Artigo de Revisão Mppts

Journal Pre-proof
The Most Used MPPT Algorithms: Review and the Suitable Low-cost Embedded
Board for Each Algorithm
Saad Motahhir, Aboubakr El Hammoumi, Abdelaziz El Ghzizal
PII: S0959-6526(19)33853-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118983
Reference: JCLP 118983
To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 21 August 2019

Accepted Date: 20 October 2019
Please cite this article as: Saad Motahhir, Aboubakr El Hammoumi, Abdelaziz El Ghzizal, The Most
Used MPPT Algorithms: Review and the Suitable Low-cost Embedded Board for Each Algorithm,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118983
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof
The Most Used MPPT Algorithms: Review

and the Suitable Low-cost Embedded Board
for Each Algorithm
Saad Motahhir1*, Aboubakr El Hammoumi2, Abdelaziz El Ghzizal2
1 Engineering, Systems and Applications Laboratory, ENSA, SMBA University, Fez, Morocco
2EST, SMBA University, Fez, Morocco
Corresponding author: Saad Motahhir (e-mail: saad.motahhir@usmba.ac.ma).
ABSTRACT- In order to increase the production of photovoltaic-based cleaner energy, the maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) controller was employed. Because different MPPT algorithms have been adduced in the literature, it
is mandatory to compare and differentiate them to select the most adequate MPPT for a particular application or to
make suggestions for future research regarding MPPT. This paper reviews (extensively) the most used MPPT
algorithms. They are classified into three groups: (1) direct, such as hill climbing (HC), perturb and observe (P&O),
and incremental conductance (INC); (2) indirect, namely fractional short-circuit current (FSCC), Fractional Open-
Circuit Voltage (FOCV), and pilot cell and (3); soft computing methods such as a Kalman filter, fuzzy logic control
(FLC), neural network, partial swarm optimization (PSO), ant colony optimization (ACO), artificial bee colony (ABC),
bat algorithm and hybrid PSO-FLC. A detailed principle of operation and the merits and downsides of each method
are discussed. Also, the distributed MPPT and other MPPT methods are briefly presented. Finally, a recommendation
of the most well-suited embedded board for the implementation of each method is presented and discussed. To
complete these objectives, this manuscript focuses solely on the low-cost embedded board.
INDEX TERMS- MPPT; GMPPT; DMPPT; Direct method; Indirect method; Soft computing method; Artificial
intelligence; Embedded board.
I. INTRODUCTION
For the past several decades, photovoltaic (PV) energy has become one of the preferable renewable energy sources (de
Paulo and Porto, 2018). Every day, the sun radiates an immense quantity of clean energy onto the earth which, if
properly harvested, would be sufficient to cover the growing demand for energy in the whole world (Khan and Arsalan,
2016). The main advantages of PV systems are its low operational cost, almost maintenance-free and environmentally
friendly since it is one of the cleanest energies (Choudhary and Srivastava, 2019). Although the high price of solar
panels, PV power generation systems, especially those connected to the grid, have been marketed in several countries
in view of their potential medium and long-term economic prospects (Cacciato et al., 2010). Furthermore, generous
financial schemes, such as tariff (Ye et al., 2017) and subsidized policies (Seng et al., 2008), have been provided by
several countries, bringing about fast development of the industry as well as producing clean electricity.
However, regardless of these benefits, the main problem for public acceptance of PV system is the high capital
investment. This is firstly due to the high price of panels. Although the cost per watt has declined rapidly over the past
decade, PV power remains considerably above the cost of conventional electricity. Secondly, the Grid-parity issue, which
is the moment when the cost of PV power per unit is less than or equal to that of the electricity provided by the power
utility companies, is still a long way to go. With regards to this concern, it is crucial that whatever available energy
captured by the panels to be the optimally processed. Many works have been done to develop solar cell design and its
1
Journal Pre-proof
manufacturing technologies (Han et al., 2011; Kuznetsov et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Rajput et al., 2018). While these
works are valuable, it is still important to continually enhance the entire system performance. Amongst the hot topics in
solar energy, there is the maximum power point tracker (MPPT). The aim of MPPT is to extract and maintain the
maximum power from the PV panels at any environmental condition, that by matching its I-V operating point with the
load characteristic (Kumar et al., 2018). The maximization of the delivered power can be attained by regulating the PV
panel's outputs, voltage or current, to make the converter works at (or near) the maximum power point (MPP) on the P-V
characteristic (Motahhir et al., 2018b; Teshome et al., 2017).
Over the years, numerous MPPT algorithms have been proposed to track the maximum power of PV panel. Even
though these algorithms are proposed for the same purpose, they differ tremendously regarding efficiency, tracking speed,
steady-state oscillations, complexity, hardware implementation, track global MPP or not and cost. Moreover, each method
may work effectively in certain conditions while not in others. For instance, some MPPT methods yield better
performance under stable irradiance. Conversely, under fast change of irradiance the results are found to be unsatisfactory
(Verma et al., 2016). There are many useful studies in the literature that have been carried to review the performance of
the existing MPPT algorithms (Ahmad et al., 2019; Belhachat and Larbes, 2019; Lyden and Haque, 2015; Mohanty et al.,
2014; Mohapatra et al., 2017; Saravanan and Ramesh Babu, 2016). Nevertheless, most of these reviews were restricted
to presenting the advantages and disadvantages of methods without sufficient details in the description to understand the
techniques and processes of these approaches. This lack of detail is mainly due to the fact that reviews are intended to
cover all MPPT algorithms. For instance, in (Belhachat and Larbes, 2019), new MPPT methods have been evaluated
regarding their performance under partial shading conditions. However, there is no new classification or ranking of these
MPPT algorithms have been reported in this work. Furthermore, to the authors´ best knowledge, no review paper has
presented a recommendation of the suitable embedded board to implement each MPPT method. Hence, this paper presents
a strategic review of MPPT techniques that have been mostly used in PV systems. The purpose of this review is to provide
a general insight into various MPPT methods (The most used MPPT algorithms are presented in more details while others
are discussed briefly) describing their principles of operations and highlighting their advantages and limitations. In
addition, the suitable embedded board for the hardware implementation of each method is outlined; low-cost only
embedded boards have been studied. Moreover, new ideas for classification have been added based on the MPPT that has
been used in commercial products and the MPPT that has been used in Nanosatellite or vehicle (as automotive and
aeronautical applications). This would be useful for the reader who needs a comprehensive background of MPPT methods
and to keep abreast with the latest development in this area. Therefore, the ultimate aim of this literature review is to
present the structure of current methods and the best-embedded board for eventual implementation.
II. DESCRIPTION OF MPPT BASED PV SYSTEM FOR DC-DC APPLICATION

A. Current or Voltage Control Based MPPT Method
Fig. 1 presents the MPPT controller which is connected with the DC/DC converter. It is also clear that only DC system is
presented here. However, it can be developed by using more power electronic components, such as inverter or grid
devices, to be suitable for a standalone or on-grid PV system (Ishaque, 2012).
As presented in Fig. 1, current or voltage based MPPT method operates by finding the reference current or voltage (Iref
or Vref), then an error is computed between this reference and the measured PV current or voltage. This error is utilized
by a PI regulator to find the duty cycle and then the converter is forced to extract the MPP from the PV panel. Note that
at MPP, Iref or Vref is equal to Impp or Vmpp.
2
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1. Current or voltage control based MPPT method.
B. Duty Cycle Control Based MPPT Method

In contrast to Fig. 1, another popular category of MPPT method depends on duty cycle control of the DC/DC converter.
This type is entitled ‘duty cycle control based MPPT method’. The controller is shown in Fig. 2. The PI regulator (Fig. 1)
is not used and duty cycle is adjusted directly by MPPT controller. The advantages of this solution compared to current
or voltage based MPPT method are: (1) the MPPT design becomes simple, (2) the computation time is decreased and (3)
no tuning effort is necessary (PI regulator is not used). Hence, it offers MPPT system with a simplified control while
finding optimal results (Ishaque, 2012).
Figure 2. Duty cycle control based MPPT method.
III. OVERVIEW OF THE VARIOUS MPPT TECHNIQUES

The various approaches used for MPPT can be classified into three groups. The first one, which includes the most
popular techniques, is based on certain observations by applying a control signal to the power converter. This is also
known as the conventional MPPTs and direct control techniques such as P&O, HC, and INC methods. The second
group is categorized by MPPT that exploits the characteristics of PV panel. This is also called as the indirect control
methods. The third group involves more recent techniques which are based on soft computing approaches. This
includes the Kalman filter, FLC, ANN, PSO, ACO, ABC optimization, Bat algorithm and hybrid PSO-FLC. Soft
computing methods are applied to deal with approximate models to give optimal solutions to complex problems. They
are widely used in recent years either to develop MPPT controllers or in other areas in renewable energy (Esen et al.,
2017, 2009a, 2009b, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d, 2008e).
A. Group 1: Conventional/Popular Techniques (direct)
1) PERTURB AND OBSERVE
P&O is the most widely used MPPT method due to its simplicity. The P&O operation principle is presented by the
flowchart in Fig. 3. As its name suggests, it works by introducing a perturbation (offset) in the PV panel's operating
voltage or current according to the variation in operating power that is observed using the samples of voltage (V(k))
and current (I(k)) (Ishaque et al., 2014).
3
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 3. Flowchart of P&O method.
The amount of perturbation value ‘offset’ depends upon the nature of the algorithm. It can be constant or varying.
Pertaining to this fact, two further groups of P&O method are available in the literature, namely fixed-step P&O and
variable step P&O methods. These are discussed in the following sections.
1.1 FIXED STEP P&O
In this method, fixed step size is employed to compute a target signal for the PI control loop, as shown in Fig. 1. The
perturb signal is either the reference PV voltage or current. Fig. 4 (a) presents the movement of operating power in the
MPPT controller. Starting from point A, the operating power is gradually increasing with a fixed value of ‘offset’. Once
the operating point reaches point D, the P&O observes the decrease in panel power. Consequently, the slope of the ‘offset’
is changed and the reference voltage is made to increase from point D to C to cater for the loss of the PV energy. However,
due to the same direction of ‘offset’, the reference voltage is further increased until a decrease in power is detected at
point B. Once again, the reference value will be adjusted based on ‘offset’. Hence, in view of the nature of P&O as
reported in preceding lines, the operating power will constantly oscillate between D and B. The perturbation step ‘offset’
is selected according to the system designer usually by hit and trial approach. Therefore, the solution provided by this
method is system dependent, thus not generic. It can also be observed from Fig. 4 (a) that the oscillation at the MPP region
as shown by dotted circle is totally dependent on the value of step size. In the case of large perturbation step (Fig. 4 (a)),
faster tracking results are obtained, but significant oscillations at the steady-state occur (from point D to B). Conversely,
a smaller value of ‘offset’, the steady-state oscillations are minimized as shown by dotted circle in Fig. 4 (b) but tracking
is significantly slower compared to Fig. 4 (a). Therefore, P&O method with fixed perturbation suffers an inherent tracking
–oscillations trade-off problem.
Figure 4. The movement of operating point in MPP tracking operation. (a) For large perturbation. (b) For small perturbation.
4
Journal Pre-proof
1.2 VARIABLE STEP SIZE P&O

In the fixed step P&O technique, the amount of perturbation size is designed based on the accuracy of response time and
steady-state of the MPPT. Additionally, the trade-off between the response time and steady-state accuracy has to be
resolved by the corresponding design. In order to solve this issue, the variable step size P&O method is often employed
(Solodovnik et al., 2004).
In this method, the derivative of power to voltage (dP/dV) or current (dP/dI) is usually used to adjust the perturbation
step. This approach is fully adaptive as it works depending on the P-V or P-I characteristics which always results in dP/dV
or dP/dI factor near to zero at MPP. Hence, the step size can be made relatively small as dP/dV approaches to zero and
the panel operates at the proximity of MPP. Thus, the adaptive P&O has a very good tracking speed as well as accuracy
at steady state (Solodovnik et al., 2004).
2) HILL CLIMBING
The HC method is shown in Fig. 5. Its principle operation is like P&O, but the duty cycle is perturbed rather than
perturbing the current or voltage to update the operating point of the PV panel (Ishaque and Salam, 2013).
The HC method periodically adjusts the duty cycle α(k) by a fixed perturbation (offset) with the direction of increasing
power. The perturbation direction is reversed when the change of power is negative. This implies that the PV system is
not moving towards the MPP (Ishaque and Salam, 2013).
Since it works based on the perturbation mechanism, this algorithm can be based on the fixed or variable step.
Nevertheless, under partial shading condition (PSC), the P-V curve contains several peaks (global and local MPPs)
(Bayrak et al., 2017). Therefore, based on the principle of P&O and HC, they fail to find Global MPP (GMPP) (Ishaque,
2012).
Figure 5. Basic Flowchart of HC method.
3) INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE

The P&O method has two major limitations as mentioned in (Wasynczuk, 1983). (1) Due to a fixed amount of perturbation
at the steady-state, a small power variation around the MPP is always there which contributes to some power losses. (2)
Under rapid fluctuations of environment, the operating point is most likely to diverge from the true MPP. The INC method
was proposed in (Wasynczuk, 1983) to circumvent the disadvantage mentioned above.
The INC is based on the fact that the derivative of (dP/dV) is zero at MPP. It can be expressed as:
dP d IV  dI
 V  I  0 (1)
dV dV dV
5
Journal Pre-proof
Equation (1) can be written as:
I dI I (2)
  
V dV V
where ΔV and ΔI are the increments of PV voltage and current. The working principle of INC can be obtained from the
P-V curve, as presented in Fig. 6 and can be written as:
dI I at MPP (3)

dV V
dI I left to MPP (4)

dV V
dI I right to MPP (5)

dV V
Figure 6. P-V curves for the basis of INC algorithm.
Hence, the basic idea of INC method is incrementally comparing the instantaneous conductance with the ratio of
derivative of conductance (Wasynczuk, 1983). Using the rules as stated in equations (3)-(5), the basic flow chart of INC
algorithm is depicted in Fig. 7.
6
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 7. The flow chart of INC method.
As seen in Fig. 7, the final output is the voltage because the rules in equations (3)-(5) are extracted from the P-V curve.
Therefore, the current cannot be taken as the reference signal of the INC method. To use INC method with respect to
current P-I characteristics curve can be used, as shown in Fig. 8.
Figure 8. The P-I characteristic for the current based INC method.
To design INC as a current based MPPT, the equation (1) may be rewritten as:
dP d VI  dV (6)
 I V  0
dI dI dI
Accordingly, the rules in equations. (3)-(5) will be transformed by:
dV V at MPP (7)

dI I
dV V left to MPP (8)

dI I
dV V right to MPP (9)

dI I
Using rules defined in equations (7)-(9), the flowchart in Fig. 7 can be modified to current based INC method by
replacing V, ΔV and V (k) with I, ΔI and I ( k). Therefore, the algorithm will be defined as incremental resistance (ICR)
instead of INC.
Similar to P&O algorithm, INC also depends on the perturbation value ‘offset’. The large value of ‘offset’ will result
in fast-tracking, but the system may possibly oscillate at MPP. The incremental conductance (ΔI/ΔV) is not exactly equal
to instantaneous inductance (I/V). However, a smaller value of ‘offset’ can overcome this problem but tracking will get
slower. Thus, the trade-off is still there, similar to the case of P&O method. In the same way, two subgroups of INC
method can be characterized based on the fixed and adaptive value of ‘offset’. These are not discussed separately because
of the same objective to that of P&O method. Since INC and P&O are based on the same idea, INC is also unable to track
the GMPP (Ishaque, 2012).
4) INC DIRECT DUTY CYCLE
Similar to HC, another method of direct duty cycle control is based on INC algorithm. In this method, the duty cycle is
updated following the flowchart scheme depicted in Fig. 9. This algorithm can use fixed or variable perturbation. It is
claimed in the literature that INC algorithm can minimize oscillation using equation (7) in steady-state (Wasynczuk,
1983). However, controller as microprocessor, microcontroller, FPGA are unable to find that two real numbers are equal
due to the way used to represent real number in their memory. Therefore in (Motahhir et al., 2018a), an error has been
accepted to meet this requirement. Furthermore, it is claimed that the right part of INC algorithm (when ΔV is equal to 0)
7
Journal Pre-proof
is used to perform correctly under a fast variation of irradiance (Wasynczuk, 1983). Nevertheless in (Motahhir et al.,
2018b), it is proved that INC approach fails to respond correctly during fast variation of irradiance because it is difficult
to meet the conditions used in this part, especially when a load resistor is used. Hence, to solve these problems, a modified
INC has been proposed in (Motahhir et al., 2018b).
Figure 9. Basic flowchart of INC based direct duty cycle approach.
B. Group 2: MPPT Based on PV Panel and Power Converter Characteristics

The methods that fall under this category exploit the inherent behavior of different panel parameters with respect to
temperature and insolation variations. Among these, one method is characterized by its current characteristics and
commonly called Fractional Short-Circuit Current (FSCC) method. The other takes advantage of its voltage characteristics
and recognized as Fractional Open- Circuit Voltage (FOCV). There is another method which is based on the FOCV or
FSCC algorithm called pilot cell. These are discussed in the following subsections (Verma et al., 2016).
1) FRACTIONAL SHORT-CIRCUIT CURRENT
The Basic idea for the FSCC method is derived from the relationship between the values of a short circuit (ISC) and
maximum power current (Imp) of PV panel, as seen in Fig. 10. It presents the 3D Matlab plot of ISC and Imp for MSX-60
PV panel (“Solarex MSX60 and MSX64 photovoltaic panel-datasheet,” 1998) for the operating points of insolation level
(100-1000 W/m²) and temperature (10-75 °C) (Ishaque, 2012).
Figure 10. The 3-D plot of ISC and Imp for insolation and temperature variations [26].
It can be clearly noticed that there is a linear relationship between the ISC and Imp, which can be written as:
I mp  K i  I sc (10)
8
Journal Pre-proof
where Ki is a proportionality constant. Since Ki is characterized by the characteristics of the PV panel under consideration,
it needs to be determined in advance by empirically determining Imp and Isc at different insolation and temperature levels.
Thereafter, the ratio of Imp and Isc such as in Fig. 10 gives the value of Ki. It can be noted that Ki can be computed
experimentally or using simulation studies. However, the former is preferable as it will result in more realistic value.
Nevertheless, due to the availability of PV simulators, now it is possible to obtain an accurate value of Ki using simulation
tools. Generally, for most of the PV panels, the factor Ki has been found to be between 0.78-0.92.
Several authors (Hart et al., 1984; Mutoh et al., 2002; Noguchi et al., 2001; Yuvarajan and Shanguang Xu, 2003)
utilized equation (10) to find the MPP of PV system. However, as shown in Fig. 11, the main problem lies in the
measurement of Isc during the MPP operation. To measure Isc, an extra switch is introduced to the DC-DC converter that
periodically shorts the PV panel terminal so Isc can be measured. However, this additional circuitry increases the
components and hence the cost. Furthermore, the available power might be significantly reduced due to the rough
estimation of Ki in equation (10), which does not ensure the perfect matching of true MPP. To avoid extra circuitry,
authors in (Yuvarajan and Shanguang Xu, 2003) used the switch of the Boost to short the PV panel. Despite these efforts,
the extracted power is reduced while finding the value of Isc as well as due to the approximate value of Ki. To overcome
this issue, authors in (Noguchi et al., 2001) proposed a compensation method for Ki such that the MPP is better tracked
under environmental variations.
Figure 11. The principal scheme of the FSCC method.
2) FRACTIONAL OPEN-CIRCUIT VOLTAGE

The variations of Voc and Vmp voltages are plotted in Matlab then depicted in Fig. 12 for the insolation level (100-1000
W/m²) and temperature (10-75 °C). For the insolation levels between 100 and 1000 W/m² at a constant cell temperature
of 50 °C, the Vmp of MSX-60 (“Solarex MSX60 and MSX64 photovoltaic panel-datasheet,” 1998) increases almost
proportionally with irradiance levels (Verma et al., 2016).
Figure 12. 3-D plot of VOC and Vmp for insolation and temperature variations (Ishaque et al., 2014).
Similar to the FOC method, a linear relationship between the VOC and Vmp can be approximated using equation (11):
9
Journal Pre-proof
Vmp  K v  Voc (11)
where Kv is a proportionality constant. Like Ki, the constant Kv also needs to be determined using the relationship between
Vmp and Voc at different insolation and temperature levels. Most of the occasion, Kv has reported being between 0.71-
0.84.
Various works (Enslin and Snyman, 1992; Hyeong-Ju Noh et al., 2002; Kobayashi et al., 2004; Patterson, 1990) has
attempted to exploit equation (11) for MPP tracking. Unfortunately, as shown in Fig. 13, Similar to FSCC to achieve this,
VOC needs to be measured periodically, which deteriorates the MPPT dynamic efficiency. To avoid the temporary loss
due to the measurement, the pilot cells were proposed in (Hart et al., 1984) to obtain the value of VOC. However, the
specification of each PV cell is not generic; therefore, these cells must be carefully selected to be in accordance with the
characteristics of the PV panel. Interestingly, in (Kobayashi et al., 2004), it was stated that the voltage resulted by cell
diodes is approximately 75% of the VOC and hence measuring the open-circuit voltage is not necessary. By approximating
of Vmp as a reference value from equation (11), a closed-loop control was then employed to follow the reference value
Vmp.
Similar to FSCC, equation (11) is the only estimation and technically the PV panel never operates at the MPP. Another
point worth noting is that the increasing insolation does not always cause an increase in the MPP voltage for other PV
technologies (Syafaruddin et al., 2009) such as US-21 and FS-50 PV panel. Thus, the relation in equation (11) does not
hold for such type of PV panels. Hence, if FOCV scheme is employed in these aforementioned panels, the MPPT accuracy
will be seriously compromised.
Figure 13. The principal scheme of the FOCV method.
3) PILOT CELL

The pilot cell method is based on the FOCV or FSCC algorithm, but the measurements of the Voc or Isc is done by using
a small PV cell called a pilot cell. The latter must have the same characteristics as the cells in the big PV panel. After that
the MPPT uses the measurement to extract MPP from the main PV panel. Therefore, the loss of energy during the Voc or
Isc measurement is eliminated. However, the lack of a constant K value is still present. (Hohm and Ropp, 2003). Moreover,
FOCV, FSCC and Pilot cell do not lead to the accurate information about the MPP.
C. Group 3: Soft Computing Approach

1) KALMAN FILTER (KF) BASED MPPT
KF consists of two steps: prediction and correction. The first one is used to predict the state, while the second is used to
correct the estimation based on the measurement value. Hence, it can be used to estimate the Vmp then correct this
estimation based on the error between it and the measured PV voltage. Next, control the converter to reach the corrected
value. This process is repeated until the error is near to zero, which means that MPP is reached. The set of equations used
in each step are as follows (Verma et al., 2016):
10
Journal Pre-proof
Prediction:
^ ^ Pk 1
V k  V k 1  M (12)
Vk 1
Pk  Pk 1  Q (13)
Correction:
K k  Pk ( Pk  R ) 1 (14)

^ ^ ^
V k  V k  K k (Vin.k  V k ) (15)
Pk  (1  K k ) Pk (16)
^  ^
V is the voltage estimated state, V is the voltage corrected state, M is the scaling factor, ΔP/ΔV is the slope of the

P-V curve, P is the priori error covariance, P is the posteriori error covariance, Q is the process noise covariance,
K is the Kalman gain, R is the measurement noise covariance and Vin is the measurement PV voltage. k and k-1 are
used to indicate the actual and the previous iterations respectively. Nevertheless, since the input of KF is the slope of
P-V curve, the latter is unable to estimate the correct information about GMPP. It should be noted that extended
Kalman or unscented Kalman may be used to resolve this problem.
2) FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL
The powerful computing capability of existing microprocessors allowed Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) to be employed in
the MPPT controller. Using FLC, the system model is not necesssary. This in itself is an important advantage because the
changes in operating point, non-linearities and the uncertainties such as unmodeled physical quantities can be effectively
dealt with it. Nevertheless, the designer must know some prior information on how the system reacts qualitatively to the
inputs.
As presented in Fig. 14, the FLC controller is composed of three processes: fuzzification, rules inferences and
defuzzification. Furthermore, the designed rules are stored in the rule table that represents the database. The process in
which FLC performs the computation based on the rule table to generate the output is called fuzzy inference (Ishaque,
2012).
Figure 14. Block diagram of Fuzzy logic control (FLC).
2.1 FUZZIFICATION
The fuzzification process is used to transform numerical input variables (crisp input) into linguistic variables using
membership functions as shown in Fig. 15. Five memberships are depicted: NL (negative large), NS (negative small), Z
(zero), PS (positive small), and PL (positive large) (Fannakh et al., 2018).
11
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 15. Fuzzy membership functions used in the fuzzification process.
2.2 RULES INFERENCES AND RULE TABLE

The rules inferences process is the workhorse in the FLC structure. This is the block where the control decisions are
carried out. It is analogous to control gains or control laws in a conventional controller. In FLC, the equivalent term is
known as the rule and it’s linguistic in nature. A typical rule structure can be expressed as:
Rk : If x is Ai and dx is Bi Then Output is Ci (17)
In equation (14), Rk is the kth rule while x and dx are the input variables for FLC. Variables Ai, Bi and Ci are the
linguistic labels for the inputs and the output respectively. To evaluate the rule, the fuzzy set theory is used. One of the
main challenges of FLC is to write rules that can relate the input variables to the output. These rules are written with the
syntax of equation (17) and grouped together to construct a fuzzy rule table. Unfortunately, there is no definite method to
design the control rules. It mainly relies on the intuitive knowledge gained from the practical experience. As expected,
this approach produces results that are rather subjective. Table 1 shows a typical rule table for the case of five linguistics
variables. In general, more rules yield accurate results at the expense of computation time.
Table 1. Fuzzy rule table
E
PL PS Z NS NL
∆E
NL Z NS NL NL NL
NS PS Z NS NL NL
Z PL PS Z NS NL
PS PL PL PS Z NS
PL PL PL PL PS Z
2.3 DEFUZZIFICATION
At this stage, the linguistic-based data is converted back to crisp data. Numerous methods of defuzzification exist, e.g.
Bisector of Area (BoA), Mean of Maxima (MoM), Centre of Gravity (CoG) and Centre of Gravity for Singleton (CoGS)
(Peng et al., 2004). These methods can be distinguished by their accuracy and computational intensity. This should be
considered while selecting one of these methods. The most used method is CoG, which is presented by the following
equation:
 µ ( xi ) xi
u i 1
n (18)
 xi
i
In equation (18), n is the number of output membership function while µ(xi) and xi represents respectively the degree
and the peak location of the membership function. The output expression can be interpreted as the weighted average of
the elements.
12
Journal Pre-proof
Compared to previous MPPT techniques, the dynamic performance of FLC is very efficient (Ishibuchi et al., 2008). In
addition, FLC gives a high degree of freedom to tune its control parameters. This allows for easy modifications. Thus
making it compatible with different kinds of linear and non-linear systems (Hu et al., 2015).
2.4 MPPT IMPLEMENTATION USING FLC
As shown in Table 1, the inputs of the FLC based MPPT algorithm are generally an error E and a change in error ΔE. The
designer can choose how to calculate these inputs. For instance, they can be computed by equations (19) and (20) (Atlas
and Sharaf, 2007; Sahina and Okumusb, 2013).
P(k )  P(k  1) (19)

E (k ) 
V (k )  V (k  1)
E  E (k )  E (k  1) (20)
Once E and ΔE are calculated and transformed to the linguistic variables, the output of FLC can also be linguistic in
terms of duty cycle, voltage or current. Hence, the output signal depends on the fuzzy rules presented in Table 1. The
linguistic variables for the output signal are generally set based on prior knowledge of the PV panel used. For instance, if
the operating point is far to the right of the MPP (Fig. 6), that is E is NL, and ΔE is Z, then the output signal of the
converter should be PL to go towards the MPP (Ishaque, 2012). However, conventional FLC cannot guarantee the tracking
of the true maximum peak under PSC based on the inputs presented above (Ishaque, 2012).
3) ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK (ANN) BASED MPPT
3.1 ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK
ANN is an interconnection of processing units known as neurons. Generally, ANN is not used to perform some specific
tasks; instead, it is trained with respect to data sets until it is able to figure out the imposed patterns used as inputs. Once
trained, it can predict or classify these input patterns, which are usually tested in the validation step. A well trained ANN
can handle a variety of inputs with excellent results (Syafaruddin et al., 2009).
Fig. 16 shows a typical three-layer feed-forward ANN structure. It can be seen that it consists of various neurons
(represented by circles) arranged in layers with forwarding connections to other neurons in the subsequent layers. Each
neuron is associated with a particular weight. The first is the input layer (h), which is then distributed to the subsequent
layers. In the next layer, which is the hidden layer (j), each neuron carries out following tasks: (1) addition of its inputs
with the bias or threshold term and (2) the results of (1) is passed through a nonlinear function to produce the final output.
This nonlinear function is called the activation function of the neuron. The output layer units often have linear activations.
13
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 16. A typical three-layer feed-forward ANN structure.
In the figure, S1 represents the total number of neurons in the hidden layer, w are the adaptive weights and biases and
x and y are the ANN input and output respectively. Let the neurons in layers h and k use linear activation while those in
layer j use sigmoid activation functions respectively. Thus, the output of the Fig. 16 according to its input can be
formulated as:
S1
y  w210  w211 z1  w212 z 2  ...  w21S1   w21 j z j (21)
1
j 0
S1
y 2  w2 20  w2 21 z1  w2 22 z 2  ...  w2 2 S1   w2 2 j z j (22)
j 0
Using Equations (21) and (22), a generalized output equation can be written as:
S1
y k   w2 kj z j and Z0=1 (23)
j 0
where
1
Z j  f (a j )  aj (24)
1 e
2
a j   w1 jh x h (25)
h 1
The mapping error can be written as:
E k ( w)  ( y k ( xi , w)  tik ) 2 (26)
The purpose of the ANN ‘learning’ is how to find a set of weights, w, such that the error, Ek(w) in Equation (26) is
minimized. A relatively simple but effective method known as Back-Propagation (BP) algorithm is generally employed
to compute the associated weights in ANN.
3.2 ANN BASED MPPT
As discussed earlier that ANN exhibits excellent performance for recognizing and estimating unknown parameters. This
feature has greatly inspired the research community to employ it for MPPT. The inputs of ANN-based MPPT can be PV
panel characteristics (such as VOC and ISC), environmental data (such as irradiation and temperature), or both. The output
can be either the duty cycle, voltage or current. The tracking performance (accuracy and speed) of the MPPT is based on
the employed method for the hidden layer and the appropriate training of ANN (Ishaque, 2012).
To achieve the MPP, the associated weights must be carefully computed by means of a comprehensive training process.
Accordingly, the PV panel is tested extensively for a certain period of time. This can prolong to months or even years.
Then, the resulting patterns between the input(s) and output(s) of the ANN are stored. Once the ANN is trained
comprehensively, it can estimate the MPP and provide the reference value (Vmp or Imp) to the MPPT controller.
Accordingly, any MPPT method such as FLC can be utilized to maintain the PV panel at the reference signal given by
ANN. Moreover, it is proved that ANN could estimate the correct information about GMPP if it were trained with various
partial shading scenarios (Ishaque, 2012).
4) EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION (EC)
14
Journal Pre-proof
An alternative method to track the GMPP is by employing the EC. This is a metaheuristic or stochastic improvement
method that seems very effective in optimizing multimodal objective functions with real values. EC have been widely
used for its ability to handle non-linear functions without the need for derivatives information (Hu et al., 2015; Ishibuchi
et al., 2008). With these advantages, EC is anticipated to be high adequate to treat the MPPT problem. Since this method
depends on search optimization, it should be able to find the MPP for any kind of P-V characteristics in any case of
environmental changes.
Various types of EC methods are presented in the literature where the most commonly used are the particle swarm
optimization (PSO), ant colony optimization (ACO), artificial bee colony optimization (ABC), Genetic algorithm (GA)
and Bat algorithm. Therefore, PSO, ACO, ABC and Bat based MPPT are described in this work, whereas discussions
about other EC MPPT techniques can be found elsewhere (Hu et al., 2015).
4.1 PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (PSO)
PSO is a population-based stochastic optimization method, modeled according to the social behavior of bird flocking or
fish schooling (Eberhart and Kennedy, 1995; Ishaque et al., 2012).
A PSO algorithm is initialized with a population of random solutions, representing a swarm of individuals called
particles, then looking for optima by updating the generations. The research principle is based on the behavior of particles
where all particles simulate the success of neighboring particles and realize their own successes. As a result, a particle's
position is affected by the optimum (best) particle in a neighborhood and by the best solution detected by the particle.
The particle position, xi, are computed based on the following equation:
xik 1  xik  vik 1 (27)
where vi is the velocity component that acts as the step size. Note that, if the velocity is too low, the controller will be too
slow. Conversely, if velocity is too high, the controller will be unstable. The latter can be computed as:
  
vik 1  wvik  c1 r1 Pbesti  xik  c 2 r2 Gbest  xik  (28)
where w is the inertia weight (it may be a positive constant or a positive descending linear function of iteration), c1 and c2
are the acceleration coefficients, r1, r2 ∈ U(0, 1), Pbesti is the personal best position of particle i, and Gbest is the
neighborhood best position of particle i. The inertia weight w plays a key role in balancing the local search and global
search. A small w improves a local search while a large w smoothes a global search. Based on this analysis, PSO can be
considered an appropriate method that can be used to track GMPP under partial shading (Ishaque, 2012).
Fig. 17 describes the main operations of the PSO algorithm.
15
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 17. The main operation of PSO algorithm.
However, the difficulty of this method is to adjust its parameters. Therefore, some researchers have been focused on
designing the parameters used in equations (27) and (28) to be more optimal (Sengupta et al., 2018).
4.2 ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION (ACO)

As reported in (Mohapatra et al., 2017; Titri et al., 2017), the ACO is a metaheuristic method. Its principle is based on the
food searching behavior of the ants to detect the optimized trajectory. After sensing the PV power, it attributes the
optimized duty cycle which will be used to attack the converter. As presented in figure 18, the ACO method is able to
track the GMPP under PSC. In addition, ACO method can be used in centralized and distributed MPPT controllers
(Mohapatra et al., 2017).
Figure 18. ACO to track the GMPP under shading.
16
Journal Pre-proof
4.3 ARTIFICIAL BEE COLONY OPTIMIZATION (ABC)

ABC approach is a multiobjective meta-heuristic method simulating the behavior of honey bees developed by Tereshko
and Loengarov in (Tereshko, 2000; Tereshko and Loengarov, 2005) to find the best solution when there is a different
solution. The ABC is composed of three groups: the employed bees, the onlooker bees and the scouts. The bee which
currently looks for the food or uses the food production source is labeled employed bee, a bee that stays in the hive to
take decisions to select a food source is labeled onlooker and the scout bee is used to carry the random search for a new
food source. Employed bees that fail to improve food sources in a predetermined number of attempts become scouts and
their food sources are abandoned. For the ABC method, the food position is the duty cycle and MPP is the food source.
For applying this method in MPPT tracker, the duty cycle can be computed as follows:
   min  rand [0,1]( min   max ) (29)
 new     (   old ) (30)
Where α (current duty cycle), αmin (minimum value of duty cycle), αmax (maximum value of duty cycle), Φ (is a constant)
between [−1,1] and αold (previous duty cycle). The ABC tracks the MPP under PSC with high efficiency and low
oscillations (Benyoucef et al., 2015).
4.4 BAT ALGORITHM
This is a new nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimization method proposed by Xin-She Yang in 2010 (Yang, 2010). It
essentially relies on their behavior to look for food or prey. He uses the echolocation phenomena by sending a wave of
frequency and retrieves the reflected wave when it hits an obstacle. This way, the bat is able to accurately determine the
nature of the environment around it such as the type of the object and how it’s moving, its size, and the distance between
the bat and the object.
Principle of the algorithm:

Bats fly randomly with a velocity 𝑣𝑖 at the 𝑥𝑖 position with a fixed frequency 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛, and vary the wavelength λ, (or
frequency f), and the volume 𝐴0 when searching for prey.
If no prey is within range of the bat, the value of the wavelength is increased, and the frequency is decreased.
If the prey is close to the bat, the wavelength is decreased, and the frequency is increased to precisely measure the location
of the prey and follows it more quickly (Rekaby, 2013).
Bats may automatically compute the wavelength of their transmitted pulses and fine-tune the emission rate of the pulse r
є [0, 1] that varies according to the proximity of the prey. Although the volume can change in several ways, we suppose
that it varies from a large 𝐴0 (positive) to a minimum constant value 𝐴𝑚𝑖𝑛.
Movement of bats
Moving virtual bats can generate new solutions. We must define the positions Xi(t) and velocities Vi(t) in a search space
at time t. New Xi(t+1) solutions and new Vi(t+1) speeds at time t+1 can be obtained by the following equations (Yang,
2010):
𝑓𝑖 = 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛).𝛽 (31)
𝑣𝑡𝑖 + 1 = 𝑣𝑡𝑖 +(𝑥𝑡𝑖 ― 𝑥 ∗ ).𝑓𝑖 (32)
𝑥𝑡𝑖 + 1 = 𝑥𝑡𝑖 + 𝑣𝑡𝑖 + 1 (33)
Where 𝛽 ∈ [0,1] is a random vector drawn from a uniform distribution.

𝑥 ∗ is the global best current bat location (best solution) that is determined after a comparison of the N solutions.
During the iteration process, loudness Ai and rate of pulse ri vary. When a bat is approaching the target, its loudness
decreases while the rate of the pulse increases according to equations (34) and (35):
17
Journal Pre-proof
Ati + 1 = αAti (34)
rti + 1 = r0i(1 ― e ―γt) (35)
𝛼 and 𝛾 are two constants.

When the best global solution is selected among all best positions of bats in research space, a new solution for each bat is
generated locally using a random walk.
𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑥𝑜𝑙𝑑 + 𝜀𝐴𝑡 (36)

1 𝑁
𝐴𝑡 = 𝑁∑𝑖 = 1𝐴𝑡𝑖 (37)
where 𝜀 ∈[−1,1] is a random number, 𝐴𝑡 is the average loudness of all the bats at this time step, and N is the number
of bats. The flowchart of bat algorithm is depicted in figure 19. In (Rekaby, 2013), it was reported that the bat algorithm
is able to track the GMPP under PSC. The principal scheme of bat algorithm is shown in figure 20.
18
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 19. Flowchart of Bat algorithm.
Figure 20. Bat algorithm to track the GMPP under PSC.

5) HYBRID PSO-FLC
It is true that PSO is able to track the GMPP under PSC. However, it suffers from high oscillations during the steady-
state. Therefore, in (Farh et al., 2018), this problem has been solved by using hybrid PSO-FLC algorithm where FLS is
used to eliminate oscillation around the GMPP tracked by adjusting the PV power output.
Figure 21. Hybrid PSO-FLC algorithm to track effectively the GMPP under PSC.
D. Distributed MPPT Approach

The shading effect has been mitigated in (Shimizu et al., 2001) by connecting a separate DC-DC converter to each panel
with an output of converters connected in series, in order to extract the available maximum power from each panel.
19
Journal Pre-proof
Distributed MPPT (DMPPT) technique (Bergveld et al., 2013; Huusari and Suntio, 2013; Román et al., 2006; Shmilovitz
and Levron, 2012) serves the purpose by mitigating the problems due to panel mismatching and non-uniform insolation
conditions, where each PV panel is connected with an independent converter and MPPT controller (i.e., self-controlled
panel). There are two different architectures available for DMPPT. One is series and the other is parallel output
conﬁguration (Bergveld et al., 2013; Shmilovitz and Levron, 2012). However, the DMPPT with series conﬁguration has
a problem of cross-coupling (Huusari and Suntio, 2013), where one converter output current will dictate the other
converters operation.
E. OTHER MPPT METHODS
Other MPPT methods have also been reported in the literature (Husain et al., 2017). A named method "Load Current or
Load Voltage Maximization MPPT" is adopted in (Farahat et al., 2015) based on a simple principle; track the MPP by
maximizing the converter output power. In (Shmilovitz, 2005), it is reported that in order to track the MPP, the load
current has to be maximized in the case of a voltage-source type load, while the load voltage should be maximized in the
case of a current-source type load. As for other types of load, either load current or load voltage can be employed. In
(Solodovnik et al., 2004), a "state-based MPPT" method has been proposed based on a nonlinear time-varying dynamic
feedback regulator for maximizing the PV power. Here, the method is based on state-space control to model this method.
Different MPPT techniques are used to directly track the MPP which have been presented in (Takashima et al., 2000).
The used methods depend on calculating the solar cell current and voltage from the irradiation and temperature. In (Ahmed
and Salam, 2014) a “Cuckoo Search (CS)” algorithm for MPPT has been developed. In (Teshome et al., 2017), a modified
Firefly method has been used to optimize the PV power in the case of partial shading of PV module caused by clouds,
snow, trees, and/or other neighboring buildings. A new bio-inspired salp swarm algorithm based MPPT considering PSC
is proposed in (Yang et al., 2019). In (Mohanty et al., 2016), a novel Grey Wolf Optimization-based MPPT has been
proposed. As other bio-inspired methods, Grey Wolf is able to track the GMPP under PSC. One more bio-inspired method
was used to optimize the PV system under PSC is shuffled frog leap algorithm in (Sridhar et al., 2017). In (Padmanaban
et al., 2019), a Hybrid ANFIS-ABC Based MPPT has been used to improve the ability to track GMPP under PSC with
zero oscillations nearer compared with ANFIS-GA and ANFIS-PSO controller-based MPPT.
As a suggested work, there are other bio-inspired methods that can be used to optimize the PV energy as elephant herding
optimization (EHO) (Prasad et al., 2019) and cockroach swarm optimization (CSO) algorithm (Chen ZhaoHui and Tang
HaiYan, 2010), whereas discussions on other EC MPPT techniques can be found elsewhere (Fister et al., 2013; Kar,
2016).
IV. RECAPITULATION
Since there are several MPPT algorithms available in the literature, it is necessary to compare them and then select the
most suitable MPPT for a specific application. In this research, a scrutiny of the most used MPPT has been done according
to these criteria: category (direct, indirect, soft computing), if the MPPT can track the True MPP or not, tracking speed,
sensors used, analog or digital implementation, steady-state oscillations level, algorithm complexity, cost, efficiency and
the ability to track the GMPP under PSC. Moreover, new ideas for classification have been added based on which MPPT
has been used in commercial products and which MPPT has been used in Nanosatellite or vehicle applications.
Comparison of MPPT methods according to these criteria is presented in Table 2. The most MPPT techniques used in
commercial products is the P&O (Barros Vieira and Mota, 2008; “High efficiency solar battery charger with embedded
MPPT - SPV1040,” 2017) and INC (“High Voltage Isolated Solar MPPT Developers Kit,” n.d.). It is mentioned in
(Subudhi and Pradhan, 2013) that intelligent methods such as FLC, ANN and PSO have been used in Morningstar’s
TrakStar™ MPPT product. However, this information is not covered by any technical documents of MORNINGSTAR.
Therefore, this information is not reported in this review.
It should be mentioned that the findings presented in table 2 are not tested at the same simulation/experimental scenario,
because it is difficult to find several papers with the same scenario.
20
Used in Used in
Track
Steady-state Tracking Implementati commerci Nanosatellite
MPPT Category True MPPT Efficiency Analog/digital Sensors Cost Global
oscillations Speed on complexity al or vehicle
MPP
products applications
Fractional Low (Gupta et
Indirect No (El- Sometimes I (Belhachat No
Short Circuit al., 2016; Fast (Verma et Both (Verma Simple (Verma Cheap (Verma
(Verma et Khozondar et (Mohanty et and Larbes, (Ishaque, Not found Not found
Current (Sher Verma et al., al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016)
al., 2016) al., 2016) al., 2014) 2019) 2012)
et al., 2015) 2016)
Fractional
Low (Gupta et
open circuit Indirect No (El- Sometimes V (Belhachat No
al., 2016; Fast (Verma et Both (Verma Simple (Verma Cheap (Verma
voltage (Verma et Khozondar et (Mohanty et and Larbes, (Ishaque, Not found Not found
Verma et al., al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016)
(Huang and al., 2016) al., 2016) al., 2014) 2019) 2012)
2016)
Hsu, 2016)
Low (Gupta et
Pilot cell Indirect No (El- Sometimes No
al., 2016; Fast (Verma et Both (Verma Simple (Verma Cheap (Verma
(Baimel et al., (Verma et Khozondar et (Mohanty et V or I [36] (Ishaque, Not found Not found
Verma et al., al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016)
2016) al., 2016) al., 2016) al., 2014) 2012)
2016)
Yes
(Barros
Vieira and
Mota,
Perturb 2008; (Rocha and
&Observe “High Rodrigues,
Medium I and V
(Kamala Devi Direct Yes (El- Medium No efficiency 2016) for
Yes (Mohanty (Gupta et al., Slow (Verma Both (Verma Simple (Verma (Belhachat
et al., 2017; (Verma et Khozondar et (Verma et al., (Ishaque, solar Nanosatellite
et al., 2014) 2016; Verma et al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016) and Larbes,
Killi and al., 2016) al., 2016) 2016) 2012) battery and (Cheddadi
et al., 2016) 2019)
Samanta, charger et al., 2018) for
2015) with automotive
embedded
MPPT -
SPV1040,”
2017)
Medium I and V
Hill climbing Direct Yes (El- Medium No
Yes (Mohanty (Gupta et al., Slow (Verma Both (Verma Simple (Verma (Belhachat
method (Liu (Verma et Khozondar et (Verma et al., (Ishaque, Not found Not found
et al., 2014) 2016; Verma et al., 2016) et al., 2016) et al., 2016) and Larbes,
et al., 2018) al., 2016) al., 2016) 2016) 2012)
et al., 2016) 2019)
Incremental Direct Yes (El- Sometimes Good (Gupta Medium Digital (Verma Medium I and V Medium No Yes (“High (Ulrich et al.,
conductance (Verma et Khozondar et (Mohanty et et al., 2016; (Verma et al., et al., 2016) (Verma et al., (Belhachat (Verma et al., (Ishaque, Voltage 2009) for
method al., 2016) al., 2016) al., 2014) Verma et al., 2016) 2016) and Larbes, 2016) 2012) Isolated Nanosatellite
(Shahid et al., 2016) 2019) Solar and (Motahhir
2018) MPPT et al., 2017b)
Developer for automotive
s Kit,” and
21
n.d.) aeronautical
No
Kalman Filter Direct Good Fast Digital Complex I and V Expensive
Yes (Motahhir No (Motahhir (Motahh
(Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et (Motahhir et Not found Not found
et al., 2017a) et al., 2017a) ir et al.,
al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a) al., 2017a)
2017a)
(Obeidi, T.,
Soft Very good I and V Very Larbes, C.,
Fuzzy logic Yes (El- Complex No
computing No (Lyden and (Gupta et al., Fast (Verma et Digital (Verma (Belhachat Expensive Ilinca, A., Filiz,
(Youssef et Khozondar et (Verma et al., (Ishaque, Not found
(Verma et Haque, 2015) 2016; Verma al., 2016) et al., 2016) and Larbes, (Verma et al., G., & Kebir,
al., 2018) al., 2016) 2016) 2012)
al., 2016) et al., 2016) 2019) 2016) 2018) for
vehicle
Neural
network Soft Very good Varies Very
Yes (El- Complex Yes
(Reza Reisi et computing No (Lyden and (Gupta et al., Fast (Verma et Digital (Verma (Belhachat Expensive
Khozondar et (Verma et al., (Ishaque, Not found Not found
al., 2013; (Verma et Haque, 2015) 2016; Verma al., 2016) et al., 2016) and Larbes, (Verma et al.,
al., 2016) 2016) 2012)
Rizzo and al., 2016) et al., 2016) 2019) 2016)
Scelba, 2015)
PSO based
MPPT Soft Very
Yes (El- Sometimes Complex I and V Yes
(Kamarzaman computing Good (Kaced Fast (Verma et Digital (Verma Expensive Yes (Peng et
Khozondar et (Kaced et al., (Verma et al., (Verma et al., (Ishaque, Not found
and Tan, (Verma et et al., 2017) al., 2016) et al., 2016) (Verma et al., al., 2018)
al., 2016) 2017) 2016) 2016) 2012)
2014; Liu et al., 2016) 2016)
al., 2012)
Soft Very
Yes No Very good Fast Digital I and V Yes
ACO based computing Complex Expensive
(Sundareswar (Sundareswar (Sundareswar (Sundareswar (Sundareswar (Sundareswar (Mohapa
MPPT (Titri et (Sundareswa (Sundareswara (Sundareswar Not found Not found
an et al., an et al., an et al., an et al., an et al., an et al., tra et al.,
al., 2017) ran et al., n et al., 2016) an et al.,
2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2016) 2017)
2016) 2016)
ABC based Soft Very Yes
Yes Very good Fast Digital Complex I and V
MPPT computing No (Benyoucef Expensive (Benyou
(Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et Not found Not found
(Benyoucef et (Benyoucef et al., 2015) (Benyoucef et cef et al.,
al., 2015) al., 2015) al., 2015) al., 2015) al., 2015) al., 2015)
al., 2015) et al., 2015) al., 2015) 2015)
Soft Very Yes
Bat based Very good Complex
computing Yes (Kaced et No (Kaced et Fast (Kaced et Digital (Kaced I and V (Kaced Expensive (Kaced
MPPT (Kaced (Kaced et al., (Kaced et al., Not found Not found
(Kaced et al., al., 2017) al., 2017) al., 2017) et al., 2017) et al., 2017) (Kaced et al., et al.,
et al., 2017) 2017) 2017)
2017) 2017) 2017)
Soft Very
Hybrid PSO- Very good Yes (Farh
computing Yes (Farh et No (Farh et Fast (Farh et Digital (Farh et Complex (Farh I and V (Farh Expensive
FLC (Farh et (Farh et al., et al., Not found Not found
(Farh et al., al., 2018) al., 2018) al., 2018) al., 2018) et al., 2018) et al., 2018) (Farh et al.,
al., 2018) 2018) 2018)
2018) 2018)
Table 2. Review of the most used MPPT algorithms.
22
Journal Pre-proof
V. NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE MPPT METHODS

Table 3 shows each MPPT algorithm with the suitable low-cost embedded board to implement it. All embedded boards
studied in this paper as presented in Fig. 22, namely, Arduino Nano/Uno, STM32F103 Blue Pill board,
STM32F4DISCOVERY board, and Arduino Mkr Vidor 4000. For FSCC, FOCV, Pilot cell, P&O and HC algorithms,
Arduino Uno/Nano or STM32F103 Blue Pill board are suitable to implement them. If simplicity is more important,
Arduino Uno/Nano which both use the same microcontroller (ATMega 328) are more suitable, because it has a worldwide
community of users and it is an open hardware/software embedded board. This makes it the easiest embedded board to
use (Motahhir et al., 2018a). Alternatively, if accuracy and tracking speed are more important, STM32F103 Blue Pill
board is more suitable. For tracking speed, it has 2 hardware ADCs instead of one as Arduino Uno/Nano, which means
that two analog signals can be converted at the same time. Moreover, it takes only one clock cycle to perform the
multiplication operation, and this is not possible using Arduino. In addition, it operates with 72 MHz maximum frequency
instead of 16 MHz as Arduino Uno/Nano. For accuracy, its ADCs have 12 bits as resolution and this means that more
numbers can be encoded than Arduino Uno and Nano which have 10 bits as resolution (“Datasheet of STM32F103C8,”
2015). For Incremental conductance algorithm, STM32F103 Blue Pill board is more suitable due to the use of a high
number of division calculation in this algorithm. That is due to the hardware division implemented in this embedded board
(“Datasheet of STM32F103C8,” 2015).
Table 3. The suitable LOW-COST embedded board for each MPPT algorithms
MPPT algorithms Embedded target

Arduino Nano/Uno or STM32F103 Blue
FSCC/ FOCV/Pilot cell
pill board
Perturb &Observe/ Hill Arduino Nano/Uno or STM32F103 Blue

climbing method pill board
Incremental
STM32F103 Blue pill board
conductance method
Kalman Filter STM32F4DISCOVERY board
STM32F4DISCOVERY board or Arduino Mkr
Fuzzy logic
Vidor 4000
STM32F4DISCOVERY board or Mkr Vidor
Neural network
4000
PSO based MPPT
4000
ACO based MPPT
4000
ABC based MPPT
4000
Bat based MPPT
4000
Hybrid PSO-FLC
4000
For KF, FLC, ANN, PSO, ACO, ABC, bat and hybrid PSO-FLC, STM32F4DISCOVERY board or Arduino Vidor
are more suitable. STM32F4DISCOVERY board is based on ARM Cortex-M4 processor, which is the latest generation
of ARM processors for embedded systems. It supports a set of DSP instructions (Single cycle 16/32-bit MAC Single-
cycle dual 16-bit MAC 8/16-bit SIMD arithmetic Hardware Divide (2-12 Cycles)) which allows complex algorithm
execution and enhances application security. Moreover, it features a Floating-Point Unit (FPU) which accelerates software
development by using metalanguage development tools, while preventing saturation. In addition, this board integrates
DMA controller, which can accelerate data transfer. Also, it has 3 hardware ADCs with 12 bits as resolution and it works
with a frequency up to 168 MHz (“Cortex M4 specification,” n.d., “Datasheet of STM32F407VGT6,” 2016). All of that
makes of this board a suitable choice to implement FLC, ANN, PSO, ACO, ABC, bat and PSO-FLC which are complex
due to the high number of divisions, multiplication, summation of series of numbers and power calculations used in their
structure. For instance, the MAC instruction facilitates the implementation of equation (18) used in ANN. Alternatively,
Arduino Vidor which integrates SAMD21 microcontroller (based on Cortex M0+) and FPGA (Intel/Altera Cyclone
23
Journal Pre-proof
10CL016) (“Arduino MKR VIDOR4000 specification,” n.d.). This means that the complex part of the aforementioned
MPPT methods can be implemented with help of FPGA, and the state machine part of the method can be implemented
in the SAMD21 microcontroller. Thanks to Arduino Vidor which allows for multiprocessor programming. Thus, complex
MPPT algorithm can be easily implemented in this board with very high performance, especially, when in the algorithm,
it is required to execute several tasks at the same time. It is true that Arduino Vidor is a little expensive than
STM32F4DISCOVERY. Nevertheless, where performance is king, Arduino Vidor is more suitable because it sets itself
apart in highly parallelized tasks, offering higher computing power than STM32F4DISCOVERY. Furthermore, Arduino
Vidor is reprogrammable, reusable, making it flexible for faster prototyping and mistakes are not very costly.
Figure 22. Low-cost embedded boards.
VI. CONCLUSION
PV energy is clean and inexhaustible and its use to produce clean electricity may efficiently decrease gas emissions
generated by fossil fuels. Therefore, the most MPPT algorithms used to optimize the PV energy have been extensively
reviewed in this paper. Based on the review, each algorithm has its own strengths and weaknesses. Some algorithms show
highly effective results such as soft computing methods, but the methodologies employed are complicated. There are
simple methods such as FOCV, FSCC, and pilot cell method which are easy to implement but show less accurate results.
The commonly used method is P&O due to the simplicity of its hardware implementation, but it shows a high level of
steady-state oscillations. In order to overcome this problem, incremental conductance method was proposed. However,
this method is more complicated than P&O because of the mathematical division calculations used in its construction. In
addition, it requires a controller with high capabilities to execute these calculations which leads to high system cost.
Moreover, in this review, a low-cost embedded board is selected for the hardware implementation of each MPPT
algorithm based on its complexity and structure. This review can be an attractive reference to assist researchers in selecting
the suitable algorithm for a particular application and make suggestions for future research in MPPT topic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly
contributed to improving the final version of the paper, and the Editors for their generous comments and support during
the review process. The authors would also like to thank Khalid Bourrouk (PhD student and teacher at American School
Fez) for reviewing and improving the English of this paper.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, R., Murtaza, A.F., Sher, H.A., 2019. Power tracking techniques for efficient operation of photovoltaic array
in solar applications – A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.015
Ahmed, J., Salam, Z., 2014. A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with
partial shading capability. Appl. Energy 119, 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.062
24
Journal Pre-proof
Arduino MKR VIDOR4000 specification [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://store.arduino.cc/arduino-vidor-4000

(accessed 1.5.19).
Atlas, I.., Sharaf, A.., 2007. Generalized direct approach for designing fuzzy logic controllers in Matlab/Simulink
GUI environment. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Intell. Comput. 1, 1–27.
Baimel, D., Shkoury, R., Elbaz, L., Tapuchi, S., Baimel, N., 2016. Novel optimized method for maximum power
point tracking in PV systems using Fractional Open Circuit Voltage technique, in: 2016 International
Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, SPEEDAM 2016. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 889–894. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPEEDAM.2016.7525984
Barros Vieira, J.A., Mota, A.M., 2008. Maximum power point tracker applied in batteries charging with PV panels,
in: IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics. pp. 202–207.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2008.4676969
Bayrak, F., Ertürk, G., Oztop, H.F., 2017. Effects of partial shading on energy and exergy efficiencies for
photovoltaic panels. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.108
Belhachat, F., Larbes, C., 2019. Comprehensive review on global maximum power point tracking techniques for PV
systems subjected to partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.03.045
Benyoucef, A. soufyane, Chouder, A., Kara, K., Silvestre, S., Sahed, O.A., 2015. Artificial bee colony based
algorithm for maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded
conditions. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 32, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.047
Bergveld, H.J., Bu???hker, D., Castello, C., Doorn, T., De Jong, A., Van Otten, R., De Waal, K., 2013. Module-level
DC/DC conversion for photovoltaic systems: The delta-conversion concept. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28,
2005–2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2195331
Cacciato, M., Consoli, A., Attanasio, R., Gennaro, F., 2010. Soft-switching converter with HF transformer for grid-
connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 57, 1678–1686.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2032201
Cheddadi, Y., Errahimi, F., Es-sbai, N., 2018. Design and verification of photovoltaic MPPT algorithm as an
automotive-based embedded software. Sol. Energy 171, 414–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.085
Chen ZhaoHui, Tang HaiYan, 2010. Cockroach Swarm Optimization, in: 2010 2nd International Conference on
Computer Engineering and Technology. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), pp. V6-652-
V6-655. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccet.2010.5485993
Choudhary, P., Srivastava, R.K., 2019. Sustainability perspectives- a review for solar photovoltaic trends and growth
opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.107
Cortex M4 specification [WWW Document], n.d. . Arm Dev. URL
https://developer.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-m/cortex-m4 (accessed 1.5.19).
Datasheet of STM32F103C8 [WWW Document], 2015. . STMicroelectronics. URL
https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/cd00161566.pdf (accessed 1.5.19).
Datasheet of STM32F407VGT6 [WWW Document], 2016. . STMicroelectronics. URL
https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/dm00035129.pdf (accessed 1.5.19).
de Paulo, A.F., Porto, G.S., 2018. Evolution of collaborative networks of solar energy applied technologies. J. Clean.
Prod. 204, 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.344
Eberhart, R., Kennedy, J., 1995. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, in: MHS’95. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science. IEEE, pp. 39–43.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MHS.1995.494215
El-Khozondar, H.J., El-Khozondar, R.J., Matter, K., Suntio, T., 2016. A review study of photovoltaic array
maximum power tracking algorithms. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-016-
0022-8
Enslin, J.H.R., Snyman, D.B., 1992. Simplified feed-forward control of the maximum power point in PV
installations, in: Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control,
Instrumentation, and Automation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), pp. 548–553.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iecon.1992.254498
Esen, H., Esen, M., Ozsolak, O., 2017. Modelling and experimental performance analysis of solar-assisted ground
source heat pump system. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 29, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1056242
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008a. Modelling a ground-coupled heat pump system using adaptive
25
Journal Pre-proof
neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int. J. Refrig. 31, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2007.06.007

Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008b. Forecasting of a ground-coupled heat pump performance using
neural networks with statistical data weighting pre-processing. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47, 431–441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2007.03.004
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008c. Predicting performance of a ground-source heat pump system
using fuzzy weighted pre-processing-based ANFIS. Build. Environ. 43, 2178–2187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.01.002
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008d. Modeling a ground-coupled heat pump system by a support vector
machine. Renew. Energy 33, 1814–1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.09.025
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008e. Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy assessments
for ground-coupled heat pump system. Energy Build. 40, 1074–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.10.002
Esen, H., Ozgen, F., Esen, M., Sengur, A., 2009a. Modelling of a new solar air heater through least-squares support
vector machines. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 10673–10682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.045
Esen, H., Ozgen, F., Esen, M., Sengur, A., 2009b. Artificial neural network and wavelet neural network approaches
for modelling of a solar air heater. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 11240–11248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.073
Fannakh, M., Ehafyani, M.L., Zouggar, S., 2018. Hardware implementation of the fuzzy logic MPPT in an Arduino
card using a Simulink support package for PV application. IET Renew. Power Gener. 13, 510–518.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5667
Farahat, M.A., Enany, M.A., Nasr, A., 2015. Assessment of maximum power point tracking techniques for
photovoltaic system applications. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 7. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4928680
Farh, H.M.H., Eltamaly, A.M., Othman, M.F., 2018. Hybrid PSO-FLC for dynamic global peak extraction of the
partially shaded photovoltaic system. PLoS One 13, e0206171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206171
Fister, I., Yang, X.-S., Fister, I., Brest, J., Fister, D., 2013. A Brief Review of Nature-Inspired Algorithms for
Optimization. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1307.4186.
Gupta, A., Chauhan, Y.K., Pachauri, R.K., 2016. A comparative investigation of maximum power point tracking
methods for solar PV system. Sol. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.001
Han, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, L., 2011. Electrical and thermal performance of silicon concentrator solar cells immersed in
dielectric liquids. Appl. Energy 88, 4481–4489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.05.037
Hart, G.W., Branz, H.M., Cox, C.H., 1984. Experimental tests of open-loop maximum-power-point tracking
techniques for photovoltaic arrays. Sol. Cells 13, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-6787(84)90008-5
High efficiency solar battery charger with embedded MPPT - SPV1040 [WWW Document], 2017. .
STMicroelectronics. URL https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/spv1040.pdf, (accessed 5.25.19).
High Voltage Isolated Solar MPPT Developers Kit [WWW Document], n.d. . Texas Instruments. URL
http://www.ti.com/tool/TMDSHVMPPTKIT?fbclid=IwAR0LPqhMrYB4xLYhfGf38Hy-
7MRFC5eEuOZtt5EYvrNu8DoI6zgTLFrplYI (accessed 5.25.19).
Hohm, D.P., Ropp, M.E., 2003. Comparative study of maximum power point tracking algorithms. Prog.
Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 11, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.459
Hu, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, X., Su, L., Ngai, E.W.T., Liu, M., 2015. Application of evolutionary computation for rule
discovery in stock algorithmic trading: A literature review. Appl. Soft Comput. J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.07.008
Huang, Y.P., Hsu, S.Y., 2016. A performance evaluation model of a high concentration photovoltaic module with a
fractional open circuit voltage-based maximum power point tracking algorithm. Comput. Electr. Eng. 51, 331–
342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.01.009
Husain, M.A., Tariq, A., Hameed, S., Arif, M.S. Bin, Jain, A., 2017. Comparative assessment of maximum power
point tracking procedures for photovoltaic systems. Green Energy Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2016.11.001
Huusari, J., Suntio, T., 2013. Origin of cross-coupling effects in distributed DC-DC converters in photovoltaic
applications. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28, 4625–4635. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2235860
Hyeong-Ju Noh, Dong-Yun Lee, Dong-Seok Hyun, 2002. An improved MPPT converter with current compensation
method for small scaled PV-applications, in: IEEE 2002 28th Annual Conference of the Industrial Electronics
Society. IECON 02. IEEE, pp. 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2002.1185428
Ishaque, K., 2012. Deterministic Particle Swarm Optimization Method for Maximum Power Point Tracking of
26
Journal Pre-proof
Photovoltaic System. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., 2013. A review of maximum power point tracking techniques of PV system for uniform
insolation and partial shading condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.032
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Amjad, M., Mekhilef, S., 2012. An improved particle swarm optimization (PSO)-based
MPPT for PV with reduced steady-state oscillation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 27, 3627–3638.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2185713
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Lauss, G., 2014. The performance of perturb and observe and incremental conductance
maximum power point tracking method under dynamic weather conditions. Appl. Energy 119, 228–236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.054
Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y., 2008. Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review, in: 2008
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2008. pp. 2419–2426.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2008.4631121
Kaced, K., Larbes, C., Ramzan, N., Bounabi, M., Dahmane, Z. elabadine, 2017. Bat algorithm based maximum
power point tracking for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy 158, 490–503.
Kamala Devi, V., Premkumar, K., Bisharathu Beevi, A., Ramaiyer, S., 2017. A modified Perturb & Observe MPPT
technique to tackle steady state and rapidly varying atmospheric conditions. Sol. Energy 157, 419–426.
Kamarzaman, N.A., Tan, C.W., 2014. A comprehensive review of maximum power point tracking algorithms for
photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.045
Kar, A.K., 2016. Bio inspired computing - A review of algorithms and scope of applications. Expert Syst. Appl.
Khan, J., Arsalan, M.H., 2016. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity generation - A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.135
Killi, M., Samanta, S., 2015. Modified perturb and observe MPPT algorithm for drift avoidance in photovoltaic
systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62, 5549–5559. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2407854
Kobayashi, K., Matsuo, H., Sekine, Y., 2004. A novel optimum operating point tracker of the solar cell power supply
system, in: PESC Record - IEEE Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference. pp. 2147–2151.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PESC.2004.1355451
Kumar, N., Hussain, I., Singh, B., Panigrahi, B.K., 2018. Framework of Maximum Power Extraction from Solar PV
Panel Using Self Predictive Perturb and Observe Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 9, 895–903.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2017.2764266
Kuznetsov, I.A., Greenfield, M.J., Mehta, Y.U., Merchan-Merchan, W., Salkar, G., Saveliev, A. V., 2011. Increasing
the solar cell power output by coating with transition metal-oxide nanorods. Appl. Energy 88, 4218–4221.
Li, M., Ji, X., Li, G., Wei, S., Li, Y.F., Shi, F., 2011. Performance study of solar cell arrays based on a Trough
Concentrating Photovoltaic/Thermal system. Appl. Energy 88, 3218–3227.
Liu, H.D., Lin, C.H., Pai, K.J., Lin, Y.L., 2018. A novel photovoltaic system control strategies for improving hill
climbing algorithm efficiencies in consideration of radian and load effect. Energy Convers. Manag. 165, 815–
826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.03.081
Liu, Y.H., Huang, S.C., Huang, J.W., Liang, W.C., 2012. A particle swarm optimization-based maximum power
point tracking algorithm for PV systems operating under partially shaded conditions. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 27, 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2012.2219533
Lyden, S., Haque, M.E., 2015. Maximum Power Point Tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems: A
comprehensive review and comparative analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Mohanty, P., Bhuvaneswari, G., Balasubramanian, R., Dhaliwal, N.K., 2014. MATLAB based modeling to study the
performance of different MPPT techniques used for solar PV system under various operating conditions.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.001
Mohanty, S., Subudhi, B., Ray, P.K., 2016. A new MPPT design using grey Wolf optimization technique for
photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 7, 181–188.
27
Journal Pre-proof
Mohapatra, A., Nayak, B., Das, P., Mohanty, K.B., 2017. A review on MPPT techniques of PV system under partial
shading condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.083
Motahhir, S., Aoune, A., El Ghzizal, A., Sebti, S., Derouich, A., 2017a. Comparison between Kalman filter and
incremental conductance algorithm for optimizing photovoltaic energy. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-017-0046-8
Motahhir, S., Chalh, A., El Ghzizal, A., Derouich, A., 2018a. Development of a low-cost PV system using an
improved INC algorithm and a PV panel Proteus model. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 355–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.246
Motahhir, S., El Ghzizal, A., Sebti, S., Derouich, A., 2017b. MIL and SIL and PIL tests for MPPT algorithm. Cogent
Eng. 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2017.1378475
Motahhir, S., El Hammoumi, A., El Ghzizal, A., 2018b. Photovoltaic system with quantitative comparative between
an improved MPPT and existing INC and P&O methods under fast varying of solar irradiation. Energy Reports
4, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.04.003
Mutoh, N., Matuo, T., Okada, K., Sakai, M., 2002. Prediction-data-based maximum-power-point-tracking method
for photovoltaic power generation systems, in: 2002 IEEE 33rd Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists
Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37289). IEEE, pp. 1489–1494.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PSEC.2002.1022386
Noguchi, T., Togashi, S., Nakamoto, R., 2001. Short-Current-Pulse Based Adaptive Maximum-Power-Point
Tracking for Photovoltaic Power Generation System. IEEJ Trans. Ind. Appl. 121, 78–83.
https://doi.org/10.1541/ieejias.121.78
Obeidi, T., Larbes, C., Ilinca, A., Filiz, G., & Kebir, T., 2018. Fuzzy Logic-based Maximum Power Point Tracking
for a Solar Electric Vehicle. Acta Polytech. Hungarica 15.
Padmanaban, S., Priyadarshi, N., Bhaskar, M.S., Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Hossain, E., 2019.
A Hybrid ANFIS-ABC Based MPPT Controller for PV System with Anti-Islanding Grid Protection:
Experimental Realization. IEEE Access 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2931547
Patterson, D.J., 1990. Electrical system design for a solar powered vehicle, in: 21st Annual IEEE Conference on
Power Electronics Specialists. IEEE, pp. 618–622. https://doi.org/10.1109/PESC.1990.131245
Peng, L., Jun, Z., Xiaozhou, Y., 2018. Design and On-Orbit Verification of EPS for the World’s First 12U Polarized
Light Detection CubeSat. Int. J. Aeronaut. Sp. Sci. 19, 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-018-0059-6
Peng, Y.F., Wai, R.J., Lin, C.M., 2004. Implementation of LLCC-Resonant Driving Circuit and Adaptive CMAC
Neural Network Control for Linear Piezoelectric Ceramic Motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 51, 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2003.822078
Prasad, C.H., Subbaramaiah, K., Sujatha, P., 2019. Cost–benefit analysis for optimal DG placement in distribution
systems by using elephant herding optimization algorithm. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-019-0056-9
Rajput, P., Shyam, Tomar, V., Tiwari, G.N., Sastry, O.S., Bhatti, T.S., 2018. A thermal model for N series connected
glass/cell/polymer sheet and glass/cell/glass crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules with hot solar cells
connected in series and its thermal losses in real outdoor condition. Renew. Energy 126, 370–386.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.040
Rekaby, A., 2013. Directed Artificial Bat Algorithm (DABA) - A new bio-inspired algorithm, in: Proceedings of the
2013 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, ICACCI 2013.
pp. 1241–1246. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637355
Reza Reisi, A., Hassan Moradi, M., Jamasb, S., 2013. Classification and comparison of maximum power point
tracking techniques for photovoltaic system: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Rizzo, S.A., Scelba, G., 2015. ANN based MPPT method for rapidly variable shading conditions. Appl. Energy 145,
124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.077
Rocha, R., Rodrigues, L., 2016. Photovoltaic panels as attitude sensors for artificial satellites. IEEE Aerosp.
Electron. Syst. Mag. 31, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2016.150186
Román, E., Alonso, R., Ibañez, P., Elorduizapatarietxe, S., Goitia, D., 2006. Intelligent PV module for grid-
connected PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 53, 1066–1073. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2006.878327
Sahina, M.E., Okumusb, H.I., 2013. Fuzzy Logic Controlled Parallel Connected Synchronous Buck DC-DC
Converter for Water Electrolysis. IETE J. Res. 59, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.4103/03772063.2013.10876506
Saravanan, S., Ramesh Babu, N., 2016. Maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic system - A
28
Journal Pre-proof
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.105

Seng, L.Y., Lalchand, G., Sow Lin, G.M., 2008. Economical, environmental and technical analysis of building
integrated photovoltaic systems in Malaysia. Energy Policy 36, 2130–2142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.016
Sengupta, S., Basak, S., Peters, R., 2018. Particle Swarm Optimization: A Survey of Historical and Recent
Developments with Hybridization Perspectives. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 1, 157–191.
https://doi.org/10.3390/make1010010
Shahid, H., Kamran, M., Mehmood, Z., Saleem, M.Y., Mudassar, M., Haider, K., 2018. Implementation of the novel
temperature controller and incremental conductance MPPT algorithm for indoor photovoltaic system. Sol.
Energy 163, 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.02.018
Sher, H.A., Murtaza, A.F., Noman, A., Addoweesh, K.E., Al-Haddad, K., Chiaberge, M., 2015. A New Sensorless
Hybrid MPPT Algorithm Based on Fractional Short-Circuit Current Measurement and P&O MPPT. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 6, 1426–1434. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2438781
Shimizu, T., Hirakata, M., Kamezawa, T., Watanabe, H., 2001. Generation control circuit for photovoltaic modules.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 16, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/63.923760
Shmilovitz, D., 2005. On the control of photovoltaic maximum power point tracker via output parameters. IEE Proc.
Electr. Power Appl. 152, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-epa:20040978
Shmilovitz, D., Levron, Y., 2012. Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking in Photovoltaic Systems - Emerging
Architectures and Control Methods. Autom. ‒ J. Control. Meas. Electron. Comput. Commun. 53.
https://doi.org/10.7305/automatika.53-2.185
Solarex MSX60 and MSX64 photovoltaic panel-datasheet [WWW Document], 1998. . Solarex. URL
https://www.solarelectricsupply.com/media/custom/upload/Solarex-MSX64.pdf (accessed 8.7.19).
Solodovnik, E. V., Liu, S., Dougal, R.A., 2004. Power controller design for maximum power tracking in solar
installations. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 19, 1295–1304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2004.833457
Sridhar, R., Jeevananthan, S., Dash, S.S., Vishnuram, P., 2017. A new maximum power tracking in PV system
during partially shaded conditions based on shuffled frog leap algorithm. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 29, 481–
493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2016.1186750
Subudhi, B., Pradhan, R., 2013. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2202294
Sundareswaran, K., Vigneshkumar, V., Sankar, P., Simon, S.P., Srinivasa Rao Nayak, P., Palani, S., 2016.
Development of an Improved P&O Algorithm Assisted Through a Colony of Foraging Ants for MPPT in PV
System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 12, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2015.2502428
Syafaruddin, Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T., 2009. Polar coordinated fuzzy controller based real-time maximum-power
point control of photovoltaic system. Renew. Energy 34, 2597–2606.
Takashima, T., Tanaka, T., Amano, M., Ando, Y., 2000. Maximum output control of photovoltaic (PV) array, in:
Collection of Technical Papers. 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit
(IECEC) (Cat. No.00CH37022). American Inst. Aeronaut. & Astronautics, pp. 380–383.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IECEC.2000.870713
Tereshko, V., 2000. Reaction-Diffusion Model of a Honeybee Colony’s Foraging Behaviour, in: In International
Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. pp. 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_79
Tereshko, V., Loengarov, A., 2005. Collective Decision-Making in Honey Bee Foraging Dynamics. Comput. Inf.
Syst. 9, 1.
Teshome, D.F., Lee, C.H., Lin, Y.W., Lian, K.L., 2017. A modified firefly algorithm for photovoltaic maximum
power point tracking control under partial shading. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 5, 661–671.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858
Titri, S., Larbes, C., Toumi, K.Y., Benatchba, K., 2017. A new MPPT controller based on the Ant colony
optimization algorithm for Photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 58,
465–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.017
Ulrich, S., Veilleux, J.F., Landry Corbin, F., 2009. Power system design of ESMO. Acta Astronaut. 64, 244–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.09.002
Verma, D., Nema, S., Shandilya, A.M., Dash, S.K., 2016. Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques:
Recapitulation in solar photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
29
Journal Pre-proof
Wasynczuk, O., 1983. Dynamic behavior of a class of photovoltaic power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst.
PAS-102, 3031–3037. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1983.318109
Yang, B., Zhong, L., Zhang, X., Shu, H., Yu, T., Li, H., Jiang, L., Sun, L., 2019. Novel bio-inspired memetic salp
swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV systems considering partial shading condition. J. Clean.
Yang, X.S., 2010. A new metaheuristic Bat-inspired Algorithm, in: Studies in Computational Intelligence. pp. 65–74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6
Ye, L.C., Rodrigues, J.F.D., Lin, H.X., 2017. Analysis of feed-in tariff policies for solar photovoltaic in China 2011–
2016. Appl. Energy 203, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.037
Youssef, A., Telbany, M. El, Zekry, A., 2018. Reconfigurable generic FPGA implementation of fuzzy logic
controller for MPPT of PV systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.093
Yuvarajan, S., Shanguang Xu, 2003. Photo-voltaic power converter with a simple maximum-power-point-tracker, in:
Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2003. ISCAS ’03. IEEE, pp. III-
399-III–402. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2003.1205040
Ahmad, R., Murtaza, A.F., Sher, H.A., 2019. Power tracking techniques for efficient operation of photovoltaic array
in solar applications – A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.015
Ahmed, J., Salam, Z., 2014. A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with
partial shading capability. Appl. Energy 119, 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.062
Arduino MKR VIDOR4000 specification [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://store.arduino.cc/arduino-vidor-4000
(accessed 1.5.19).
Atlas, I.., Sharaf, A.., 2007. Generalized direct approach for designing fuzzy logic controllers in Matlab/Simulink
GUI environment. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Intell. Comput. 1, 1–27.
Baimel, D., Shkoury, R., Elbaz, L., Tapuchi, S., Baimel, N., 2016. Novel optimized method for maximum power
point tracking in PV systems using Fractional Open Circuit Voltage technique, in: 2016 International
Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, SPEEDAM 2016. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., pp. 889–894. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPEEDAM.2016.7525984
Barros Vieira, J.A., Mota, A.M., 2008. Maximum power point tracker applied in batteries charging with PV panels,
in: IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics. pp. 202–207.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2008.4676969
Bayrak, F., Ertürk, G., Oztop, H.F., 2017. Effects of partial shading on energy and exergy efficiencies for
photovoltaic panels. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.108
Belhachat, F., Larbes, C., 2019. Comprehensive review on global maximum power point tracking techniques for PV
systems subjected to partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.03.045
Benyoucef, A. soufyane, Chouder, A., Kara, K., Silvestre, S., Sahed, O.A., 2015. Artificial bee colony based
algorithm for maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded
conditions. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 32, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.047
Bergveld, H.J., Bu???hker, D., Castello, C., Doorn, T., De Jong, A., Van Otten, R., De Waal, K., 2013. Module-level
DC/DC conversion for photovoltaic systems: The delta-conversion concept. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28,
2005–2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2195331
Cacciato, M., Consoli, A., Attanasio, R., Gennaro, F., 2010. Soft-switching converter with HF transformer for grid-
connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 57, 1678–1686.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2009.2032201
Cheddadi, Y., Errahimi, F., Es-sbai, N., 2018. Design and verification of photovoltaic MPPT algorithm as an
automotive-based embedded software. Sol. Energy 171, 414–425.
Chen ZhaoHui, Tang HaiYan, 2010. Cockroach Swarm Optimization, in: 2010 2nd International Conference on
Computer Engineering and Technology. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), pp. V6-652-
V6-655. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccet.2010.5485993
Choudhary, P., Srivastava, R.K., 2019. Sustainability perspectives- a review for solar photovoltaic trends and growth
opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.107
Cortex M4 specification [WWW Document], n.d. . Arm Dev. URL
https://developer.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-m/cortex-m4 (accessed 1.5.19).
Datasheet of STM32F103C8 [WWW Document], 2015. . STMicroelectronics. URL
https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/cd00161566.pdf (accessed 1.5.19).
30
Journal Pre-proof
Datasheet of STM32F407VGT6 [WWW Document], 2016. . STMicroelectronics. URL

https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/dm00035129.pdf (accessed 1.5.19).
de Paulo, A.F., Porto, G.S., 2018. Evolution of collaborative networks of solar energy applied technologies. J. Clean.
Eberhart, R., Kennedy, J., 1995. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, in: MHS’95. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science. IEEE, pp. 39–43.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MHS.1995.494215
El-Khozondar, H.J., El-Khozondar, R.J., Matter, K., Suntio, T., 2016. A review study of photovoltaic array
maximum power tracking algorithms. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-016-
0022-8
Enslin, J.H.R., Snyman, D.B., 1992. Simplified feed-forward control of the maximum power point in PV
installations, in: Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control,
Instrumentation, and Automation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), pp. 548–553.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iecon.1992.254498
Esen, H., Esen, M., Ozsolak, O., 2017. Modelling and experimental performance analysis of solar-assisted ground
source heat pump system. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 29, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1056242
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008a. Modelling a ground-coupled heat pump system using adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int. J. Refrig. 31, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2007.06.007
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008b. Forecasting of a ground-coupled heat pump performance using
neural networks with statistical data weighting pre-processing. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47, 431–441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2007.03.004
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008c. Predicting performance of a ground-source heat pump system
using fuzzy weighted pre-processing-based ANFIS. Build. Environ. 43, 2178–2187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.01.002
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008d. Modeling a ground-coupled heat pump system by a support vector
machine. Renew. Energy 33, 1814–1823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.09.025
Esen, H., Inalli, M., Sengur, A., Esen, M., 2008e. Artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy assessments
for ground-coupled heat pump system. Energy Build. 40, 1074–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.10.002
Esen, H., Ozgen, F., Esen, M., Sengur, A., 2009a. Modelling of a new solar air heater through least-squares support
vector machines. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 10673–10682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.045
Esen, H., Ozgen, F., Esen, M., Sengur, A., 2009b. Artificial neural network and wavelet neural network approaches
for modelling of a solar air heater. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 11240–11248.
Fannakh, M., Ehafyani, M.L., Zouggar, S., 2018. Hardware implementation of the fuzzy logic MPPT in an Arduino
card using a Simulink support package for PV application. IET Renew. Power Gener. 13, 510–518.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5667
Farahat, M.A., Enany, M.A., Nasr, A., 2015. Assessment of maximum power point tracking techniques for
photovoltaic system applications. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 7. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4928680
Farh, H.M.H., Eltamaly, A.M., Othman, M.F., 2018. Hybrid PSO-FLC for dynamic global peak extraction of the
partially shaded photovoltaic system. PLoS One 13, e0206171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206171
Fister, I., Yang, X.-S., Fister, I., Brest, J., Fister, D., 2013. A Brief Review of Nature-Inspired Algorithms for
Optimization. arXiv Prepr. arXiv1307.4186.
Gupta, A., Chauhan, Y.K., Pachauri, R.K., 2016. A comparative investigation of maximum power point tracking
methods for solar PV system. Sol. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.001
Han, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, L., 2011. Electrical and thermal performance of silicon concentrator solar cells immersed in
dielectric liquids. Appl. Energy 88, 4481–4489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.05.037
Hart, G.W., Branz, H.M., Cox, C.H., 1984. Experimental tests of open-loop maximum-power-point tracking
techniques for photovoltaic arrays. Sol. Cells 13, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-6787(84)90008-5
High efficiency solar battery charger with embedded MPPT - SPV1040 [WWW Document], 2017. .
STMicroelectronics. URL https://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/spv1040.pdf, (accessed 5.25.19).
High Voltage Isolated Solar MPPT Developers Kit [WWW Document], n.d. . Texas Instruments. URL
http://www.ti.com/tool/TMDSHVMPPTKIT?fbclid=IwAR0LPqhMrYB4xLYhfGf38Hy-
31
Journal Pre-proof
7MRFC5eEuOZtt5EYvrNu8DoI6zgTLFrplYI (accessed 5.25.19).

Hohm, D.P., Ropp, M.E., 2003. Comparative study of maximum power point tracking algorithms. Prog.
Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 11, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.459
Hu, Y., Liu, K., Zhang, X., Su, L., Ngai, E.W.T., Liu, M., 2015. Application of evolutionary computation for rule
discovery in stock algorithmic trading: A literature review. Appl. Soft Comput. J.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.07.008
Huang, Y.P., Hsu, S.Y., 2016. A performance evaluation model of a high concentration photovoltaic module with a
fractional open circuit voltage-based maximum power point tracking algorithm. Comput. Electr. Eng. 51, 331–
342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.01.009
Husain, M.A., Tariq, A., Hameed, S., Arif, M.S. Bin, Jain, A., 2017. Comparative assessment of maximum power
point tracking procedures for photovoltaic systems. Green Energy Environ.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gee.2016.11.001
Huusari, J., Suntio, T., 2013. Origin of cross-coupling effects in distributed DC-DC converters in photovoltaic
applications. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 28, 4625–4635. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2235860
Hyeong-Ju Noh, Dong-Yun Lee, Dong-Seok Hyun, 2002. An improved MPPT converter with current compensation
method for small scaled PV-applications, in: IEEE 2002 28th Annual Conference of the Industrial Electronics
Society. IECON 02. IEEE, pp. 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2002.1185428
Ishaque, K., 2012. Deterministic Particle Swarm Optimization Method for Maximum Power Point Tracking of
Photovoltaic System. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., 2013. A review of maximum power point tracking techniques of PV system for uniform
insolation and partial shading condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Amjad, M., Mekhilef, S., 2012. An improved particle swarm optimization (PSO)-based
MPPT for PV with reduced steady-state oscillation. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 27, 3627–3638.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2185713
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Lauss, G., 2014. The performance of perturb and observe and incremental conductance
maximum power point tracking method under dynamic weather conditions. Appl. Energy 119, 228–236.
Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y., 2008. Evolutionary many-objective optimization: A short review, in: 2008
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2008. pp. 2419–2426.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2008.4631121
Kaced, K., Larbes, C., Ramzan, N., Bounabi, M., Dahmane, Z. elabadine, 2017. Bat algorithm based maximum
power point tracking for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy 158, 490–503.
Kamala Devi, V., Premkumar, K., Bisharathu Beevi, A., Ramaiyer, S., 2017. A modified Perturb & Observe MPPT
technique to tackle steady state and rapidly varying atmospheric conditions. Sol. Energy 157, 419–426.
Kamarzaman, N.A., Tan, C.W., 2014. A comprehensive review of maximum power point tracking algorithms for
photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.045
Kar, A.K., 2016. Bio inspired computing - A review of algorithms and scope of applications. Expert Syst. Appl.
Khan, J., Arsalan, M.H., 2016. Solar power technologies for sustainable electricity generation - A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.135
Killi, M., Samanta, S., 2015. Modified perturb and observe MPPT algorithm for drift avoidance in photovoltaic
systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62, 5549–5559. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2407854
Kobayashi, K., Matsuo, H., Sekine, Y., 2004. A novel optimum operating point tracker of the solar cell power supply
system, in: PESC Record - IEEE Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference. pp. 2147–2151.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PESC.2004.1355451
Kumar, N., Hussain, I., Singh, B., Panigrahi, B.K., 2018. Framework of Maximum Power Extraction from Solar PV
Panel Using Self Predictive Perturb and Observe Algorithm. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 9, 895–903.
Kuznetsov, I.A., Greenfield, M.J., Mehta, Y.U., Merchan-Merchan, W., Salkar, G., Saveliev, A. V., 2011. Increasing
the solar cell power output by coating with transition metal-oxide nanorods. Appl. Energy 88, 4218–4221.
32
Journal Pre-proof
Li, M., Ji, X., Li, G., Wei, S., Li, Y.F., Shi, F., 2011. Performance study of solar cell arrays based on a Trough
Concentrating Photovoltaic/Thermal system. Appl. Energy 88, 3218–3227.
Liu, H.D., Lin, C.H., Pai, K.J., Lin, Y.L., 2018. A novel photovoltaic system control strategies for improving hill
climbing algorithm efficiencies in consideration of radian and load effect. Energy Convers. Manag. 165, 815–
826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.03.081
Liu, Y.H., Huang, S.C., Huang, J.W., Liang, W.C., 2012. A particle swarm optimization-based maximum power
point tracking algorithm for PV systems operating under partially shaded conditions. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 27, 1027–1035. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2012.2219533
Lyden, S., Haque, M.E., 2015. Maximum Power Point Tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems: A
comprehensive review and comparative analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Mohanty, P., Bhuvaneswari, G., Balasubramanian, R., Dhaliwal, N.K., 2014. MATLAB based modeling to study the
performance of different MPPT techniques used for solar PV system under various operating conditions.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.001
Mohanty, S., Subudhi, B., Ray, P.K., 2016. A new MPPT design using grey Wolf optimization technique for
photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 7, 181–188.
Mohapatra, A., Nayak, B., Das, P., Mohanty, K.B., 2017. A review on MPPT techniques of PV system under partial
shading condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.083
Motahhir, S., Aoune, A., El Ghzizal, A., Sebti, S., Derouich, A., 2017a. Comparison between Kalman filter and
incremental conductance algorithm for optimizing photovoltaic energy. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-017-0046-8
Motahhir, S., Chalh, A., El Ghzizal, A., Derouich, A., 2018a. Development of a low-cost PV system using an
improved INC algorithm and a PV panel Proteus model. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 355–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.246
Motahhir, S., El Ghzizal, A., Sebti, S., Derouich, A., 2017b. MIL and SIL and PIL tests for MPPT algorithm. Cogent
Eng. 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2017.1378475
Motahhir, S., El Hammoumi, A., El Ghzizal, A., 2018b. Photovoltaic system with quantitative comparative between
an improved MPPT and existing INC and P&O methods under fast varying of solar irradiation. Energy Reports
4, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.04.003
Mutoh, N., Matuo, T., Okada, K., Sakai, M., 2002. Prediction-data-based maximum-power-point-tracking method
for photovoltaic power generation systems, in: 2002 IEEE 33rd Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists
Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37289). IEEE, pp. 1489–1494.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PSEC.2002.1022386
Noguchi, T., Togashi, S., Nakamoto, R., 2001. Short-Current-Pulse Based Adaptive Maximum-Power-Point
Tracking for Photovoltaic Power Generation System. IEEJ Trans. Ind. Appl. 121, 78–83.
https://doi.org/10.1541/ieejias.121.78
Obeidi, T., Larbes, C., Ilinca, A., Filiz, G., & Kebir, T., 2018. Fuzzy Logic-based Maximum Power Point Tracking
for a Solar Electric Vehicle. Acta Polytech. Hungarica 15.
Padmanaban, S., Priyadarshi, N., Bhaskar, M.S., Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Hossain, E., 2019.
A Hybrid ANFIS-ABC Based MPPT Controller for PV System with Anti-Islanding Grid Protection:
Experimental Realization. IEEE Access 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2931547
Patterson, D.J., 1990. Electrical system design for a solar powered vehicle, in: 21st Annual IEEE Conference on
Power Electronics Specialists. IEEE, pp. 618–622. https://doi.org/10.1109/PESC.1990.131245
Peng, L., Jun, Z., Xiaozhou, Y., 2018. Design and On-Orbit Verification of EPS for the World’s First 12U Polarized
Light Detection CubeSat. Int. J. Aeronaut. Sp. Sci. 19, 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-018-0059-6
Peng, Y.F., Wai, R.J., Lin, C.M., 2004. Implementation of LLCC-Resonant Driving Circuit and Adaptive CMAC
Neural Network Control for Linear Piezoelectric Ceramic Motor. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 51, 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2003.822078
Prasad, C.H., Subbaramaiah, K., Sujatha, P., 2019. Cost–benefit analysis for optimal DG placement in distribution
systems by using elephant herding optimization algorithm. Renewables Wind. Water, Sol. 6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-019-0056-9
Rajput, P., Shyam, Tomar, V., Tiwari, G.N., Sastry, O.S., Bhatti, T.S., 2018. A thermal model for N series connected
33
Journal Pre-proof
glass/cell/polymer sheet and glass/cell/glass crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules with hot solar cells
connected in series and its thermal losses in real outdoor condition. Renew. Energy 126, 370–386.
Rekaby, A., 2013. Directed Artificial Bat Algorithm (DABA) - A new bio-inspired algorithm, in: Proceedings of the
2013 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, ICACCI 2013.
pp. 1241–1246. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2013.6637355
Reza Reisi, A., Hassan Moradi, M., Jamasb, S., 2013. Classification and comparison of maximum power point
tracking techniques for photovoltaic system: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Rizzo, S.A., Scelba, G., 2015. ANN based MPPT method for rapidly variable shading conditions. Appl. Energy 145,
124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.077
Rocha, R., Rodrigues, L., 2016. Photovoltaic panels as attitude sensors for artificial satellites. IEEE Aerosp.
Electron. Syst. Mag. 31, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/MAES.2016.150186
Román, E., Alonso, R., Ibañez, P., Elorduizapatarietxe, S., Goitia, D., 2006. Intelligent PV module for grid-
connected PV systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 53, 1066–1073. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2006.878327
Sahina, M.E., Okumusb, H.I., 2013. Fuzzy Logic Controlled Parallel Connected Synchronous Buck DC-DC
Converter for Water Electrolysis. IETE J. Res. 59, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.4103/03772063.2013.10876506
Saravanan, S., Ramesh Babu, N., 2016. Maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic system - A
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.105
Seng, L.Y., Lalchand, G., Sow Lin, G.M., 2008. Economical, environmental and technical analysis of building
integrated photovoltaic systems in Malaysia. Energy Policy 36, 2130–2142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.02.016
Sengupta, S., Basak, S., Peters, R., 2018. Particle Swarm Optimization: A Survey of Historical and Recent
Developments with Hybridization Perspectives. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr. 1, 157–191.
https://doi.org/10.3390/make1010010
Shahid, H., Kamran, M., Mehmood, Z., Saleem, M.Y., Mudassar, M., Haider, K., 2018. Implementation of the novel
temperature controller and incremental conductance MPPT algorithm for indoor photovoltaic system. Sol.
Energy 163, 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.02.018
Sher, H.A., Murtaza, A.F., Noman, A., Addoweesh, K.E., Al-Haddad, K., Chiaberge, M., 2015. A New Sensorless
Hybrid MPPT Algorithm Based on Fractional Short-Circuit Current Measurement and P&O MPPT. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 6, 1426–1434. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2438781
Shimizu, T., Hirakata, M., Kamezawa, T., Watanabe, H., 2001. Generation control circuit for photovoltaic modules.
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 16, 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/63.923760
Shmilovitz, D., 2005. On the control of photovoltaic maximum power point tracker via output parameters. IEE Proc.
Electr. Power Appl. 152, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-epa:20040978
Shmilovitz, D., Levron, Y., 2012. Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking in Photovoltaic Systems - Emerging
Architectures and Control Methods. Autom. ‒ J. Control. Meas. Electron. Comput. Commun. 53.
https://doi.org/10.7305/automatika.53-2.185
Solarex MSX60 and MSX64 photovoltaic panel-datasheet [WWW Document], 1998. . Solarex. URL
https://www.solarelectricsupply.com/media/custom/upload/Solarex-MSX64.pdf (accessed 8.7.19).
Solodovnik, E. V., Liu, S., Dougal, R.A., 2004. Power controller design for maximum power tracking in solar
installations. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 19, 1295–1304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2004.833457
Sridhar, R., Jeevananthan, S., Dash, S.S., Vishnuram, P., 2017. A new maximum power tracking in PV system
during partially shaded conditions based on shuffled frog leap algorithm. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 29, 481–
493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2016.1186750
Subudhi, B., Pradhan, R., 2013. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2202294
Sundareswaran, K., Vigneshkumar, V., Sankar, P., Simon, S.P., Srinivasa Rao Nayak, P., Palani, S., 2016.
Development of an Improved P&O Algorithm Assisted Through a Colony of Foraging Ants for MPPT in PV
System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 12, 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2015.2502428
Syafaruddin, Karatepe, E., Hiyama, T., 2009. Polar coordinated fuzzy controller based real-time maximum-power
point control of photovoltaic system. Renew. Energy 34, 2597–2606.
Takashima, T., Tanaka, T., Amano, M., Ando, Y., 2000. Maximum output control of photovoltaic (PV) array, in:
34
Journal Pre-proof
Collection of Technical Papers. 35th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit
(IECEC) (Cat. No.00CH37022). American Inst. Aeronaut. & Astronautics, pp. 380–383.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IECEC.2000.870713
Tereshko, V., 2000. Reaction-Diffusion Model of a Honeybee Colony’s Foraging Behaviour, in: In International
Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. pp. 807–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_79
Tereshko, V., Loengarov, A., 2005. Collective Decision-Making in Honey Bee Foraging Dynamics. Comput. Inf.
Syst. 9, 1.
Teshome, D.F., Lee, C.H., Lin, Y.W., Lian, K.L., 2017. A modified firefly algorithm for photovoltaic maximum
power point tracking control under partial shading. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 5, 661–671.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858
Titri, S., Larbes, C., Toumi, K.Y., Benatchba, K., 2017. A new MPPT controller based on the Ant colony
optimization algorithm for Photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 58,
465–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.017
Ulrich, S., Veilleux, J.F., Landry Corbin, F., 2009. Power system design of ESMO. Acta Astronaut. 64, 244–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.09.002
Verma, D., Nema, S., Shandilya, A.M., Dash, S.K., 2016. Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques:
Recapitulation in solar photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Wasynczuk, O., 1983. Dynamic behavior of a class of photovoltaic power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst.
PAS-102, 3031–3037. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1983.318109
Yang, B., Zhong, L., Zhang, X., Shu, H., Yu, T., Li, H., Jiang, L., Sun, L., 2019. Novel bio-inspired memetic salp
swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV systems considering partial shading condition. J. Clean.
Yang, X.S., 2010. A new metaheuristic Bat-inspired Algorithm, in: Studies in Computational Intelligence. pp. 65–74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6
Ye, L.C., Rodrigues, J.F.D., Lin, H.X., 2017. Analysis of feed-in tariff policies for solar photovoltaic in China 2011–
2016. Appl. Energy 203, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.037
Youssef, A., Telbany, M. El, Zekry, A., 2018. Reconfigurable generic FPGA implementation of fuzzy logic
controller for MPPT of PV systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.093
Yuvarajan, S., Shanguang Xu, 2003. Photo-voltaic power converter with a simple maximum-power-point-tracker, in:
Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 2003. ISCAS ’03. IEEE, pp. III-
399-III–402. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2003.1205040
35
Journal Pre-proof
Declaration of interests
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
Journal Pre-proof
Highlights
This work presents:
A review on conventional and advanced MPPT algorithms.
A new classifications of MPPT algorithms have been added.
The suitable embedded board to implement each method.

Artigo de Revisão Mppts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artigo de Revisão Mppts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Saad Motahhir, Aboubakr El Hammoumi, Abdelaziz El Ghzizal

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 21 August 2019

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

The Most Used MPPT Algorithms: Review

Corresponding author: Saad Motahhir (e-mail: saad.motahhir@usmba.ac.ma).

II. DESCRIPTION OF MPPT BASED PV SYSTEM FOR DC-DC APPLICATION

Figure 1. Current or voltage control based MPPT method.

B. Duty Cycle Control Based MPPT Method

Figure 2. Duty cycle control based MPPT method.

III. OVERVIEW OF THE VARIOUS MPPT TECHNIQUES

Figure 3. Flowchart of P&O method.

1.2 VARIABLE STEP SIZE P&O

Figure 5. Basic Flowchart of HC method.

3) INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE

Equation (1) can be written as:

Figure 6. P-V curves for the basis of INC algorithm.

Figure 7. The flow chart of INC method.

Figure 9. Basic flowchart of INC based direct duty cycle approach.

B. Group 2: MPPT Based on PV Panel and Power Converter Characteristics

Figure 11. The principal scheme of the FSCC method.

2) FRACTIONAL OPEN-CIRCUIT VOLTAGE

Vmp  K v  Voc (11)

Figure 13. The principal scheme of the FOCV method.

3) PILOT CELL

C. Group 3: Soft Computing Approach

K k  Pk ( Pk  R ) 1 (14)

Figure 14. Block diagram of Fuzzy logic control (FLC).

Figure 15. Fuzzy membership functions used in the fuzzification process.

2.2 RULES INFERENCES AND RULE TABLE

Table 1. Fuzzy rule table

P(k )  P(k  1) (19)

Figure 16. A typical three-layer feed-forward ANN structure.

The mapping error can be written as:

xik 1  xik  vik 1 (27)

Figure 17. The main operation of PSO algorithm.

4.2 ANT COLONY OPTIMIZATION (ACO)

Figure 18. ACO to track the GMPP under shading.

4.3 ARTIFICIAL BEE COLONY OPTIMIZATION (ABC)

   min  rand [0,1]( min   max ) (29)

 new     (   old ) (30)

Principle of the algorithm:

𝑓𝑖 = 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝑓𝑚𝑎𝑥 ― 𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛).𝛽 (31)

𝑣𝑡𝑖 + 1 = 𝑣𝑡𝑖 +(𝑥𝑡𝑖 ― 𝑥 ∗ ).𝑓𝑖 (32)

𝑥𝑡𝑖 + 1 = 𝑥𝑡𝑖 + 𝑣𝑡𝑖 + 1 (33)

Where 𝛽 ∈ [0,1] is a random vector drawn from a uniform distribution.

Ati + 1 = αAti (34)

rti + 1 = r0i(1 ― e ―γt) (35)

𝛼 and 𝛾 are two constants.

𝑥𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑥𝑜𝑙𝑑 + 𝜀𝐴𝑡 (36)

Figure 19. Flowchart of Bat algorithm.

Figure 20. Bat algorithm to track the GMPP under PSC.

D. Distributed MPPT Approach

Table 2. Review of the most used MPPT algorithms.

V. NEW CLASSIFICATION OF THE MPPT METHODS

MPPT algorithms Embedded target

Perturb &Observe/ Hill Arduino Nano/Uno or STM32F103 Blue

Figure 22. Low-cost embedded boards.

Arduino MKR VIDOR4000 specification [WWW Document], n.d. URL https://store.arduino.cc/arduino-vidor-4000

neuro-fuzzy inference systems. Int. J. Refrig. 31, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2007.06.007

Photovoltaic System. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.105