); Pomax, output power at MPP by using OVC method (in watt); P max ,
output power at MPP by using INC method (in watt); Rs, series resistor (in ohms); Rsh, parallel resistor (in ohms); I0, reverse saturation current of diode
(in ampere); Iph, is the photocurrent (in ampere); n, a dimensionless junction material factor; q, electron charge (1.602  1019 in coulombs); k, Boltz-
mann’s constant (1.38  1023 in joules per kelvin); T, solar cells’ temperature (in degrees Celsius); Isc, short circuit current at standard condition (in
ampere); Im, current at MPP under standard condition (in ampere); Voc, open circuit voltage (in volt); Vm, voltage at MPP under standard condition (in
volt); S, solar irradiance (in watt per square meters); I 0sc , short circuit current under nonstandard condition (in ampere); V 0oc , open circuit voltage under
nonstandard condition (in volt); I 0m , open circuit voltage under nonstandard condition (in ampere); V 0m , voltage at MPP under nonstandard condition (in
volt); Tref, solar cells’ temperature under standard condition (in degrees Celsius); Sref, solar irradiance under standard condition (in watt per square meter).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86 022 60214081.
E-mail address: sjteam@163.com (X. Zhou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.09.040
0038-092X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649
1. Introduction
Studies on sustainable energy sources are actively pro-
moted to mitigate the petroleum crisis and the increasing
demand for energy, coupled with environmental issues.
Solar photovoltaic (PV) generation has a very powerful
potential because of the absence of fuel cost, the scalability
in power and the simplicity and small amount of mainte-
nance required by the PV system. The amount of solar
energy reaching the Earth’s surface in a year is a thousand
times the energy consumed in this period of time. So, solar
energy is a primary factor in all other processes of energy
production on earth (De Brito et al., 2013).
Because the amount of electric power generated by solar
arrays is always changing mainly with the solar cell temper-
ature and irradiance, an efficient maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) design of a PV system is necessary (Yu
et al., 2002). Thus, many MPPT methods have been devel-
oped and implemented. They include the perturbation and
observation (P&O) algorithm (Wasynczuk, 1983; Teulings
et al., 1993; Femia et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2010;
Zegaoui et al., 2011; Petrone et al., 2011), which is known
as the hill climbing (HC) method, the incremental conduc-
tance (INC) algorithms (Xiao and Dunford, 2004; Salas
and Barrado, 2006; Liu et al., 2008; Zegaoui et al., 2011;
Zhou et al., 2010; Kish et al., 2012), the neural network
(NN) method (Chaouachi et al., 2010), and the fuzzy logic
method (Messai et al., 2011; Rajesh and Mabel, 2014).
These methods execute MPPT by three ways: searching
for the maximum power (MP) while checking the sign of
the differential coefficient (dP/dI) for the power (P) with
respect to the current (I) in the P–I characteristics; search-
ing for MP while checking the sign of the differential coef-
ficient (dP/dV) for the power (P) with respect to the voltage
(V) in the P–V characteristics; and searching for MP while
checking the sign of the incremental conductance (dI/dV).
These methods have a common feature in that they search
MP by increasing or decreasing the cycle coefficient of the
DC–DC converter with a fixed step approach to the cycle
coefficient at the maximum power point (MPP) by judging
the plus-minus of the differential coefficients. Then, the out-
put voltage of the solar cell approach to the output voltage
of the solar cell at MPP–Vpmax. This type of control para-
digm could produce problems including a larger scale
delay, the inaccuracy of more detection circuits and sen-
sors, and power oscillation under low irradiation condi-
tions (Mutoh et al., 2006).
From an engineering cybernetics perspective, the ulti-
mate goal of MPPT is reaching Vpmax rapidly and accu-
rately by controlling the output voltage of the solar cell.
Namely, the reference input sign of MPPT is Vpmax. How-
ever, because these conventional methods of MPPT could
not gain the calculation algorithms of Vpmax in variable
environment conditions, they have no way to utilize any
direct information of Vpmax. This is unreasonable for
MPPT control designs. In this paper, the proposed control
strategy adopts Vpmax directly as the input signal for MPPT
641
rather than as the input–output voltage and current of the
DC–DC converter.
Vpmax of the solar cell depends on the cell’s environmen-
tal conditions, including the temperature of the solar cell
and the irradiance of sunlight (Bratcu et al., 2011; Liu
et al., 2013). Thus, it is necessary to adopt the environmen-
tal parameters directly as a compute variable for Vpmax. In
fact, there are many exciting MPPT methods for consider-
ing the environmental parameters directly (Mutoh et al.,
2006; Li, 2014). However, these methods do not study
the direct relationship between the environmental condi-
tion and the output voltage of the solar cell at MPP
(Vpmax), which is the control goal. Therefore, the primary
task of the proposed MPPT method in this paper is build-
ing the direct relationship between the environmental
parameters and Vpmax for variable conditions. This rela-
tionship plays a key role in the theoretical study.
First, this paper builds the nonlinear relation between
variable parameters and the output voltage of the solar cell
at MPP. Then, the MPPT control strategy based on the
relation with variable environmental parameters is pro-
posed. The feasibility, availability and advantages of this
MPPT method are analyzed by several MATLAB simula-
tion experiments for validating this method.
2. Principle of proposed MPPT control method
2.1. PV panel model
The photovoltaic panel ideal equivalent circuit for a PV
module is addressed in Mutoh et al. (2006).
In the PV cell model, the expression for its output cur-
rent I related to its output voltage V is given by Mutoh
et al. (2006):
   
q
I ¼ I ph  I 0 exp ðV þ IRs Þ  1
nkðT þ 273:15Þ
V þ IRs
 ð1Þ
Rsh
where I0 is the reverse saturation current (in amperes) of
the diode; Iph is the photocurrent (in amperes); n is a
dimensionless junction material factor; q is the electron
charge (1.602  1019 in coulombs); k is Boltzmann’s con-
stant (1.38  1023 in joules per kelvin); and T is the solar
cell temperature (in degrees Celsius). An ideal PV cell has a
very small equivalent series resistance Rs and a very large
equivalent parallel resistance Rsh in the general engineering
application (Mutoh et al., 2006). Therefore, these two
internal resistances Rs and Rsh can generally be neglected
and Eq. (1) is further simplified to
I ¼ I ph  I 0 fexpðAV Þ  1g ð2Þ
where
q
A¼ ð3Þ
nkT
642 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649

The following formulas are present at two operating where A and Voc represent the variable environmental
points in the short and open circuits (Mutoh et al., 2006): parameter whose value is related to the parameters of solar
arrays, S and T. Therefore, Eq. (14) shows the relationship
I sc ¼ I ph ð4Þ
between output voltage V at MPP and environment param-
I 0 ¼ I sc expðAV oc Þ ð5Þ eters S and T. Namely, the solar generation system will
I m ¼ I sc f1  exp½AðV m  V oc Þg ð6Þ operate at MPP when the output voltage V equals to
  1
½Lambert W ðeAV oc þ1 þ eÞ  1. In addition, we defined V
1 Im A
A¼ ln 1  ð7Þ using Vpmax in this paper. It should be noted that Vpmax
V m  V oc I sc
can be easily calculated at the standard condition because
where Isc is the short-circuit current; Voc is the open-circuit the values of parameters (Isc, Voc, Im, Vm) are all given by
voltage; Im is the maximum power point current; and Vm is the PV array manufacturer. By contrast, at the nonstan-
the maximum power point voltage. All of the parameters dard condition, a new method should be studied for calcu-
above are measured by the PV array manufacturer under lating those parameters.
standard conditions of solar irradiance (S in watt per We define the parameters Isc, Voc, Im, and Vm with I 0sc ,
square meters) and temperature (T), which are 1000 V oc , I 0m , and V 0m at the nonstandard condition. Vpmax can
0

W/m2 and 25 °C, respectively. A represents a variable envi- be calculated based on Eq. (14) when parameters I 0sc , V 0oc ,
ronmental parameter whose value is related to the variable I 0m , and V 0m are given. On the other hand, because parame-
parameters of the solar cell, T and S, but here it is a con- ters I 0sc , V 0oc , I 0m , and V 0m are related to S and T, we must
stant for the standard condition. When using (4), (5) and determine the accurate mathematical relationship among
(7), the output current I and power P can be expressed them.
by a function of Isc, A, Voc and output voltage V, Under the condition of engineering accuracy, the
respectively. computational method of parameters I 0sc , V 0oc , I 0m , and V 0m
 
I ¼ I sc 1  eAV oc ðeAV  1Þ ð8Þ are given by the following equations (Rauschenbach,
 AV oc AV
 1980):
P ¼ I  V ¼ VI sc 1  e ðe  1Þ ð9Þ
S
All parameters are constants except for P and V when I 0sc ¼ I sc  ð1 þ aDT Þ ð15Þ
both S and T are definite in Eq. (9). Therefore, Eq. (9) S ref
shows the theoretical relationship between output power V 0oc ¼ V oc  ð1  cDT Þ lnðe þ bDSÞ ð16Þ
P and voltage V. To obtain the output voltage of solar S
arrays at MPP, the following works focus on the theoreti- I 0m ¼ I m  ð1 þ aDT Þ ð17Þ
S ref
cal analysis of the relationship between Vpmax and the envi-
V 0m ¼ V m  ð1  cDT Þ lnðe þ bDSÞ ð18Þ
ronment parameters.

2.2. Relationship between Vpmax and environment parameters where Tref is the temperature of the solar cell under the
standard condition; Sref is the solar irradiance under the
From the P&O algorithm, the slope of the P–V charac- standard condition; DT = T  Tref; DS ¼ S ref
S
 1; the typi-
teristic is equal to zero at MPP and is expressed by the fol- cal values of a, b, c are 0.0025/°C, 0.5, and 0.00288/°C,
lowing equation: respectively. The four parameters can be easily calculated
dP by using Eqs. (15)–(18) with standard parameters, which
¼0 ð10Þ are provided by the PV array manufacturer, and environ-
dV
ment parameters T and S, which are measured by sensors.
Substituting (9) into (10) gives For the record, the output characteristics of a solar cell
dP 

determined by the formulas above only satisfy the request
¼ I sc 1  eAV oc eAV  1 þ VI sc eAV oc eAV ¼ 0 ð11Þ of engineering and the accuracy within 6% by using an
dV
experiment approach for the range of parameters for the
Reorganizing Eq. (11) gives: solar battery component, which are allowed by most PV
eAV AV oc ð1 þ AV Þ ¼ 1 þ eAV oc ð12Þ array manufacturers. However, the accuracy (6%) cannot
meet the requirements of MPPT control. Namely, V 0m ,
Multiplying both sides of the equal sign by e1þAV oc and which is calculated by Eq. (18), is not the real output volt-
reorganizing (12) gives: age at MPP and the formula dV dP
does not equal to zero. In
ð1 þ AV ÞeAV þ1 ¼ eð1 þ eAV oc Þ ð13Þ fact, determining the output voltage of solar arrays satisfy-
ing the formula dVdP
¼ 0 (Vpmax) is a must for maximum
Use the Lambert W function to obtain the solution for
power point track control. Therefore, we correct V 0m with
Eqs. (13) and (10):
Eq. (14) and obtain the mathematical expression of Vpmax
1  under variable environment conditions, as expressed by
V ¼ Lambert W ðeAV oc þ1 þ eÞ  1 ð14Þ
A the following equations:
 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649 643

1 A0 V 0oc þ1 of T and S are in the range of 0–70 and 0–1000 based on the
V pmax ¼ 0 ½Lambert W ðe þ eÞ  1 ð19Þ
A   real condition, respectively. The color of the curve in the
1 I 0m figures from red to blue represents the gradual change in
A0 ¼ 0 0 ln 1  0 ð20Þ
V m  V oc I sc voltage from high to low. It can be seen from Fig. 1a that
the different environmental conditions can correspond to a
Then, the corrective output current and power of the common operating voltage, and the operating voltage lim-
solar cell array at MPP–Ipmax and Pmax are given by the fol- its within narrow bounds of 42.637–69.12 correspond to a
lowing equations: wide range of environment conditions. This characteristic
 0 0 0  of optimal voltage puts forward strict accuracy require-
I pmax ¼ I 0sc 1  eA V oc ðeA V pmax  1Þ ð21Þ
ments for temperature and irradiance sensors. To study
P max ¼ V pmax  I pmax ð22Þ
the relationship between the voltage and environmental
By using the MATLABÒ/SimulinkÒ platform, the parameters more clearly, we project Fig. 1a into the
Vpmax–S–T surface characteristic based on Eq. (19) can Vpmax–S plane and Vpmax–T plane, respectively. Fig. 1b
be illustrated in Fig. 1a. Fig. 1b and c describes the perfor- shows that the Vpmax–S surface consists of a group of
mance of Vpmax–S and Vpmax–T, which are projected into approximate parabola from high to low corresponding to
the Vpmax–S plane and Vpmax–T plane in Fig. 1a, the temperature of the solar cell from low to high. Mean-
respectively. In the MATLABÒ model of the solar cell, while, Vpmax is relatively low and is sensitive to the change
all constant values that take from the data sheet of of variable S in the range of 500 to 800. In this range, it can
XINYU/L-1260 are used to perform the simulation. Addi- gain better results for MPPT control even though it has a
tionally, Isc, Voc, Im and Vm at standard conditions are low accuracy sensor of irradiance. Namely, the optimal
25.44 A, 66 V, 23.25 A and 54.2 V, respectively. The limits voltage of the solar array (Vpmax) is robust to S in a certain
range. This feature of Vpmax is beneficial to MPPT control.
Fig. 1c shows that the Vpmax–T surface consists of a group
of approximate oblique lines that have approximately the
same slope. So, this is necessary for high accuracy require-
ments for the temperature sensor in MPPT control.
For further research, the Pmax–S–T surface characteris-
tic based on Eq. (22) can be illustrated in Fig. 2a. Pmax is
the maximum power corresponding to variable environ-
ment conditions. Fig. 2b and c describes the performance
of Pmax–S and Pmax–T, where Fig. 2a is projected into
the Pmax–S plane and Pmax–T plane, respectively. It can
be seen from Fig. 2a that a simple relationship holds
between Pmax and S–T compared with Fig. 1a. Fig. 2b
shows that the approximation of a linear holds between
Pmax and S in which Pmax increases with an increase in S.
Pmax changes considerably and corresponds to the change
of variable S in the range of 0–1000, as it is from 500 to
800. However, Vpmax is nearly unchanged in the bounds
from 500 to 800. This further verifies that the optimal oper-
ation of the solar array is robust to S in a certain range.
Therefore, the operation of the solar array should be
avoided in the range for simulations and experiments of
MPPT. Meanwhile, Fig. 2c shows that T has a negligible
impact on Pmax but that it has a great influence on Vpmax
based on Fig. 1c. Thus, the main role of T is to influence
the optimal voltage Vpmax, and it can prove that the high
accuracy requirements of the temperature sensor in MPPT
control is even more necessary.
To summarize, Eq. (19) shows the relationship between
Vpmax and T and S under variable environment conditions.
Vpmax is the final reference input signal of MPPT. There-
fore, a functional relation between the control signal and
Fig. 1. (a) Vpmax–S–T characteristic surface of PV system under variable
environmental conditions; (b) Vpmax–S characteristic curves under variable the environmental parameters (T and S) can be built by
environmental conditions; and (c) Vpmax–T characteristics curves under Eq. (19). According to these relationships, an MPPT con-
variable environmental conditions. trol strategy will be proposed.
644 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649
Fig. 2. (a) Pmax–S–T characteristic surface of PV cell under variable
environmental conditions; (b) Pmax–S characteristic curves under variable
environmental conditions; and (c) Pmax–T characteristic curves under
variable environmental conditions.
3. Proposed MPPT control method
From the engineering cybernetics perspective, the ulti-
mate goal of MPPT is to control the output voltage of
the solar cell to reach Vpmax rapidly and accurately. Specif-
ically, the reference input sign of MPPT is Vpmax. In this
research work, the proposed control strategy adopts Vpmax
directly as the input signal for MPPT based on Eq. (19).
The control procedures cited above are summarized in
the flowchart shown in Fig. 3. The inputs are T, S and
V, and these values can be measured by sensors. The out-
put is the error between V and Vpmax, which is calculated
by Eq. (19) with T, S. Obviously, the error is the control
signal for MPPT, which determines the optimal duty cycle
of the DC–DC converter.
The whole proposed method includes only two subsets:
Calculate and Compare. In the control process, Vpmax is
constant when T and S are determinate. Consequently,
we can draw the following three conclusions:
(1) When the error between V and Vpmax is large (i.e., the
operating point is far from MPP), the change in the
duty cycle is large and reaches MPP rapidly.
Fig. 3. Flowchart for the proposed MPPT control method.
(2) When the error between V and Vpmax is medium (i.e.,
the operating point is near MPP), the change in the
duty cycle is small to avoid the oscillation of nearby
MPP.
(3) When the error between V and Vpmax is almost equal
to zero (i.e., the operating point is reached and
remains near MPP), the duty cycle is not changed.
So, this MPPT control method can be called the ‘‘the
MPPT method based on optimal voltage control (OVC)”
(Guo et al., 2013).
4. Analysis and discussion of the simulation results
To investigate the accuracy and performance of the pro-
posed method, a PV system includes one solar panel, a
DC–DC boost converter, a load and a control system that
are considered and simulated on the MATLABÒ/Simu-
linkÒ platform. The Simulink model of the PV system with
the optimal voltage control is shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 5
describes the subsystem model of the optimal voltage con-
troller, which includes the calculation block for Vpmax and
the control logic block. In the MATLABÒ model of the
solar cell, Isc, Voc, Im and Vm are the same as Section 2.2
at standard conditions. The inductance and the capacitor
of the Boost DC/DC converter are the ideal components;
the snubber resistance, internal resistance and forward
voltage of the diode are 500 X, 0.001 X and 0.8 V, respec-
tively; IGBT with the 0.001 X internal resistance and
105 X snubber resistance is chosen as the switch; the load
resistance is 500 X. Other parameters such as R1, L, C
and C1 are 1 X, 0.01 H, 2 mF and 2 mF, respectively. Real
environment data collected at Tianjin, China for a sunny,
cloudy and rainy day from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. are used to ana-
lyze the performance of the proposed MPPT strategy.
 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649 645

Fig. 4. Simulink model of PV system with proposed MPPT control.

Fig. 5. Subsystem model of optimal voltage control.

According to the control strategy proposed that controls
the PV system that operates at MPP, the real-time value of
Vpmax should be calculated and the simulation results are
shown in Table 1. The columns with and without super-
script ‘‘*” represent the data of the MPPT controller using
the INC algorithm and the proposed strategy, respectively;
VOVC is the true output voltage of the PV array operating
at MPP by using the OVC method; the dP/dV column rep-
resents the degree of deviation between the actual power at
Vpmax and the theoretical power at MPP, with plus or
minus corresponding to the left or right of the actual power
relative to the theoretical power. Focusing on the dP/dV
column, we can find that all values approach zero infinitely,
which means that Vpmax equals to the theoretical voltage of
MPP practically. It can be seen from the VOVC, Vpmax and
V pmax rows that the voltage values VOVC and V pmax are
approximately equal to the corresponding value Vpmax
when the PV generation system  operates
 at MPP and the
average error between VOVC V pmax and Vpmax is 0.13
(0.4111). In addition, the errors between V pmax and Vpmax
in low irradiation are larger than in high irradiation. In
contrast, the errors between VOVC and Vpmax are almost
a uniform distribution and are not affected by the environ-
ment parameters T and S. By comparing POmax with the
P max column, we can see that the values of POmax are
slightly larger than P max and that the deviations in low irra-
diation are larger than in high irradiation. The deviations
shows similar characteristics with the errors of
V pmax  V pmax . Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that
this MPPT method based on optimal voltage control is fea-
sible, where the tracking performance is not affected by
environment parameters.
To compare the performance of the proposed MPPT
method with the INC algorithm, the following three cases
are simulated and analyzed:
Case 1: Normal operating conditions.
Case 2: Sustained and varied low solar irradiance
conditions.
Case 3: Fast variation of the cell temperature and the
solar irradiance in global.

Table 1
Experimental results under various (S, T).
(S, T) (W/m2, °C) VOVC (V) Vpmax (V) V pmax (V) dP/dV POmax (W) P max (W)
(200, 10) 47.26 47.3297 48.47 4.4409e15 212.807 211.6
(300, 10) 48.36 48.5308 49.78 4.4409e15 327.3114 325.7
(400, 10) 49.96 49.7069 50.91 3.5527e15 446.9907 445.1
(800, 30) 51.126 51.1882 51.21 3.5527e15 968.4473 968.4
(900, 30) 52.17 52.1942 52.21 5.6843e14 1111 1110.5
(1000, 30) 53.13 53.1815 53.23 1.4211e14 1258.2 1257.7
(800, 40) 48.68 49.6924 49.68 3.5527e15 963.3621 963.3
(900, 40) 50.67 50.6690 50.68 1.0658e14 1105.1 1105
(1000, 40) 51.59 51.6275 51.65 3.5527e15 1251.1 1251
646 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649

4.1. Normal operating conditions

To assess the features of proposed method, the perfor-

mances obtained by using the OVC method will be com-
pared with the corresponding performances obtained by
using the INC algorithm. Of course, to perform a meaning-
ful comparison, both techniques must be properly opti-
mized. Fig. 6 shows the experimental results by adopting
the OVC method and the INC algorithm.
In Fig. 6a, the numerical results obtained by adopting Fig. 7. Time-varying irradiation profile.
the INC algorithm are shown. The curves represent the
time-domain behavior of the power extracted by the PV
module under stationary environmental conditions (S =
(800, 1000) W/m2, T = 25 °C) during the turn on transient
of the boost converter until the steady-state is settled. The
curves shown in Fig. 6b refer to the corresponding quanti-
ties obtained by adopting the OVC method.
It can be seen from Fig. 6a that the INC and the OVC
algorithms can lead, at the steady-state, to an extracted
power nearly equal to PMPP = (1260, 970.3) W, corre-
sponding to the irradiation parameter S = (800, 1000)
W/m2. From Fig. 6a, we can see that the output power
of solar arrays using the INC algorithm at the steady-
state has an oscillation within narrow bounds, which
slowly become greater with a decrease in the value of S.
Conversely, the corresponding behaviors using the OVC
method remain non-vibrational throughout the entire con-
trol operation. Thus, the output power when using the
OVC method has a better steady-state performance than

Fig. 8. (a) Time-domain behavior of the powers produced by the PV

sources, under time-varying conditions (INC algorithm); (b) correspond-
ing quantities obtained by adopting OVC method; (c) comparison of the
time-domain behavior of the output power.

the INC algorithm in normal operating conditions. It

Fig. 6. (a) Time-domain behavior of the powers produced by the
PV sources, under stationary environmental conditions (S = (800, 1000)
W/m2, T = 25 °C, IC); and (b) corresponding quantities obtained by
adopting OVC method.
should be noted that the non-vibration state is entirely
unrelated to the value of S because the OVC method calcu-
lates the operating voltage at MPP accurately. Meanwhile,
by comparing the settling time in Fig. 6a and b, it is possi-
ble to show that a higher speed is obtained by using the
OVC method.
 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649 647

Table 2
Calculated results in Case 2.
Fig. 8 0 6 t 6 1 (s) Fig. 8 0.55 6 t 6 0.8 (s)
EOVC (W s) 398.99 83.722
EINC (W s) 390.17 81.354
g 2.2605% 2.9107%

Fig. 9. Fast variations of (a) solar cell temperature and (b) solar
irradiance.

4.2. Sustained and varied low solar irradiance conditions
This investigation is implemented to assess and compare
the performance of INC and OVC algorithms under sus-
tained and varied low solar irradiance conditions. As an
example, the irradiation profile shown in Fig. 7 has been
considered. Fig. 8a and b shows the numerical results
obtained by adopting the INC and OVC methods, respec-
tively. The curves in Fig. 8 represent the time-domain
behavior of the power extracted by the PV module. From
Fig. 8a, we can see that the output power of solar arrays
using the INC algorithm at steady-state has a high fre-
quency oscillation with a large amplitude at the low solar
irradiance condition. Conversely, the corresponding behav-
iors using the OVC method remain non-vibrational
throughout the entire control operation from Fig. 8b.
Fig. 8c, where a comparison of the time-domain behavior
of the power produced by the PV modules under time-
varying environmental conditions is reported, clearly
demonstrates that the value of the red curve is nearly equal
to the peak value of the black curve. It is evident that even
if the solar irradiance varies under a low value, the PV sys-
tem could operate at MPP steadily and with a non-
vibration by using the OVC method. It should also be
noted that the value of the output power using the OVC
Fig. 10. The MPPT trajectories for INC and OVC algorithms under (a)
fast variations of solar cell temperature and solar irradiance, (b) fast
variations of solar irradiance and (c) fast variations of solar cell
temperature.
method is larger than the value of the output power using
the INC algorithm when S changes from 400 to 300.
From Fig. 8c, the simulation results show that the PV
system could output more power with the proposed algo-
rithm than by using the incremental conductance (INC)
algorithm. Based on the mathematical definition of work,
the value of work equals to the value of the area bounded
by the power curve and time axes. By using the
MATLABÒ/SimulinkÒ platform, the area bounded by
the power curve and time axes could be calculated with
0.0001 precision. So, the increment rate of output energy
(g) in Case 2 using the proposed method could be analyzed
based on the following equation:
g ¼ ðEOVC  EINC Þ=EINC ð23Þ
where g is the increment rate of output energy; EOVC is the
output energy of the PV system by using the proposed
algorithm (W s), i.e., the area bounded by the power curve
and time axes using the proposed algorithm; EINC is the
output energy of the PV system using the INC algorithm
(W s), i.e., the area bounded by the power curve and time
648 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649
Table 3
Calculated results in Case 3.
Fig. 10a 0 6 t 6 1 (s) Fig. 10b 0 6 t 6 1 (s)
EOVC (W s) 775.01 788.44
EINC (W s) 761.39 775.56
g 1.7888% 1.6607%
axes using the INC algorithm. The calculated results are
shown in Table 2.
Focusing on the g row of Table 2, we find that approx-
imately 2.2605% of the solar energy is output energy when
using the proposed method more than the INC algorithm
in global. When time is in the range of 0.55–0.8 s (then irra-
diance keeps 300 W/m2), 2.9107% of the solar energy is
output energy when using the proposed method more than
the INC algorithm.
4.3. Fast variation of the cell temperature and the solar
irradiance in global
To investigate and verify the performance and accuracy
of the proposed OVC method under a rapidly changing
solar cell temperature and the solar irradiance, a step
change in global is applied to the solar cell temperature
and the solar irradiance, as represented in Fig. 9. The out-
put power trajectories of the solar array for INC and OVC
algorithms are also shown in Fig. 10a. In Fig. 10b, varia-
tions in cell temperature are assumed to be constant at
25 °C, and solar irradiance changes similar to Fig. 9b. This
figure shows similar results to Fig. 9a. In Fig. 10c, varia-
tions in solar irradiance are assumed to be constant at
1000 W/m2, and the cell temperature changes similar to
Fig. 9a. Fig. 10a–c shows that the OVC algorithm can find
MPP rapidly and accurately regardless of whether we
change the solar cell temperature, the solar irradiance, or
both the temperature and the irradiance. It should be noted
that the output power curves when using the OVC method
have no oscillation globally in these conditions. Con-
versely, the output power of solar arrays when using the
INC algorithm at steady-state has an oscillation in global.
It is evident that the OVC method has better accuracy and
time response in comparison with the INC algorithm. In
addition, Fig. 10c shows that the output power of the solar
arrays has a small relationship with cell temperature. This
result concurs with the result shown in Fig. 2c.
Based on Eq. (23), the increment rate of output energy
(g) in Case 3 when using the proposed method could be
analyzed and the calculated results are shown in Table 3.
Focusing on the g row of Table 3, g are 1.7888%,
1.6607% and 1.2190% corresponding to Fig. 10a–c in glo-
bal, respectively. When time is in the range of 0.55–0.8 s
(then irradiance keeps 400 W/m2), g are 2.6307% and
2.6267% corresponding to Fig. 10a and b, respectively.
From Tables 2 and 3, the calculated results show that
approximately 2.5% of the solar energy is output energy
when using the proposed method more than the INC algo-
rithm in low irradiance. Additionally, approximately 1.5%
Fig. 10c 0 6 t 6 1 (s) Fig. 10a 0.8 6 t 6 1 (s) Fig. 10b 0.8 6 t 6 1 (s)
1228.9 88.908 88.923
1214.1 86.629 86.647
1.2190% 2.6307% 2.6267%
of the solar energy is output energy when using the pro-
posed method more than the INC algorithm in global.
From Figs. 6, 8 and 10, the simulations results show that
the proposed OVC method has adequate accuracy both
under stationary and time-varying environmental condi-
tions. In addition, the setting time of the output power is
less than 0.04 s. At steady-state, the output power curves
are non-vibrating under all experimental conditions when
the proposed method is used. This means that the OVC
method is instrumental in eliminating the power oscillation
under the low solar irradiance condition.
5. Conclusions
From the engineering cybernetics perspective, a novel
method (OVC) has been presented and discussed in this
paper. This method is based on the optimal operating volt-
age of solar arrays, which is calculated and corrected accu-
rately by determining the relationship between the optimal
operating voltage and the external environmental parame-
ters. Its main advantages are the simplicity of implementa-
tion, high MPPT accuracy, and non-vibration in global
both under stationary and time-varying environmental
conditions.
A numerical analysis has been performed by using the
INC algorithm as a benchmark reference MPPT technique.
The numerical results confirm the validity of the proposed
method because the performances of OVC are always bet-
ter with respect to the corresponding performances obtain-
able by adopting the INC algorithm.
In addition, the proposed method only needs three sen-
sors for implementing less than the need of the INC algo-
rithm, which could decrease the total measurement error,
and the OVC method is unrelated to the topology of the
DC/DC converter. It is beneficial for the modularity and
the ‘‘plug and play” of the MPPT controller.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NO. 50877053) and Natural Science
Foundation of Tianjin of China (NO. 09JCYBJC07100).
References
Bratcu, A.I., Munteanu, I., Bacha, S., Picault, D., Raison, B., 2011.
Cascaded DC–DC converter photovoltaic systems: power optimiza-
tion issues. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 58 (2), 403–411.
Chaouachi, A., Kamel, R.M., Nagasaka, K., 2010. A novel multi-model
neuro-fuzzy-based MPPT for three-phase grid-connected photovoltaic
system. Sol. Energy 84, 2219–2229.
 J. Zhao et al. / Solar Energy 122 (2015) 640–649
De Brito, M.A.G., Galotto, L., Sampaio, L.P., de Azevedo e Melo, G.,
Canesin, C.A., 2013. Evaluation of the main MPPT techniques for
photovoltaic applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 60 (3), 1156–
1167.
Femia, N., Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M., 2005. Optimization of
perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method. IEEE
Trans. Power Electron. 20 (4), 963–973.
Guo, Q., Sun, H., Zhang, M., 2013. Optimal voltage control of PJM smart
transmission grid: study, implementation, and evaluation. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 4 (3), 1665–1674.
Kish, G.J., Lee, J.J., Lehn, P.W., 2012. Modeling and control of
photovoltaic panels utilizing the incremental conductance method
for maximum power point tracking. IET Renew. Power Gen. 6, 259–
266.
Liu, F., Duan, S., Liu, F., Liu, B., Kang, Y., 2008. A variable step size
INC MPPT method for PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 55,
2622–2628.
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,
42–53.
Li, S., 2014. A MPPT control strategy with variable weather parameter
and no DC/DC converter for photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy 108,
117–125.
Mutoh, N., Ohno, M., Inoue, T., 2006. A method for MPPT control while
searching for parameters corresponding to weather conditions for PV
generation systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 53, 1055–1065.
Messai, A., Mellit, A., Guessoum, A., Kalogirou, S.A., 2011. Maximum
power point tracking using a GA optimized fuzzy logic controller and
its FPGA implementation. Sol. Energy 85, 265–277.
Petrone, G., Spagnuolo, G., Vitelli, M., 2011. A multivariable perturb-
and-observe maximum power point tracking technique applied to a
single-stage photovoltaic inverter. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 58 (1),
76–84.
649
Rauschenbach, H.S., 1980. Solar Cell Array Design Handbook: The
Principles and Technology of Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, first
ed. Springer.
Rajesh, R., Mabel, M.C., 2014. Efficiency analysis of a multi-fuzzy logic
controller for the determination of operating points in a PV system.
Sol. Energy 99, 77–87.
Salas, V., Barrado, A., 2006. Review of the maximum power point
tracking algorithms for stand-alone photovoltaic systems. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 90, 1555–1578.
Teulings, W.J.A., Marpinard, J.-C., Capel, A., O’Sullivan, D., 1993. A
new maximum power point tracking system. In: 24th Annual IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Seattle, WA, June 20–24,
pp. 833–838.
Wasynczuk, O., 1983. Dynamic behavior of a class of photovoltaic power
systems. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. PSA-102 (9), 3031–3037.
Xiao, W., Dunford, W.G., 2004. A modified adaptive hill climbing MPPT
method for photovoltaic power systems. In: Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, June 20–25, pp. 1957–1963.
Yu, G.J., Jung, Y.S., Choi, J.Y., Choy, I., Song, J.-H., Kim, G.S., 2002. A
novel two-mode MPPT control algorithm based on comparative study
of existing algorithms. In: Conference Record of the Twenty-Ninth
IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, May 19–24, pp. 1531–1534.
Yang, B., Li, W., Zhao, Y., He, X., 2010. Design and analysis of a grid
connected photovoltaic power system. IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
25 (4), 992–1000.
Zhou, X., Song, D., Ma, Y., Chen, D., 2010. The simulation and design
for MPPT of PV system based on incremental conductance method.
In: 2010 WASE International Conference on Information Engineering
(ICIE), August 14–15, Beidaihe, Hebei, pp. 314–317.
Zegaoui, A., Aillerie, M., Petit, P., Sawicki, J.P., Charles, J.P., Belarbi, A.
W., 2011. Dynamic behavior of PV generator trackers under irradi-
ation and temperature changes. Sol. Energy 85, 2953–2964.