Maximum Power Point Tracking 65

96
Experimental values
* Envelope by model 6 3=5
94
* *
*2
PV Power [W]

92

90
1=7
88 *
86 4 *
84
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
PV Voltage [V]

Figure 2.20
Steady-state oscillations in a noisy environment.

with respect to the optimal three-point oscillation (1-2-3) or (2-3-4), the dif-
ference in terms of power losses is almost evident. It will be quantified in
Section 2.8.
If one of the points 2 or 3 is moved much closer to the MPP, the errors are
less significant than the power variation due to the jump from one operat-
ing point to the following one. This aspect is explained with the support of
Figure 2.21 and by considering the relative position of the operating point
with respect to the power variation.
In Figure  2.21a the power variation (ΔP) between two possible operat-
ing points across the MPP has been put into evidence. In the presence of an
uncertainty u ΔP due to the measurement process, the result can be affected
by an error higher than the nominal value, so that u ΔP > ΔP. Due to the con-
cavity of the curve at the MPP, regardless of the step amplitude, the case ΔP
≃ 0 can occur, with a consequent wrong decision of the MPPT algorithm.
Figure  2.21b shows the case of a balanced configuration, obtained by
moving forward the operating points without changing the Δx value. After
this shift, the system works correctly because it is ΔP > u ΔP for any operat-
ing condition.
Some tricks have been proposed in literature for addressing the problem
described above. In [19], a memory buffer containing the last three PV volt-
age-power couples is employed for detecting if the MPP has been reached
and if a rapid irradiation variation occurs. The importance of freezing the
value of the converter duty cycle when the MPP is reached is also put into
evidence: This allows us to draw the maximum power in steady-state con-
ditions without missing any part of it due to the oscillations around the
MPP. In [20], and in some other papers reported in the list of references cited