2236 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO.

3, MARCH 2021

A High-Performance Global Maximum Power

Point Tracker of PV System for Rapidly
Changing Partial Shading Conditions
Mostefa Kermadi , Member, IEEE, Zainal Salam , Senior Member, IEEE,
Jubaer Ahmed , Member, IEEE, and El Madjid Berkouk

Abstract—This article proposes a fast and efficient maxi-
mum power point tracker (MPPT) for photovoltaic (PV) sys-
tems under rapidly changing partial shading conditions. An
intelligent mechanism is adopted to systematically sched-
ule the search for the global maximum power point (GMPP)
on the P–V curve. As a result, the voltage track, i.e., the
path length that the operating point traverses along the
voltage axis of the curve (until it converges to GMPP), is
reduced. The search region is further minimized using a
novel skipping scheme, where the voltage section that does
not contain GMPP is discarded. The superiority of the pro-
posed scheme is evaluated against two recent algorithms,
namely, the maximum power trapezium and the flower polli-
nation MPPT. The performance is analyzed in terms of con-
vergence time, voltage track, and transient efficiency. The
MATLAB simulation is verified experimentally using a PV ar-
ray simulator, in conjunction with a buck–boost converter.
The competing MPPT algorithms are implemented using
the TMS320F240 DSP on the dSPACE DS1104 platform. The
results indicate that under the same operating and shading
conditions, the proposed scheme is the fastest and most
reliable and exhibits the highest overall transient efficiency.
Manuscript received June 17, 2019; revised September 26, 2019,
November 14, 2019, December 30, 2019, and January 22, 2020; ac-
cepted January 27, 2020. Date of publication February 17, 2020; date of
current version November 18, 2020. This work was jointly supported by
the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) Algeria under Grant PNE16-17
and the Ministry of Education (MoE) Malaysia under the Rising Star
Grant Award that was managed by the Research Management Centre
(RMC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, un-
der Vot. R.J130000.7823.4F919. (Corresponding author: Zainal Salam.)
Mostefa Kermadi is with the Power Electronics and Renewable Energy
Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia (e-mail: mostefa@
um.edu.my).
Zainal Salam is with the Faculty of Engineering School of Elec-
trical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310,
Malaysia, and also with the Centre of Electrical Energy Systems and the
Institute of Future Energy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
81310, Malaysia (e-mail: zainals@utm.my).
Jubaer Ahmed is with the Faculty of Engineering, Computing and
Science, Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, Sarawak 93350,
Malaysia (e-mail: jahmed@swinburne.edu.my).
El Madjid Berkouk is with the Laboratory of Process Control
(LCP), National Polytechnic School of Algiers [Ecole Nationale Poly-
technique of Algiers (ENP)], El Harrach 16200, Algeria (e-mail:
emberkouk@yahoo.fr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2020.2972456
0278-0046 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Index Terms—Global maximum power point (GMPP),
maximum power point tracker (MPPT), partial shading, pho-
tovoltaic (PV) system.
I. INTRODUCTION
ARTIAL shading is a condition whereby different parts of
P the photovoltaic (PV) module/array experience different
irradiance intensity. It is caused by the shadow that originates
from nearby buildings, trees, power cables, towers, chimneys,
etc. Partial shading–like effect can also be observed as a result
of module deficiency, crack, uneven aging, and soiling. More
recently, the partial shading problem has extended to appli-
cations in which the PV modules are embedded on moving
objects such as solar-powered electric vehicles, solar-powered
airplanes, drones, and wearable solar devices [1]. In this case, the
occurrence of shading is much more rapid. The maximum power
point tracker (MPPT) speed and accuracy need to be enhanced to
ensure that the energy harvest is maximized. Due to the inherent
structure of its algorithm, the conventional MPPT, namely, the
perturb and observe (P&O), hill climbing (HC), and incremental
conductance (InCond), is not able to identify the global maxi-
mum power peak (GMPP) during partial shading because the
P–V curve is characterized by multiple peaks. Quite often, it
traps at a local peak—resulting in power loss. To overcome
this problem, researchers have resorted to the metaheuristic
approach, i.e., soft computing method that optimizes the search
for the GMPP on the P–V curve. Recent metaheuristic-based
MPPT techniques include differential evolution [2], artificial
bee colony [3], particle swarm optimization [4], cuckoo search
[5], flashing fireflies [6], the Jaya algorithm [7], gray wolf
optimization [8], and flower pollination [9]. In principle, the
metaheuristic algorithm needs to fully scrutinize the search
space (i.e., the P–V curve), before it can converge to the GMPP.
The merit of each method is based on its ability to consistently
track the GMPP in the shortest time possible. Despite having the
advantage of ensured tracked GMPP, the metaheuristic process
itself is very slow due to the randomness nature of its search
procedure [4], [10], [11]. The search time can be reduced if an
appropriate voltage step size is used for the iteration; thus, there
is an inevitable tradeoff in the convergence time. Another issue
of concern is the fluctuations in power due to the movement of

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
KERMADI et al.: HIGH-PERFORMANCE GMPPT OF PV SYSTEM FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS
the operating point, which can be generally attributed to the ran-
domness nature of the exploration process. To further improve
the performance of the MPPT, the hybrid approach, i.e., the
combination between metaheuristic and conventional methods
are proposed [12]–[18]. Notwithstanding the improvement, the
tracking speed of hybrid MPPT remains comparatively slow
(compared to the conventional MPPT) due to the metaheuristic
component that is embedded in these algorithms [18].
By far, the conventional MPPT is still very popular due to
its fast convergence and ease of implementation. To improve
its tracking performance under partial shading, several mod-
ifications are made. Among the well-known algorithms are
the ones based on the 0.8 × Voc model [19]–[22]. In these
methods, the power peaks on the P–V curve are assumed to
be located at the multiples of 0.8 × Voc_mod , where Voc_mod
is the open circuit voltage of the PV module. Based on this
assumption, it is sufficient to visit the vicinity of these spe-
cific points only, while other regions on the P–V curve are
discarded. Despite its effectiveness, there are cases where the
0.8 × Voc model can fail, particularly when the shading pattern
is complex. Kermadi et al. [18] have shown that the algorithm
is not able to distinguish between the GMPP and the local
peaks if the curve exhibits more than one middle higher power
peak. Another approach to improve the conventional MPPT
is to use the “skipping” mechanism [23]–[25]. Here, certain
voltage intervals on the P–V curve are not searched because the
algorithm guarantees that the GMPP is not located within those
sections. Since the search space is reduced, the tracking speed
improves. Two recent MPPTs those are based on this approach
are maximum power trapezium (MPT) [23] and voltage window
search (VWS) [25]. The MPT algorithm is implemented with
different control structure, where it shares a common sampling
frequency with the voltage controller. During convergence, the
voltage and current samples are used to update the subsequent
voltage references. Despite the reduced convergence time, the
MPT may fail if the voltage step size is not properly chosen.
Another scheme, the search-skip-judge (SSJ) [24] utilizes the
short-circuit current values of the shaded modules in a string. It
identifies the section dividing points (SDPs), which, in turn,
determines the unnecessary voltage intervals that can be skipped.
However, the formulation of SDP values requires several
iterations—resulting in longer execution time. Furthermore, the
SSJ method suffers from slow convergence when the GMPP
located at the higher end of the P–V curve, as analyzed in [18].
Despite the progress made by the modified conventional
MPPT, there is always a need to improve the tracking speed dur-
ing partial shading. Looking into the future applications (such as
mobile PV), the next-generation MPPT is expected to be more
intelligent and is able to respond effectively under rapidly chang-
ing shading condition. Otherwise, the transient efficiency will be
deteriorated, and consequently, the valuable PV energy is lost.
Thus, this work is carried out with the objective to improve the
performance of the existing MPPT mentioned earlier [18], [23]–
[26]. An intelligent scheduling scheme (which involves the up-
ward and downward movement of the operating point) is adopted
to reduce the search effort for the GMPP. The search region
on the P–V curve is further minimized using a novel skipping
scheme that discards the voltage section that does not contain
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2237
Fig. 1. Zones and the maximum voltage and current. Zone 1: voltage
interval [0, Vmax /2]; Zone 2: voltage interval [Vmax /2, Vmax ].
the GMPP. As a result, the voltage track, i.e., the path length that
the operating point traverses along the voltage axis of the curve
(until converges to GMPP), is reduced—leading to faster con-
vergence to GMPP. The shrinking of the search area allows for
the algorithm to scrutinize the important region in the P–V curve
in more detail using an optimal voltage step. Since the proposed
method does not contain any metaheuristic element, it is free
from the fluctuation in power caused by the random numbers.
II. PROPOSED MPPT SCHEME
A. Maximum Power Triangle
In the proposed algorithm, the maximum power triangle
(MPT) [23] is adopted. The MPT concept—illustrated in
Fig. 1—is utilized to reduce the search space from its left side.
Using a large number of random irradiance and shading profiles,
the authors in [23], [25] concluded that voltage at the global peak
(VGMPP ) never exceed 0.9 × Voc . (VGMPP < 0.9 × Voc ), where
Voc is the open-circuit voltage of the string at the standard test
condition (STC). Therefore, the upper limit of the MPT is fixed
at point b, i.e., Vmax = 0.9Voc . In addition, a statistical study in
[23] revealed that for G < 1000 W/m2 , the current at the global
peak (IGMPP ) never exceeds IMPP,STC (IGMPP < IMPP,STC ). Note
that IMPP,STC is the current at the maximum power point (MPP)
during STC. Based on this information, Point c is determined.
Thus, the MPT with vertices a, b, c is constructed.
To illustrate how the search space is reduced from the left side,
Fig. 1 is considered where the algorithm is supposed initialized
at Point A. The hypotenuse of the MPT shown in Fig. 1 is labeled
as PMPT . It is a power line with a slope value equals to the MPP
current at STC, i.e., IMPP,STC . By projecting Point A (extending it
to the left of the curve) into PMPT , the value of Vmin is obtained.
Thus, Vmin is defined as the voltage at which the projected power
value at Point A (PA ) intersects with PMPT (i.e., PA = PMPT ). As
can be observed, Vmin sets the lower limit of the search space
(to the left side of Point A). Furthermore, it can be observed
that PMPT is always higher than PPV within the voltage interval
[0, Vmin ]. Since it can be guaranteed that the power value will
never exceed PA within [0, Vmin ], this voltage interval can be
exempted from being searched [23].
While scanning for the GMPP, the operating point (VPV ) can
be directed to the right side of the P–V curve using the upward
process. Alternatively, VPV can be directed to the left side, using
the downward process. Thus, the search space is divided into
2238
Fig 2. Flowchart of the main program.
equal sections, i.e., Zones 1 and 2, as shown in Fig. 1. The search
direction depends on the initial position of VPV : if it is in Zone 1,
the downward process is executed first. Upon completion, the
upward process scans the remaining of the curve. On the other
hand, if VPV is initially in Zone 2, the upward process is executed
first. Then, the remaining of the curve will be scanned by the
downward process. During the scanning, Vmin is progressively
increased and the search space is narrowed from its left side.
Furthermore, the search space is shrunk by incorporating the
skip process. It avoids the unnecessary intervals in the search
space that does not contain the GMPP. The dynamic shrinking
of the search space restricts the movement of the operating point
in the P–V curve. This, in turn, minimizes the voltage track.
An important feature is that, if the GMPP is tracked within
the zone where the operating point is initialized, there is a high
possibility that the scanning of the other zone can be avoided.
For instance, if VPV is initialized in Zone 1, and the GMPP is
in the same zone, the skip process avoids Zone 2 and quickly
detects the GMPP. On the other hand, if VPV is initialized in
Zone 1 but the GMPP is in Zone 2, the former is scanned first.
As the operating point moves from Zone 1 to Zone 2, the skip
process discards the unnecessary intervals that do not contain
the GMPP.
B. Principle of Operation
The flowchart in Fig. 2 summarizes the main program of the
proposed MPPT. It consists of three components: the standard
P&O, the global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT)
subroutine and a decision block. The P&O subroutine is not
elaborated, as it is well described in literature [27]. The decision
block comprises the partial shading detector and a fixed timer.
The detector continuously checks the partial shading occurrence
by verifying the following condition [1]:
 
 ΔP 
 
 P  > 0.1 (1)
where ΔP is the difference between the actual (Pact ) and the
previous (Ppre ) measured output power. In case if the algorithm
fails to detect the presence of partial shading, the timer is
triggered at a 15-min elapse time to avoid continuous power loss
[2]. Once (1) is satisfied, the GMPPT subroutine is activated.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 3, MARCH 2021
As mentioned, the GMPPT subroutine comprises three main
processes: the upward, the downward, and the skip. Its flowchart
is shown in Fig. 3(a). However, prior to that, the optimal value
of the global voltage step (VGSTEP ) need to be determined.
1) Selection of VGSTEP : VGSTEP is used to traverse the P–V
curve at every iteration. It is directly related to the convergence
time and accuracy. Furtado et al. [23] suggested that VGSTEP
must be less than the minimum voltage difference between two
adjacent local MPPs. Therefore, it is fixed at the minimum
MPP voltage value for a PV module (VMPP,mod ), which occurs
at 100 W/m2 and 75 °C [23]. In [25], an analytical study is
carried out to determine the minimum voltage between two
adjacent MPPs using the breakdown voltage of the solar cells
parameter (VocP ). The value of VocP is obtained by dividing
the rated open-circuit voltage of a module by the number of
bypass diodes connected to it. The statistical study revealed that
the minimum voltage difference between two adjacent MPPs is
confined within [0.5VocP , VocP ]. Hence, VGSTEP may be selected
in this range—taking into account the tradeoff between the
tracking efficiency and the convergence speed. Based on this
finding, VGSTEP is chosen conservatively at 0.5VocP to guarantee
that the GMPP will never be missed. In the case for the MSX60
module (used in this work), since VocP = 10.55 V, VGSTEP is set
to 5.27 V.
2) Upward Process: The flowchart of the upward process
is shown in Fig. 3(b). The P–V curve is scanned toward Vmax by
incrementing VGSTEP . The upward process is stopped if VPV >
Vmax . When a new measured power value is found to be superior
to the stored value of PGMPP , its value is updated; and Vmin is
updated using the following expression:
PGMPP
Vmin = . (2)
IMPP,STC
Furthermore, the skip process, which will be detailed later, is
called for possible shrinking in the search space. The upward
process is stopped if the upper bound of the skipped voltage
interval (Vskip ) is higher than Vmax .
3) Downward Process: The flowchart is shown in Fig. 3(c).
VPV is decremented by VGSTEP . Similarly, as in the upward
process, Vmin is increased using (2). The downward process
is stopped once VPV < Vmin .
4) Skip Process: The skip process discards the unnecessary
voltage intervals, i.e., the ones that do not contain the GMPP.
Although it is inspired by Wang et al. [24], it is improved
by introducing a scheme to accelerate the SDP tracking. The
flowchart for the skip process is illustrated in Fig. 3(d). The
key is to identify the SDP rapidly. Recall that SDP is the local
minimum located at the right side of the power peak. Using the
power value at this point (PGMPP ) and the current at SDP (ISDP ),
Vskip can be deduced as
PGMPP
Vskip = . (3)
ISDP
The improved scheme is described as follows. Starting from
VGMPP , the operating point is initially perturbed forward by
VGSTEP . After the perturbation using VGSTEP , another small per-
turbation is introduced by the P&O voltage step (ΦV ). The
purpose is to detect the slope of the P–V curve at this point
KERMADI et al.: HIGH-PERFORMANCE GMPPT OF PV SYSTEM FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS 2239

Fig. 3. (a) GMPPT subroutine. (b) Upward process. (c) Downward process. (d) Skip process.

Fig. 4. SDP identification after one SDP test. Fig. 5. SDP identification after two SDP tests.

(either positive or negative). The two points considered for the
test are
V1 = VGMPP + VGSTEP
V2 = V1 + ΦV .
Their corresponding power values, i.e., P1 and P2 are used to
detect the slope at Point 2. If P2 > P1 , the slope is positive, which
means that Point 2 is located on the right side of the SDP. Since
the largest voltage separation between ISDP and the measured I2
is always lower than VGSTEP , I2 can approximately considered
to be equal to ISDP , i.e., ISDP ≈ I2 . Hence, the voltage interval
[V2 , Vskip ] can be skipped because there is no peak higher than
the recorded PGMPP [24]. On the other hand, if P2 < P1 , i.e.,
the slope is negative; another test is needed. The operating point
is perturbed again by VGSTEP and ΦV , respectively. This test is
repeated until a positive slope is detected.
To clarify the improved SDP mechanism, two examples are
presented. For the shading pattern in Fig. 4, two points, namely,
a1 and a2 , are checked. Since Pa2 > Pa1 , a positive slope is
detected; thus, Ia2 is assumed to be ISDP and Vskip is calculated
using (3). Correspondingly, the voltage interval [Va2 , Vskip ] is
skipped.
In the case of Fig. 5, Pa2 < Pa1 , which means that a negative
slope is detected. Therefore, another SDP test is needed using
the next two consecutive points, i.e., Points b1 and b2 . Since
(4)
Pb2 > Pb1 , Ib2 is assumed to be ISDP . Thus, the interval [Vb2 ,
(5) Vskip ] is skipped.
C. Illustrative Example
1) Operating Point Initialized in Zone 1: This scenario is
shown in Fig. 6. Since the operating point (VA ) is initialized in
Zone 1, the downward process is executed. Using the MPT and
the power at Point A (PA ), Vmin is updated at Point 1. In the next
iteration, VPV is decremented by VGSTEP and Point B is checked.
Since PB > PA , it follows that PGMPP = PB .
Correspondingly, Vmin is updated to be at Point 2. The
downward process continues until it reaches Point C. Since
VC < Vmin , the process is stopped. For the remaining voltage
interval, i.e., [VA , Vmax ], the skip process is activated. It starts
from the last recorded value of VGMPP , i.e., VB . The two points,
namely, A and a2 , are considered for the SDP test, while Va2 =
VA + ΦV . Since Pa2 < PA , another SDP test is performed
where Vb1 = Va2 + VGSTEP and Vb2 = Vb1 + ΦV . Now, since
Pb2 > Pb1 , it follows that Ib2 ≈ ISDP . Thus, a voltage interval

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2240
Fig. 6. Operation with initialization from Zone 1.
Fig. 7. Operation with initialization from Zone 2.
[Vb2 , Vskip ] is skipped. Furthermore, since Vskip > Vmax , the
search process is stopped. There is no need to execute the upward
process or to scan Zone 2.
2) Initialization in Zone 2: Since VA is initialized in Zone
2, the upward process is executed first. As shown in Fig. 7,
VPV is incremented by VGSTEP and PGMPP and Vmin are updated
if a higher power value is detected. When Point C is reached,
PGMPP is updated by PC , while Vmin is the updated voltage at
Point 2. In the next iteration, the measured power at a1 (Pa1 ) is
lower than PGMPP . Thus, the skip process is triggered. The SDP
test is carried out for the two points, namely, a1 and a2 . Then,
the test is done for b1 and b2 . Finally, after the test on c1 and
c2 (Pc2 > Pc1 ), ISDP is assumed to be found since. Thus, the
interval [Vc2 , Vskip ] is skipped. Moreover, since Vskip > Vmax ,
the upward process is no longer required. The next action is
to scan the remaining interval [Vmin , VA ] using the downward
process. However, since Vmin > VA , the search process is halted.
Thus, the GMPP is assumed to be found at Point C without
having to scan Zone 1 at all.
III. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
To evaluate the performance of the proposed MPPT, MAT-
LAB/Simulink simulation is carried out. The P–V curves of five
selected shading patterns are presented in Fig. 8. The patterns are
successively changed at 0.5 s interval. The initial shading, i.e.,
Pattern 0 is the uniform irradiance, which is used as the reference.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 3, MARCH 2021
Fig. 8. Partial shading patterns used in the simulation.
The remaining, i.e., Patterns 1 to 4 are carefully selected to cover
all possible GMPP shift when the operating point moves from
one shading pattern to another:
1) First transition from Pattern 0 to Pattern 1 at t = 0.5 s. The
GMPP shifts from Zone 2 (GMPP0) to Zone 1 (GMPP1).
2) Second transition from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2 at t = 1 s.
The GMPP shifts from GMPP1 to GMPP2, but remains
in Zone 1.
3) Third transition from Pattern 2 to Pattern 3 at t = 1.5 s. The
GMPP shifts from Zone 1 (GMPP2) to Zone 2 (GMPP3).
4) Fourth transition from Pattern 3 to Pattern 4 at t = 2 s.
The GMPP shifts from GMPP3 to GMPP4, but it remains
in Zone 2.
The proposed method is compared against two MPPTs,
namely, the MPT [23] and the flower pollination algorithm (FPA)
[9]. The MPT is a direct search scheme, which primarily relies
on Voc,STC and IMPP,STC data. It is known to be one of the fastest
algorithm reported in the literature for partial shading. The MPT
is implemented with a voltage step (VGSTEP ), which has to be
selected within the voltage range defined in [23]. For MSX60,
the selected VGSTEP is 15.1 V. On the other hand, the FPA is
based on bioinspired metaheuristic approach; it can be consid-
ered as the representation of other similar algorithms in this
category.
The transient waveforms of MPT, FPA, and the proposed
MPPT are illustrated in Fig. 9. For a fair comparison, the com-
peting algorithms are implemented using the indirect control
scheme. In this method, the MPPT generates a reference voltage
(VREF ) and the voltage controller adjusts the duty cycle of the
converter (D) such that VPV matches VREF . The overall control
loop has a cascaded structure, where the MPPT algorithm and
the voltage controller are placed at the outer and inner loops,
respectively. The inner loop should be much faster than the
outer loop [28]. The inner loop is based on the conventional
proportional–integral (PI) voltage controller. The PI controller
is integrated to adjust the duty cycle such that VPV matches the
voltage perturbation emerged from the MPPT algorithm. The
performance of the competing algorithms is analyzed in terms
of convergence time, voltage track, and transient efficiency. The
convergence time is the time needed for the MPPT algorithm to
reach the GMPP. The transient efficiency (η) is defined as the
KERMADI et al.: HIGH-PERFORMANCE GMPPT OF PV SYSTEM FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS
Fig. 9. Tracking performance of the competing GMPPT algorithms under the shaded patterns transitions: (a) first, (b) second, (c) third, and
(d) fourth transitions. VMPT−REF , VFPA−REF , and VProposed-REF are the reference voltages.
MPPT efficiency during the transition from one shading pattern
to another. It is calculated using
 Tf
P (t)dt
η =  TTfi × 100
Ti Pmax (t)dt
where Ti and Tf are the lower and upper time intervals consid-
ered for the efficiency computation, respectively. Pmax repre-
sents the maximum theoretical power available during that time
interval.
A. First Transition (From Pattern 0 to Pattern 1)
When Pattern 1 is imposed at 0.5 s, VGMPP shifts from GMPP0
at 140 V (Zone 2) to GMPP1 at 70 V (Zone 1). For the MPT, the
scanning is directed toward Vmax . It finishes quickly because
the algorithm initializes at the vicinity of Vmax (around 0.8Voc ).
Then, the operating point scans the left side of the curve. Along
the way, the search space is narrowed until Vmin is reached. As
seen in Fig. 9(a), the scanning is completed in 47 ms. For the
FPA, since it is based on the metaheuristic search, it explores
the entire voltage axis. The random search results in a large
fluctuation in the PV voltage. It finally converges to the GMPP1
after 204 ms. For the proposed algorithm, the initial operating
point is in Zone 2; thus, it triggers the upward process until it
reaches Vmax (148 V). Then it executes the downward process
until it reaches Vmin . The last updated value for Vmin is 52 V.
Thus, when VREF < 52 V, the downward process is halted and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2241
the GMPP1 is assumed to be found. Only 59 ms is needed to
locate GMPP1—which is marked improvement from FPA.
B. Second Transition (From Pattern 1 to Pattern 2)
(6)
The transient response is shown in Fig. 9(b). When the shading
shifts from Pattern 1 to 2, the GMPP remains within Zone 1.
The MPT initializes the scanning from the previous operating
voltage, i.e., GMPP1. As the MPT directs the initial scanning
toward the right side of the P–V curve, the search continues
until Vmax . Only then, the remaining interval where the GMPP2
exist is scanned. Consequently, unnecessary delay takes place;
the total time taken by MPT is 122 ms. The delay results in the
deterioration in transient efficiency. This example exposes the
major drawback of the MPT: when the initial VPV is in Zone 1
and the corresponding GMPP locates at the left side (of the same
zone), it scans the right side first. Only upon completing the
latter, it returns to the left side (where the GMPP is located).
In this respect, the advantage of the downward and upward
processes scheduling in the proposed algorithm is obvious. Since
the initial VPV remains in Zone 1, the downward process is
activated to scan that zone until Vmin . Then, the skip and upward
processes are initiated to deal with the remaining interval. As a
result, the GMPP2 is tracked very quickly, i.e., within 32 ms.
C. Third Transition (From Pattern 2 to Pattern 3)
As the operation changes from Pattern 2 to Pattern 3, the
GMPP shifts from Zone 1 to Zone 2. As usual, the MPT first
2242
TABLE I
TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPETING GMPPT ALGORITHMS
scans the right side of the P–V curve. Then, the remaining
interval, i.e., the left side is scanned. After that, VPV traverses a
long way to the rightmost side to reach GMPP3. As can be seen
in Fig. 9(c), it requires 182 ms and long voltage track (257 V)
to reach GMPP3. For the FPA, similar performance is observed;
the entire P–V curve is scanned and the GMPP3 is identified
after 201 ms. For the proposed algorithm, since the previous
GMPP is located in Zone 1, the downward process scans the
lower voltage interval until Vmin . However, it has to be noted
that, the algorithm does not need to scan the entire Zone 1. Only
several iterations are needed to reach Vmin . Then the upward
process is triggered. After detecting GMPP3, the skip process
is activated. Since Vskip > Vmax , the interval between VGMPP3
and Vmax is exempted from being searched. Consequently, the
search is halted at a voltage below 120 V. The proposed algorithm
identifies the GMPP without the need for scanning until Vmax .
As a result, a faster tracking speed (112 ms) is achieved.
D. Fourth Transition (From Pattern 3 to Pattern 4).
The transient performance is shown in Fig. 9(d). The GMPP
remains in Zone 2. However, it moves further to the right of
the voltage axis (130 V). Pattern 4 is very challenging because
it contains two peaks with approximately the same magnitude.
Although the MPT works correctly, it misses GMPP4 because
the local peaks 3 and 4 of Pattern 4 are nearly equal. The failure
can be attributed to the large voltage step used for scanning. The
FPA also failed due to the same reason. It can be argued that
a smaller voltage step can improve the tracking correctly, but
doing so results in the deterioration of the convergence speed.
Such tradeoff is very common for metaheuristic techniques. For
the proposed algorithm, since the initialization is in Zone 2, the
upward process is initiated first. After identifying the GMPP4,
Vmin is updated toward the right side—thus narrowing the search
space from the left side. In addition, the skip process allows the
last local peak to be skipped. Then, the downward process is
triggered and the remaining interval is scanned. Despite having
two higher power nearly equal the local peaks, GMPP4 is
correctly tracked since the search space is fully scrutinized using
the conservative value of VGSTEP (5.27 V).
The comparative performance of the competing MPPT is
summarized in Table I. As can be observed, the proposed method
is significantly faster than MPT and FPA for all shading patterns
except for the first transition. In this case, the MPT recorded a
better convergence time due to the large voltage step assigned
to it. However, this large voltage step is the reason for its
failure to track GMPP4 in the fourth transition. Overall, the
proposed method exhibits the highest transient efficiency. The
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 3, MARCH 2021
Fig. 10. Experimental setup used for performance evaluations.
effect of the skip process is more prominent for the second
and third transitions. As expected, the FPA has the worst ef-
ficiency due to the large voltage fluctuation before the operating
point convergences to GMPP. Although the MPT exhibits faster
convergence for the fourth transition, the result is disqualified
because it totally misses the GMPP4. Furthermore, when the
MPT is simulated using VGSTEP = 5.27 V, it successfully tracks
all GMPP. However, when the MPT is compared to the proposed
algorithm using the same voltage step, the latter is found to
be faster. Table I also indicates that the voltage track for the
proposed algorithm is minimal for all cases. This is achieved
due to the scheduling (upward, downward and skip) processes
introduced in the tracking.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
The complete experimental setup and its associated measure-
ment facilities are shown in Fig. 10. The PV Array Simulator
(PVAS) from the AIT, Vienna, is used to emulate the behavior
of the PV cells [29]. Unlike other PV simulators (which are
normally based on switched mode power supply), the PVAS is
built using the linear power MOSFET. The output of the PVAS
is connected to a 500-W buck–boost converter. It is designed
for continuous conduction mode using an inductor (L) of 1 mH
and an input capacitor (C) of 470 μF. The pulsewidth-modulated
(PWM) switching frequency (f) is set to 50 kHz. The output of
the converter drives the ITECH IT8816B dc electronic load. To
implement the MPPT algorithms, the dSPACE DS1104 board,
built around the TMS320F240 digital signal processor (DSP)
from Texas Instruments [30], is used. A Hall effect sensor board
comprising LV25-P and LA25-NP is utilized for voltage and
current measurements, respectively. The same shading patterns
presented in Fig. 8 are implemented using the PVAS. The
sampling period of the P&O is set to 50 ms.
The tracking performance of MPT, FPA, and the proposed
algorithm under transients is presented in Fig. 11. In the first
KERMADI et al.: HIGH-PERFORMANCE GMPPT OF PV SYSTEM FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS 2243

Fig. 11. Current, voltage, and power experimental waveforms of the competing MPPT algorithms under the transitions shown in Fig. 8. (a) First
transition from Pattern 0 to Pattern 1. (b) Second transition from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2. (c) Third transition from Pattern 2 to Pattern 3. (d) Fourth
transition from Pattern 3 to Pattern 4.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2244
TABLE II
CONVERGENCE TIME (EXPERIMENTAL)
transition (Pattern 0 to 1), the MPT started scanning the right
side of the P–V curve. Then, it shifts to scan the left side of
the curve. The complete scanning is completed in 1.1 s as
can be seen from Fig. 11(a). On the other hand, metaheuristic
search-based FPA, scanned through the almost entire voltage
span in search for the GMPP. As a result, it exhibited a high
transient voltage movement and reached at GMPP1 at 2 s. For
the proposed algorithm, since the initial operating point is in
Zone 2, it first executes the upward process. Here, it employs the
skip process that allows it to skip certain intervals in the search
space. Once the upward process is completed, the downward
process is executed to scan the remaining interval. The tracking
time to GMPP1 is the fastest, i.e., 0.9 s.
The transient performance for the second transition is shown
in Fig. 11(b). Here, the GMPP remains in Zone 1. As explained
in Section III-B, the MPT always scans the right side of the
curve first. Since the initial peak is located at GMPP1, it has to
start scanning to the right of the P–V curve, before returning to
the left. Thus, the total time to reach GMPP2 is 1.9 s. The FPA
performs its usual random search, which result in 2.8 s tracking
time. The proposed algorithm exhibits remarkable improvement
due to the flexibility in selecting the search direction either using
the upward or the downward process, depending on the initial
operating point position. In this case, the initial operating point
is located in Zone 1 (where GMPP2 exists). Thus, it executes
the downward process and identifies this peak quickly, i.e.,
within 0.3 s, while the remaining interval is skipped. In the third
transition, shown in Fig. 11(c), the MPT and FPA track GMPP3
successfully within 1.2 and 2.2 s, respectively. On the other
hand, the proposed algorithm performed better and quicker—it
requires only 0.9 s. For the fourth transition, shown in Fig. 11(d),
the MPT requires 0.9 s to reach GMPP4. The proposed algorithm
requires only 0.35 s. As expected, the FPA is the slowest, i.e.,
1.5 s.
Table II summarizes the convergence time required by the
competing MPPT to reach the global peak. From these dis-
cussions, it can be observed that the experimental results is
consistent with the simulation presented in Section III.
V. CONCLUSION
This article proposed an improved MPPT method to enhance
the efficiency of the PV system under rapidly changing partial
shading conditions. The method embedded a novel skipping
mechanism to discard areas in the search space from the scan-
ning. Furthermore, a scheduling process was proposed, depend-
ing on the initial operating position to reduce the voltage track.
The proposed method was evaluated against two recent MPPTs,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 68, NO. 3, MARCH 2021
namely, the MPT and the FPA. They were critically evalu-
ated under challenging scenarios that comprised five successive
rapidly changing partial shading patterns. From the simulation
and hardware results, it is clear that the proposed algorithm
is superior in terms of convergence time, voltage track, and
transient efficiency.
REFERENCES
[1] I. G. Zurbriggen and M. Ordonez, “PV energy harvesting under extremely
fast changing irradiance: State-plane direct MPPT,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1852–1861, Mar. 2019.
[2] N. Kumar, I. Hussain, B. Singh, and B. Panigrahi, “Rapid MPPT for
uniformly and partial shaded PV system by using JayaDE algorithm in
highly fluctuating atmospheric conditions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.,
vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 2406–2416, Oct. 2017.
[3] K. Sundareswaran, P. Sankar, P. S. R. Nayak, S. P. Simon, and S. Palani,
“Enhanced energy output from a PV system under partial shaded condi-
tions through artificial bee colony,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 6,
no. 1, pp. 198–209, Jan. 2015.
[4] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, “A deterministic particle swarm optimization
maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic system under partial shad-
ing condition,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 3195–3206,
Aug. 2013.
[5] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A Maximum Power Point tracking (MPPT) for
PV system using cuckoo search with partial shading capability,” Appl.
Energy, vol. 119, pp. 118–130, 15 Apr. 2014.
[6] K. Sundareswaran, S. Peddapati, and S. Palani, “MPPT of PV systems
under partial shaded conditions through a colony of flashing fireflies,”
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 463–472, Jun. 2014.
[7] C. Huang, L. Wang, R. S. C. Yeung, Z. Zhang, H. S. H. Chung, and
A. Bensoussan, “A prediction model-guided jaya algorithm for the PV
system maximum power point tracking,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45–55, Jan. 2018.
[8] S. Mohanty, B. Subudhi, and P. K. Ray, “A new MPPT design using
grey wolf optimization technique for photovoltaic system under partial
shading conditions,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 181–
188, Jan. 2016.
[9] J. P. Ram and N. Rajasekar, “A novel flower pollination based global
maximum power point method for solar maximum power point tracking,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 8486–8499, Nov. 2017.
[10] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A critical evaluation on maximum power point
tracking methods for partial shading in PV systems,” Renewable Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 47, pp. 933–953, 2015.
[11] M. Kermadi and E. M. Berkouk, “Artificial intelligence-based maximum
power point tracking controllers for photovoltaic systems: Comparative
study,” Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 69, pp. 369–386, 2017.
[12] S. Mohanty, B. Subudhi, and P. K. Ray, “A grey wolf-assisted perturb &
observe MPPT algorithm for a PV system,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 340–347, Mar. 2017.
[13] M. Seyedmahmoudian et al., “Simulation and hardware implementation
of new maximum power point tracking technique for partially shaded PV
system using hybrid DEPSO method,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 6,
no. 3, pp. 850–862, Jul. 2015.
[14] C. Manickam, G. P. Raman, G. R. Raman, S. I. Ganesan, and N. Chi-
lakapati, “Fireworks enriched P&O algorithm for GMPPT and detection
of partial shading in PV systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32,
no. 6, pp. 4432–4443, Jun. 2017.
[15] C. Manickam, G. R. Raman, G. P. Raman, S. I. Ganesan, and C. Nagamani,
“A hybrid algorithm for tracking of GMPP based on P&O and PSO with
reduced power oscillation in string inverters,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 6097–6106, Oct. 2016.
[16] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, “A deterministic particle swarm optimization
maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic system under partial shad-
ing condition,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 3195–3206,
Aug. 2013.
[17] K. Lian, J. Jhang, and I. Tian, “A maximum power point tracking method
based on perturb-and-observe combined with particle swarm optimiza-
tion,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 626–633, Mar. 2014.
[18] M. Kermadi, Z. Salam, J. Ahmed, and E. M. Berkouk, “An effective hybrid
maximum power point tracker of photovoltaic arrays for complex partial
shading conditions,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 6990–
7000, Sep. 2019.
KERMADI et al.: HIGH-PERFORMANCE GMPPT OF PV SYSTEM FOR RAPIDLY CHANGING PARTIAL SHADING CONDITIONS
[19] S. Kazmi, H. Goto, O. Ichinokura, and G. Hai-Jiao, “An improved and
very efficient MPPT controller for PV systems subjected to rapidly varying
atmospheric conditions and partial shading,” in Proc. Australasian Univ.
Power Eng. Conf., 2009, pp. 1–6.
[20] A. Kouchaki, H. Iman-Eini, and B. Asaei, “A new maximum power point
tracking strategy for PV arrays under uniform and non-uniform insolation
conditions,” Solar Energy, vol. 91, pp. 221–232, 2013.
[21] A. Murtaza, M. Chiaberge, F. Spertino, D. Boero, and M. De Giuseppe,
“A maximum power point tracking technique based on bypass diode
mechanism for PV arrays under partial shading,” Energy Buildings, vol. 73,
pp. 13–25, 2014.
[22] K. S. Tey and S. Mekhilef, “Modified incremental conductance algo-
rithm for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions and load
variation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 5384–5392,
Oct. 2014.
[23] A. M. S. Furtado, F. Bradaschia, M. C. Cavalcanti, and L. R. Limongi, “A
reduced voltage range global maximum power point tracking algorithm
for photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 3252–3262, Apr. 2018.
[24] Y. Wang, Y. Li, and X. Ruan, “High-accuracy and fast-speed MPPT
methods for PV string under partially shaded conditions,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 235–245, Jan. 2016.
[25] M. Boztepe, F. Guinjoan, G. Velasco-Quesada, S. Silvestre, A. Chouder,
and E. Karatepe, “Global MPPT scheme for photovoltaic string inverters
based on restricted voltage window search algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3302–3312, Jul. 2014.
[26] B. R. Peng, K. C. Ho, and Y. H. Liu, “A novel and fast MPPT Method
suitable for both fast changing and partially shaded conditions,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 3240–3251, Apr. 2018.
[27] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A modified P&O maximum power point track-
ing method with reduced steady-state oscillation and improved tracking
efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1506–1515,
Oct. 2016.
[28] S. Kolesnik and A. Kuperman, “On the equivalence of major variable-step-
size MPPT algorithms,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 590–594,
Mar. 2016.
[29] User’s Manual: Programmable Photovoltaic Array Simulator PVAS1,
Arsenal Res., AIT Austrian Inst. Technol., Seibersdorf, Austria, 2007.
[30] dSPACE User’s Guide for Release 7.4. dSPACE GmbH, Paderborn,
Germany, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.dspace.com
Mostefa Kermadi (Member, IEEE) received the
Dipl.Ing. degree and the master’s degree in con-
trol engineering in 2012 and the Ph.D. degree
in automatic control in 2018, all from the Na-
tional Polytechnic School (ENP) of Algiers, El
Harrach, Algeria.
From December 2016 to July 2018, he was a
Visiting Researcher at the Centre of Electrical
Energy Systems (CEES), Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia. He is
currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with
the Power Electronics and Renewable Energy Research Laboratory
(PEARL), Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Malaya,
Malaya, Malaysia. His current research interests include modern control
in power electronic converters, power conversion, and management in
renewable energy systems.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Chung Yuan Christian University. Downloaded on December 01,2021 at 01:43:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2245
Zainal Salam (Senior Member, IEEE) received
the B.Sc. degree in electronics engineering from
California State University, Chico, CA, USA, in
1985, the M.E.E. degree in electrical engineer-
ing from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM
Kuala Lumpur), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in
1989, and the Ph.D. degree in power electronics
from the University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
U.K., in 1997.
He is currently the Professor of Power Elec-
tronics and Renewable Energy at the Centre of
Electrical Energy Systems, School of Electrical Engineering, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. He has authored and co-
authored over 250 papers in various technical journals and conference
proceedings. He is involved in over 30 projects and consulting work on
power converters, solar energy and integration of power electronics in
renewable energy systems.
Prof. Salam was the Vice-Chair of the IEEE Power Electronics, In-
dustrial Electronics, and Industry Application Joint Chapter, Malaysia
Section from 2011 to 2013. From 2011 to 2013, he was an Editor of
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY. He also represented
the country as the expert for the International Energy Agency (IEA) Pho-
tovoltaic (PV) Power Systems Task 13 Working Group, which focuses on
the reliability and performance of PV power system.
Jubaer Ahmed (Member, IEEE) received the
B.Sc. degree in electrical and electronics en-
gineering from the Bangladesh University of
Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka,
Bangladesh, in 2012, and the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, in
2016.
He is currently a Senior Lecturer of Electrical
and Electronics Department at Swinburne Uni-
versity of Technology, Sarawak, Malaysia. His
current research interests include photovoltaic modeling and control,
energy conversion from renewable sources, and power electronics.
El Madjid Berkouk was born in Algeria in
1968. He received the B.E. degree from the
Ecole Nationale Polytechnique of Algiers,
Algiers, Algeria, in 1991, the M.S. degree
from the Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electro-
technique, d’Electronique, d’Informatique,
d’Hydraulique et des Télécommunications,
Toulouse, France, in 1992, and the Ph.D.
degree from the Conservatoire National des
Arts et Métiers, Paris, France, in 1995, all in
electrical engineering.
From 1993 to 1996, he was with the University of Paris XI, Paris.
Since 1996, he has been a Professor of Electrical Engineering with
the Ecole Nationale Polytechnique of Algiers. He has authored or
coauthored more than 200 papers. His current research interests
include power electronics, electrical drives, and renewable energy.
Prof. Berkouk is a member of the Algerian Academy of Science and
Technology. He has received several international awards.