Maximum Power Point Considerations in MicroScale Solar Energy Harvesting Systems

Chao Lu, Vijay Raghunathan, and Kaushik Roy

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA E-mail: {lu43, vr, kaushik}@purdue.edu Abstract Maximum power point (MPP) tracking is a technique to maximize the amount of power harvested from energy transducers such as solar cells. MPP tracking presents new design challenges when used in the context of micro-scale energy harvesting systems, where the area dedicated to solar cells is small (in the range of sub or a few cm2) and hence, the power output is in the range of a few mW. This paper provides an overview of several low-overhead MPP tracking approaches that are attractive for micro-scale solar energy harvesting. These include: design-time component matching method, fractional open-circuit voltage or fractional short-circuit current method, and variants of the generic hill-climbing approach. We also illustrate using a simple case study, how MPP from a full-system perspective may differ from the MPP of the photovoltaic module itself in micro-scale harvesting systems. I. INTRODUCTION Rapid advances in computing, communication, and integration has resulted in the emergence of a new class of ultra-low power systems (examples of such systems include wearable/implantable biomedical devices [1], wireless sensor nodes [2], etc.). These systems are often required to operate for several months to years without the need of battery replacement, because frequent battery replacement may be infeasible (e.g., for biomedical implants) or prohibitively expensive (e.g., in a large sensor network). As a result, a key challenge in these systems is to efficiently provide the required power for long-lived, maintenance-free operation. Environmental energy harvesting is an attractive option to alleviate the power supply challenge in such systems [3]-[5]. Examples of ambient energy sources are light, thermal, vibration, radio frequency waves, etc. Among these, solar energy harvesting through photovoltaic conversion is practical and efficient due to its high power density and ubiquitous nature. Previous research on photovoltaic (PV) modules has revealed the existence of a maximum power point (MPP) of operation, at which the output power of a PV module is maximized. The MPP for a PV module is not fixed but varies with incident light conditions. MPP tracking schemes ensure that maximum power is extracted from a PV module at any given time by dynamically tracking the MPP as incident light conditions change and ensuring that the PV module always operates at its MPP. MPP tracking has been investigated for large solar harvesting systems [8]. However, when the PV module size 2 scales down to a few cm , the harvested power drastically drops into the range of mW. This severely power constrained regime presents new design challenges for MPP tracking schemes. This paper provides an overview of low-overhead MPP tracking schemes that are well suited for micro-scale solar energy harvesting systems. Fig. 1 shows the generic block diagram of a micro-scale solar energy harvesting system. It consists of four blocks: the PV module, the interface circuit, the energy buffer, and the electronic system. The PV module converts light energy into electrical energy, which is stored in the energy buffer (a rechargeable battery or a super capacitor) for powering the electronic system (e.g., sensor node or biomedical implant). The interface circuit ensures that the PV module operates at its MPP and plays a crucial role in maximizing overall system efficiency. The goal of the interface circuit is to extract as much power (PPH) as possible from the PV module and pass on as much of it as possible (PEB) to the output.

Figure 1. A generic system diagram for miniature solar energy harvesting

II. PV MODULE CHARACTERISTICS AND MPP Fig. 2 shows the equivalent electrical circuit model of a miniature PV module [6], which is composed mainly of a current source and a forward biased diode. IPH,SC is the generated photocurrent by photovoltaic conversion, RS is the parasitic series resistance, and RP is the equivalent shunt resistance. IPH and VPH are the output current and terminal voltage of the PV module, respectively.

Figure 2. The electrical model of a PV module

Based on the circuit shown in Fig. 2, the output current (IPH) and power (PPH) of a PV module can be expressed as:
q (VPH + I PH RS ) VPH + I PH RS 1 I PH = I PH , SC I SAT e AKT RP PPH = I PH VPH (1)

978-1-4244-5309-2/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

273

Here, ISAT is the reverse saturation current, q is the electron charge, A is a dimensional factor, K is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the operating temperature. We conducted experiments using a commercial PV module (Model #1-100, SolarWorld Inc. [7]) to validate this model. The PV module was characterized under weak light (indoor) conditions. The PV module was illuminated using a 40-Watt light bulb and the distance between them was adjusted to emulate changing light conditions. Various resistive loads were connected to the PV module and the output voltage and current were measured. Fig. 3 plots the I-V curve of the PV module obtained using equation (1) and measured experimentally. We observe that the measured IPH values fit well with the values predicted by the electrical model.
4500 4000 PV Cell Output Current (uA) 1548 Lux Measurement Simulation

Figure 4. Output power vs. PV terminal voltage

3000

2000

784 Lux

1000

504 Lux

0 0

100 200 300 PV Cell Output Voltage (mV)

400

Figure 3. Measured PV output I-V characteristics

Fig. 4 plots the output power (PPH) of the PV module as a function of its terminal voltage. As is evident from the figure, for a given light irradiance, there exists an optimal output voltage (VMPP) for the PV module at which PPH is maximized (e.g., 0.29V for 784LUX). This point on the I-V curve is the MPP. Note that the MPP changes significantly as the light intensity changes. The goal of MPP tracking schemes is to ensure that the PV module operates at its MPP at any given time. It can also be seen in Fig. 4 that the harvested power is limited (in the range of several hundred W to 1.1mW). Obviously, we would like as much of this power as possible to be available to the load. Therefore, the power budget for an MPP tracking scheme in such a system is severely constrained (e.g., at most a few W), which requires the MPP tracking sub-system to be very carefully designed.
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 784LUX Measurement Simulation 1548LUX

PV Cell Output Power (uW)

III. ULTRA-LOW POWER MPP TRACKING APPROACHES In this section, we provide an overview of several existing MPP tracking approaches that are suitable for micro-scale solar energy harvesting. As we will see below, the choice of which specific approach to use depends on factors such as the voltage range that the system operates over, cost constraints, whether the system is on-chip or off-chip, etc. A. Design Time Component Matching (DTCM) DTCM is a very simple approach and is adopted in the Heliomote solar harvesting wireless sensor node [5]. In this approach, the output of the PV module is directly connected to a rechargeable battery (with appropriate reverse current protection). Therefore, the battery terminal voltage dictates the operating point of the PV module. Near-MPP operation is achieved through careful selection of the specific PV module and battery used. For example, the Heliomote used two NiMH batteries in series, which resulted in a terminal voltage of around 2.8V when charged. The solar panel used (SolarWorld 4-4.0-100) had an MPP that varied between 2.5-3V. Therefore, the Heliomote always operated within a few tenths of a Volt of its MPP (although not exactly at the MPP). Although the approximate nature of this method results in a sub-optimal operating point, there is zero tracking overhead. This enables this scheme to perform almost as well as a more precise MPP tracking method that has additional power overhead in the tracking circuitry. Clearly, this method is not applicable if other system constraints (e.g., size) mandate that only single junction PV module can be used, where the PV terminal voltage is lower (e.g., 0.5V) than the minimum operating voltage of a battery (e.g., 1V). B. Fractional Open Circuit Voltage (FOC) This MPP tracking method originated from empirical data analysis. Experimental measurements on PV modules have found an approximately linear relationship between the PV module MPP voltage (VMPP) and its open circuit voltage (VPH, OC), as expressed in equation (2): VMPP = VPH ,OC (2) Here, is a parameter that depends on the specific PV module being used. Experiments were conducted for the SolarWorld 1.0-100 PV cell to characterize the relationship between VMPP and VPH,OC. The results are plotted in Fig. 5. Three quarters of VPH,OC is also calculated and plotted for comparison. As can be seen in the figure, a ratio of 0.75 between VMPP and VPH,OC is a good approximation for this particular PV module.
Optimal voltage of PV cell (mV) 350 300 250 200 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 Open circuit voltage of PV cell (mV) Real Measurement Three Quarters of Open Circuit Voltage

504LUX

100 200 300 PV Cell Output Voltage (mV)

400

274

Figure 5. Measured MPP voltages versus three quarters of VPH, OC

Based on the above linear relationship, a simple method to estimate VMPP at runtime is to momentarily disconnect the PV module from the load (causing an open circuit for the PV module) and sense VPH,OC, from which VMPP can be computed. The PV module is made to operate at VMPP by the interface circuit connected to it, which presents the appropriate load impedance to the PV module. This method is suitable for micro-scale energy harvesting systems because it involves simple open-loop control and does not require any intensive computations. The drawback of this approach is that the PV module is periodically disconnected from the load, which might cause temporary power loss to the load. Further, there is a hardware cost (switches, control generation) involved in time multiplexing between normal operation and the opencircuit mode of operation. To address these disadvantages, an improved design was presented in [9], where an additional tiny PV cell is used in the system as a pilot cell. The open-circuit voltage of the pilot cell is used in place of the open-circuit voltage of the main PV module. This eliminates the necessity for doing any open circuit voltage sensing on the main PV module. However, with this approach, the pilot cell should be carefully chosen to ensure that is close to that of the main PV module [8]. C. Fractional Short Circuit Current (FSC) This approach is similar to the FOC method, but is based on the empirically observed relationship between IMPP and the short-circuit current (IPH,SC) of a PV module [8]. It has been observed that IMPP is approximately linearly related to IPH,SC, as expressed in the equation (3): I MPP = I PH , SC (3) Here, is a parameter that depends on the specific PV module being used. Similar to the FOC method, measuring IPH,SC involves time multiplexing between the normal energy harvesting mode of operation and short circuit current sensing mode. However, the FOC method is usually preferred over this approach because the latter involves creating a short circuit in the system. D. Hill-Climbing / Perturb and Observe (P&O) Hill-climbing and Perturb and Observe (P&O) methods essentially have the same operating principle. Both methods adopt an iterative trial and error approach to track the MPP. During normal system operation, an MPP tracking procedure is periodically initiated. This procedure involves applying a small perturbation to the interface circuit; either by varying the duty cycle of a boost/buck converter [11] or the switching frequency of a charge pump [10]. This perturbation results in a small change in the operating point of the PV module, and hence, its output power. Assume, for illustration, that the perturbation results in an increase in the terminal voltage of the PV module. The output power is recorded and compared to the power output before the perturbation. If the perturbation results in a power increase, another perturbation in the same direction (that results in a further increase in

terminal voltage) is performed. If the perturbation results in a power decrease, a perturbation in the opposite direction (that results in a decrease in terminal voltage) is performed. The process is continuously repeated until the MPP is reached. In steady state, the system oscillates around the MPP. There is a trade-off in the perturbation step size. A large step size corresponds to a rapid response to the environmental light variation and faster convergence, but oscillates with a large swing near the MPP. A small step size can minimize the oscillation swing, but slow down the tracking speed. The iterative control procedure is usually implemented in software running on a microcontroller (MCU) [11]. To decrease power overhead, the authors of [10] implement the P&O algorithm using a dedicated decision generation circuit. The authors also mention that maximization of PV module output power does not guarantee maximization of the output power to load (PEB). This is because the loss in the interface circuitry may depend on the power output. Hence, the hill-climbing algorithm is applied to examine the power output of the interface circuit, instead of power output of the PV module itself. IV. SYSTEM-LEVEL CONSIDERATOINS This section discusses the system-level considerations that arise while designing ultra-low power MPP tracking schemes. A. Implementation and Cost The systems targeted for micro-scale energy harvesting usually impose stringent constraints on cost, weight, lifetime and size/volume. Hence, it is desirable to avoid the use of current or voltage sensors, time multiplexing hardware and power-hungry MCUs while doing MPP tracking. Developing new MPP tracking schemes that need very limited hardware and hence incur very little power overhead will be an area of active research in the future. B. System MPP vs. PV module MPP In large photovoltaic systems (such as large PV panels), the total amount of power available from the panels dwarfs the losses in the interface circuitry. Thus, operating at the PV modules MPP is also ideal from a full-system perspective. However, in micro-scale systems, the power loss in the interface circuit cannot be ignored in comparison with the generated power. Therefore, the most efficient point of operation from a full-system perspective may be different from the PV modules MPP. Therefore, the MPP tracking should ensure that the PV module operates at the full-system MPP instead of the MPP of the PV module alone. Tracking the PV modules MPP may result in sub-optimal operation and in cases, may even cause the energy harvesting system to malfunction, as discussed next. V. AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY This section presents a simple case study to illustrate the observation that the full-system MPP often differs from the energy transducers MPP. Fig. 6 shows the block diagram of a simple micro-scale energy harvesting system that we analyze. We assume that the MPP tracking scheme and the interface circuitry have a fixed power overhead of Pover.

275

In this design, the energy transducer is composed of four PV modules (Model #1-100, Solar World Inc.) connected in series. Based on the measurement results in Section II, the open circuit voltage of this PV array varies from 1.2V (for 504LUX) to 1.64V (for 1548LUX). Assume that a one-stage charge pump [10] [12] (i.e., voltage doubler) is used for voltage conversion and energy transfer. The harvested energy is used to charge a rechargeable battery (e.g., two NiMH batteries in series), whose voltage (VEB) may vary from 2.1V to 2.8V. Note that the normal operation of one stage charge pump requires VPH to be at least half of VEB; otherwise, no energy flows into the energy buffer.

From the above case study, it is also clear that applying the fractional open circuit voltage approach to track the PV modules MPP may not work in all cases. For example, when the light intensity is 504LUX, the PV modules MPP voltage (0.9V) falls in the infeasible zone of operation, leading to system malfunction. VI. CONCLUSTION MPP tracking plays an important role in increasing the overall efficiency of all energy harvesting systems. However, MPP tracking presents new design challenges in the context of micro-scale harvesting systems. This paper presented an overview of several MPP tracking methods that are suitable for such ultra-low power solar energy harvesting systems. System-level design considerations were also discussed. REFERENCES
[1]

Figure 6.

One example of miniature low power energy harvesting systems

[2]

Assume the battery voltage is 2.2V. To ensure that the charge pump works normally, VPH must be no lower than 1.1V. Fig. 7 shows the operation of the PV module for a light intensity of 504LUX. The dashed line indicates the zone of infeasible operation. Even though the PV modules MPP voltage is 0.9V, the interface systems MPP voltage is 1.1V due to the additional constraint imposed by the charge pump. Fig. 8 shows the operation of the PV array when the light intensity is 1548LUX. In this case, the PV modules MPP voltage (1.23V) is higher than the minimum input voltage VMIN. Hence, it is clear that the energy transducers MPP is also the systems MPP, which is 1.23V.

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8]

[9] Figure 7. System operation for a light intensity of 504LUX

[10]

[11]

[12] Figure 8. System operation for a light intensity of 1548LUX

R. F. Yazicioglu, T. Torfs, et al., Ultra-low-power biopotential interfaces and their applications in wearable and implantable systems, Microelectronics Journal, vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 13131321, Sep, 2009. V. Raghunathan, C. Schurgers, S. Park, and M. B. Srivastava, "Energy efficient design of wireless sensor nodes", in Wireless Sensor Networks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. E. O. Torres and G. A. Rincon-Mora, Energy-harvesting system-in-package (SiP) microsystem, ASCE Journal of Energy Engineering, vol. 134, no. 4, Dec. 2008, pp. 121-129. L. Mateu and F. Moll, Review of energy harvesting techniques and applications for microelectronics, the Proceedings of the SPIE Microtechnologies for the New Millennium, pp. 359-373, 2005. V. Raghunathan, A. Kansal, J. Hsu, J. Friedman, and M. Srivastava, Design considerations for solar energy harvesting wireless embedded systems, In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pp. 457-462, Apr. 2005. S. Premrudeepreechacham and N. Patanapirom, Solar-array modeling and maximum power point tracking using neural networks, IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, June 23-26, 2003, Bologna, Italy. Solar world. Inc. (http://www.solar-world.com/) E. Esram, P. L. Chapman, Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 439-449, June, 2007 D. Brunelli, L. Benini, An efficient solar energy harvester for wireless sensor nodes, in Proceedings of the conference on Design, automation and test in Europe, pp. 104-109, 2008 H. Shao, C. Y. Tsui and W. H. Ki, The design of a micro power management system for applications using photovoltaic cells with the maximum output power control, IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, vol. 17, pp. 1138-1142, Aug, 2009. C. Park and P. H. Chou, AmbiMax: Efficient, autonomous energy harvesting platform for multiple-supply wireless sensor nodes, University of California, Irvine, Tech. Rep., 2005. F. Su, W. H. Ki and C. Y. Tsui, Gate control strategies for high efficiency charge pumps, IEEE Int'l Symp. on Circuits & Systems, pp. 1907-1910, 2005.

276