electronics

Article
Improved Fractional Open Circuit Voltage MPPT
Methods for PV Systems
Dmitry Baimel 1, * , Saad Tapuchi 1 , Yoash Levron 2 and Juri Belikov 3
1 Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Sheva 84100, Israel; [email protected]
2 The Andrew and Erna Viterbi Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology,
Haifa 3200003, Israel; [email protected]
3 Department of Software Science, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 15a,
12618 Tallinn, Estonia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 1 March 2019; Accepted: 8 March 2019; Published: 14 March 2019


Abstract: This paper proposes two new Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) methods which
improve the conventional Fractional Open Circuit Voltage (FOCV) method. The main novelty is
a switched semi-pilot cell that is used for measuring the open-circuit voltage. In the first method this
voltage is measured on the semi-pilot cell located at the edge of PV panel. During the measurement
the semi-pilot cell is disconnected from the panel by a pair of transistors, and bypassed by a diode.
In the second Semi-Pilot Panel method the open circuit voltage is measured on a pilot panel in a large
PV system. The proposed methods are validated using simulations and experiments. It is shown that
both methods can accurately estimate the maximum power point voltage, and hence improve the
system efficiency.

Keywords: renewable energy; maximum power point tracking; fractional open circuit voltage

1. Introduction
One challenge that frequently arises in photovoltaic (PV) systems is that the output voltage,
current and power constantly vary, due to irradiation and temperature changes. Figure 1a shows that
the output current is mostly effected by irradiance changes, while the output voltage is mostly effected
by temperature changes.
In order to operate the PV array at maximum efficiency it is crucial to extract maximum power
from the PV system (Figure 1b). As a result, many Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) methods
have been developed in recent years. These methods vary in complexity, type, cost, efficiency, number
of sensors, and required hardware. Papers [1–9] compare between common MPPT methods and
explain the main differences between them. For example, paper [1] compares the efficiency, stability,
and quality of different MPPT methods; [2] compares several MPPT methods with respect to the
amount of energy extracted from the (PV) panel, tracking factor, PV voltage ripple, dynamic response,
and the number of sensors; paper [3] discusses the advantages and drawbacks of different MPPT
methods, and provide guidelines for choosing the most suitable MPPT method for a specific PV
system; paper [4] compares the Perturb and Observe, Incremental Conductance, Fractional Open
Circuit Voltage and Fractional Short Circuit Current methods; [5] presents detailed description and
classification of MPPT techniques based on the number of control variables, types of control strategies,
types of circuitry, and common practical/commercial applications; [6] presents the general architectures
of different MPPT techniques, and discusses their main advantages and disadvantages; [7] presents
a detailed survey of artificial neural network MPPT techniques; [8] presents a survey of conventional

Electronics 2019, 8, 321; doi:10.3390/electronics8030321 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2019, 8, 321 2 of 20

and advanced MPPT methods, and analyzes the effects of varying meteorological conditions; [9]
presents a comparative study of seven common MPPT algorithms.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. The output voltage and current variations during irradiation and temperature changes. (a) PV
module voltage-current graphs versus solar irradiance and temperature; (b) Maximum power point of
a PV module.

MPPT methods can be divided into three major categories. The first category includes methods
that continuously track the voltage and/or current, without using empirical data. The main advantage
of such methods is that they do not require prior knowledge of the PV array characteristics. As a result,
these are usually accurate for varying irradiance and temperature. Common MPPT methods associated
with this category are Incremental Conductance (IC) [10–19], Hill Climbing (HC) [20–30], Perturb
and Observe (P&O) [31–38], and fuzzy logic techniques [39–43]. The second category includes MPPT
methods that calculate the MPP based on apriori data, without continuous tracking the voltage
and current. The data often include typical voltage-current curves for different irradiances and
temperatures. The main advantage of such methods is that they require less current and/or voltage
sensors. However, such methods usually cannot precisely track the MPP for any irradiance and
temperature changes. several methods belonging to this category are Fractional Open Circuit Voltage
(FOCV) [44], Fractional Short Circuit current (FSCC) [38,45], Curve Fitting [46], and Look-up Tables [47].
The third category includes hybrid methods, that use both measurements and apriori data. For instance,
paper [48] presents an MPPT method that uses a Neural Network. Another example is shown in
paper [49], which presents a modified Perturb and Observe method with adaptive duty cycle step.
All MPPT algorithms are implemented as part of the control circuitry of a DC-DC converter that
connects the PV array to the load [50,51].
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 3 of 20

The Fractional Open Circuit Voltage method, belonging to the second category discussed above,
has been explored in several recent works [44,52–55]. The method is based on the almost linear
relationship that exists between the open-circuit voltage-Voc and the Vmpp voltage:

Vmpp = K pv Voc , (1)

where the constant K pv is the voltage factor. This constant can be calculated based on the panel V-I
curves, and is usually in the range 0.7–0.9. Typically this value is specified in the panel’s datasheet. To
estimate the Vmpp voltage using the FOCV method, the open circuit voltage is measured and multiplied
by the voltage factor. The measured open-circuit voltage typically allows an accurate estimation of the
Vmpp voltage, since the voltage factor remains almost constant for changing irradiance and temperature.
The open circuit voltage is periodically sampled by momentarily disconnecting the load. The frequency
and duration of the sampling process directly influence the accuracy of the estimated Vmpp , where high
frequency and/or large duty-cycles improves the estimation accuracy, but also increase the power loss.
This issue may be solved by using an additional pilot cell, which is similar to other cells in PV
array but is used only for open-circuit voltage measurements, as shown in Figure 2. If the pilot cell has
the same irradiance and temperature as the other cells then the open circuit voltage can be measured
directly, without disconnecting the load. However, since the pilot cell is isolated from the PV panel,
it does not produce useful power. The major advantage of the FOCV method in comparison to other
common methods such as Incremental Conductance, Perturb and Observe and Hill Climbing are low
cost and simple implementation.
Two general challenges of the FOCV method are to improve the accuracy and to reduce the power
loss. In this light, this study proposes an improved Fractional Open Circuit Voltage (FOCV) which is an
extension to [52]. The main idea is to reduce the power loss during open-circuit voltage measurements
by replacing the pilot cell by a semi-pilot cell. During normal operation, the semi-pilot cell is a part of
the PV array and contributes to the total generated power. The open-circuit voltage is measured when
the semi-pilot cell is disconnected from the array. As a result the power of the semi-pilot cell is lost only
when it is disconnected, and not constantly. The measured open-circuit voltage is used by the control
circuitry of the DC/DC converter which implements the FOCV MPPT algorithm. The main advantage
of the proposed approach is that the semi-pilot cell power is utilized efficiently, and the power supplied
to the load is almost unaffected. The main challenges is to properly design the switching period of
the semi-pilot cell in order to extract maximum power, and to efficiently track the MPP during and
following a switching event.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the proposed semi-pilot cell approach.
Section 3 explains the simulation setups. Section 4 presents simulation and analysis of the proposed
SPC-FOCV method under irradiance and temperature variations. Section 5 discusses the proposed
semi-pilot panel SPP-FOCV method. Section 6 shows experimental validation and analysis of the
SPP-FOCV method. Conclusions are presented in the last section.

Pilot cell
PV Module

Figure 2. Pilot cell configuration.

2. The Proposed Semi-Pilot Cell SPC-FOCV Method

The main purpose of the proposed semi-pilot cell (SPC) FOCV approach is to reduce the power
loss in comparison to the conventional FOCV method. The semi-pilot cell is integrated into the PV
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 4 of 20

array and delivers power to the load as other PV cells. However, unlike the other cells, the semi-pilot
cell can be disconnected from the PV array in order to measure the open-circuit voltage. The semi-pilot
cell operation cycle can be divided into two stages. During the first stage (supply period), there are no
measurements of the open circuit voltage and the semi-pilot cell supplies power to the load. During
the second stage (measurement period), the semi-pilot cell is disconnected from the array, and the
open-circuit voltage is measured, as shown in Figure 3. during this stage the semi-pilot cell is bypassed
by a switch, which can be implemented by a MOSFET as shown in Figure 4.

Bypass switch

Pilot cell

Figure 3. Semi-pilot cell disconnection during open-circuit voltage measurement.

Module Module

+ +

− −

Pilot cell V

(a) (b)

Figure 4. PV panel configuration during one measurement cycle. (a) First stage: all N cells provide
power to the load, semi-pilot cell is connected to the array; (b) Second stage: semi-pilot cell is
disconnected from the array.

The average power supplied to the load ( Psup ) over a complete cycle depends on the duty cycle
and the number of PV cells in the PV module (see Figure 5) and can be calculated by

N−1
Psup = P1 + P2 = Pmax Dc + Pmax (1 − Dc ), (2)
N
where N is the number of cells in the PV array, Pmax is the maximal power that can be supplied by the
PV, P1 is the supplied power during the first stage, P2 is the supplied power during the second stage,
and Dc is the duty cycle of semi-pilot cell switching.

Pload
Pilot cell is switched off
Voc measurement
Pmax = NPcell

N −1
N Pmax

Dc
t
T
Figure 5. Operation cycle.

The total power loss of the switches are comprised of conduction and switching losses:

∆Psw = Pc + Psw . (3)

Electronics 2019, 8, 321 5 of 20

Note that only the power loss of switch 1 and bypass switch are considered, while losses of
switch 2 are neglected since it only connects and disconnects the voltage sensor. The current through
switch 2 is zero. The power losses of switch 1 and bypass switch are different because switch 1 is
operated with Vmpp and Impp that correspond to n cells while the bypass switch is operated at the
MMP that corresponds to n − 1 cells. The conduction power losses during the operation cycle are
calculated by:
Pc = Pc,sw1 Dc + Pc,bp (1 − Dc ), (4)

where Pc,sw1 and Pc,bp are the conduction losses of the switch 1 and bypass switch and they can be
calculated by:
2
Pc,sw = ID R DS(on) , (5)

where ID is the current that flows through a Mosfet and R DS(on) is Drain to Source On resistance.
The switching losses of each switch can be calculated by:

ID VDD (tr + t f )
Psw = Fsw , (6)
2
where VDD is the voltage that is blocked by the Mosfet, Fsw is the switching frequency and tr and t f are
the rise and fall times respectively. The power that is lost during the open circuit voltage measurement
can be calculated as:
∆Pmeas = Pmax − Psup . (7)

The total power losses can be calculated by:

∆Ptot = ∆Psw + ∆Pmeas . (8)

The efficiency of the proposed method can be calculated by:

Psup − ∆Ptot
η= . (9)
Pmax

Table 1 shows a comparison between the conventional FOCV, pilot cell FOCV, and proposed
semi-pilot cell FOCV methods, in terms of output power, power losses and efficiency. The conventional
FOCV-MPPT method also uses two Mosfets in order to switch the PV array between the load and the
voltage sensor and therefore, the power losses of the switches has to be considered.
It can be seen from this Table that the power losses in the conventional FOCV are directly related
to the switches power losses and switching duty cycle i.e., they depend on the duration of the voltage
sampling and while the power losses in the pilot cell FOCV are defined only by the output power of
the pilot cell. The power losses in the SPC-FOCV depend both on the output power of the semi-pilot
cell, the switching duty cycle and switches power losses.

Table 1. Comparison between conventional FOCV, pilot cell FOCV, and proposed semi-pilot cell
FOCV methods.

Conventional Pilot Cell Proposed

Psup Pmax Dc Pmax Pmax Dc + NN−1 Pmax (1 − Dc )
∆Pmeas Pmax (1 − Dc ) Pmax /N Pmax − Psup
∆Psw Pc Dc + Psw 0 Pc + Psw
∆Ptot Pmax (1 − Dc ) + Pc Dc + Psw Pmax /N Pmax − Psup + Pc + Psw
η ( Psup − ∆Ptot )/Pmax 1 − N1 ( Psup − ∆Ptot )/Pmax
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 6 of 20

3. Simulation Setup
The Simulink simulation setup of the proposed SPC-FOCV method is shown in Figure 6.
The accuracy of the simulation is defined by the sample time of 1 × 10−8 s. The simulated circuit
consists of PV array with nine cells connected in series and additional series connected semi-pilot cell.
This PV array feeds the load through Buck-Boost DC-DC converter. All cells have similar parameters
which are detailed in Table 2. In this example, temperature of all cells is 25 ◦ C and irradiance is W/m2 .
Three Mosfet switches are used in order to implement the SPC-FOCV method. Switch 1 is used
for semi-pilot cell connection to the array during supply periods and disconnection from the array
during measurement periods. Switch 2 connects the semi-pilot cell to voltmeter during measurement
periods and disconnects it during supply periods. Bypass switch bypasses disconnected semi-pilot
cell during measurement periods in order to allow continuous feeding of the load by the remaining
nine cells.

Discrete
1e-08 s.

powergui

1000
m
Irradiance Ir

25 T
-
PWM
Temperature PV array 9 cells Out +
connected in series

+
In + Load

D S Out -
In -
m g m
Ir
Buck-Boost Converter
+ Switch 2
+
T v Open circuit voltage
- -
of semi-pilot cel

+
Measurement of the Amp
Semi-pilot cell
-
i
open circuit voltage
m

of semi-pilot cell
S2 Bypass
switch
Semi-pilot cell Voc S1
D
g
m

PWM +
v
-
Control unit Switch 1
Voltmeter Product
Scope5
D
g

Figure 6. Simulation setup of SPC-FOCV methods.

The control unit presented in Figure 7. The main objectives of the control unit are switches
operation, calculation of the Vmpp voltage according to the corresponding period and PWM signal
generation for the Buck-Boost converter. The input of the control unit is measured open circuit voltage
of the semi-pilot cell while the outputs are switching signals (S1, S2) for the switches and PWM signal
for the Buck-Boost converter.
The switches are operated by the Control unit according to the following principle. During supply
periods, switch 1 is closed while switches 2 and bypass are open. During measurement periods,
switch 1 is open while switches 2 and bypass are closed. The frequency of the operation cycle and
its duty cycle are synchronized by the Pulse generator that supplies switching signal to switch 1
(output S1). The switching signal for switch 2 and bypass switch is obtained by applying “Not” logical
operator to the Pulse generator’s signal (output S2).
The Vmpp voltage of whole PV array is calculated by multiplication of the measured open
circuit voltage of the semi-pilot cell, voltage factor and number of cells. However, the number
of cells varies according to the operation period. During supply periods, the number of cells
is n (n = 10 in this example) and therefore, the Vmpp voltage is calculated by Vmpp = nVoc K pv .
During measurement periods, the number of cells is n − 1 and the Vmpp voltage is calculated by
Vmpp = (n − 1)Voc K pv . To match the calculation of the Vmpp voltage to the corresponding period i.e.,
to the corresponding number of cells, the control unit uses signal switch that is synchronized to the
Pulse generator. The signal switch passes through the value of calculated Vmpp voltage according to
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 7 of 20

the appropriate operation period. Therefore, the calculated Vmpp voltage will vary between the supply
and measurement periods.
In each operation period, the Buck-Boost converter is tuned to the calculated Vmpp voltage in
accordance with the number of cells (n or n − 1) that are feeding the converter. This will ensure
maximum possible output power of the PV array for each operation period. To set the Buck-Boost
converter to the calculated Vmpp voltage, the control unit generates the corresponding PWM signal
that is supplied to the converter.

1
Semi-pilot cell Calculated Vmpp voltage
Voc according to the operating
period (measurement or supply)

Product > 0 Vmpp PWM 3

Kpv n Product1
PWM
Voltage factor n=10 cells- supply period PWM calculation for the
Buck-Boost Converter

1
S2
Pulse Logical
Generator Operator
2
S1

n-1 Product2

n-1=9 cells- measurement period

Figure 7. Control unit.

Table 2. Simulation parameters.

PV Cell Parameters Value Mosfet Parameters Value

Series resistance [W] 0 R DS(on) resistance [Ω] 0.0064
Short open circuit voltage [V] 0.6 Internal diode forward voltage [V] 0.8
Short circuit current [A] 6 Internal diode resistance [Ω] 0.001
Quality factor 1.5
Nominal temperature [◦ C] 25

4. Simulation and Analysis of the Proposed SPC-FOCV Method under Irradiance and
Temperature Variations

4.1. SPC-FOCV Operation under Irradiance Variations

The graph of the simulated PV array’s output power vs. output voltage for constant cells
temperature of 25 ◦ C and different irradiance values is shown in Figure 8. The output power vs. output
voltage curves are obtained by the simulation circuit shown in Figure 9 where the irradiance of the PV
array is changed according to the desired curve i.e., 100%, 80%, etc. The simulated PV array consists of
ten series connected cells (the parameters of the cells are shown in Table 2) and feeds the load that is
implemented by varying voltage source that is swept between zero to the value (6 V) of the array’s
open circuit voltage.
This graph can be used in order to measure the value of the PV array’s Vmpp voltage for each
specific irradiance. This measured Vmpp voltage is for ten series connected cells and corresponds to the
supply period.
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 8 of 20

Discrete
1e-05 s.

powergui

m
650 Ir

Irradiance +

+
25 T
-
Controlled Voltage Source
Temperature PV array 10 cells

s
-
connected in series

Ramp

+
Amp

-
i
+
v
-
Voltmeter Product
XY Graph

Figure 8. Output power with respect to output voltage during irradiance changes (100% irradiance
corresponds to 1000 W/m2 ).

Figure 9. Simulation setup for obtaining output power vs. output voltage curves. Temperature of the
cells is 25 degrees.

Before application of the SPC-FOCV method, it is important to know the value of the voltage
factor K pv for different irradiance levels. The voltage factor values can be calculated according to (1)
or taken from the manufacturer’s datasheet. The calculated voltage factor vs. irradiance is shown in
Table 3. It can be seen that the voltage factor is constant for all irradiance values except for values
of 200 W/m2 and lower, where the voltage factor slightly decreases. Therefore, small error in Vmpp
estimation is expected for irradiances below 200 W/m2 .

Table 3. The calculated voltage factor for different irradiance values.

Irradiance [W/m2 ] 1000 800 600 400 200

K pv (calculated) 0.816 0.816 0.816 0.816 0.815

Three different scenarios were simulated and analyzed. The presented simulation results were
obtained by the simulation circuit from Figure 6 where irradiance conditions were matched to each
scenario. In all three cases, the open circuit voltage measurement on the semi-pilot cell was performed
every 0.99 s for 0.01 s (operation cycle is 1 s, Dc = 99%). The temperature of the cells was set to
25 ◦ C. The first scenario corresponds to a sunny day with constant maximal irradiance of 1000 W/m2 ,
as shown in Figure 10. During the open circuit voltage measurement periods, the control unit sets
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 9 of 20

the input voltage of the DC-DC converter to the value of the corresponding Vmpp voltage that is
calculated by multiplication of the semi-pilot’s measured open circuit voltage 0.6 V by the voltage
factor 0.816 and by the n − 1 = 9 cells: Vmpp = (n − 1)Voc K pv = 4.4 V. The converter’s operation at
the Vmpp = 4.4 V ensures maximal PV array output power during the measurement period. In this
scenario the irradiance and temperature conditions are constant. Therefore, in all measurement
periods, the measured open circuit voltage of the semi-pilot will have the same value of 0.6 V. When
the measurement period ends, the control unit uses previously measured Voc in order to calculate
new Vmpp voltage that corresponds to n cells: Vmpp = nVoc K pv = 4.896 V. The control unit sets the
input voltage of the DC-DC converter to 4.896 V during the following supply period in order to ensure
maximal PV array output power.

Figure 10. Scenario 1: Sunny day with constant irradiance.

The second scenario simulates cloudy conditions of varying irradiance between 200 to 230 W/m2
with randomly generated irradiance noise, as shown in Figure 11. It can be seen from Figure 11 that
irradiance noise adds noise to the Pv array’s output power. In the first measurement period between
0–0.01 s, the measured open circuit voltage is 0.538 V. The DC-DC converter is tuned to Vmpp = 3.94 V.
In the following supply period between 0.01–1 s the DC-DC converter is tuned to Vmpp = 4.38 V.
During this supply period, the irradiance increases but the DC-DC converter remains tuned to 4.38 V
until the next measurement period where the Vmpp voltage will be updated. Therefore, during the
period between 0.2–1 s, the PV array’s output power is 5.36 W (not maximal) instead of 5.39 W
(maximal power). The mismatch is very small 0.7%. This mismatch can be avoided by increasing the
cycle’s frequency. At the second measurement period between 1–1.01 s, the irradiance was increased
to 220 W/m2 and the measured open circuit voltage equals 0.542 V. Therefore, the DC-DC converter is
tuned to Vmpp = 3.97 V. In the following supply period between 1.01–2 s the DC-DC converter is tuned
to Vmpp = 4.41 V. However, the irradiance variations continue and the tuned Vmpp is also not maximal.
The third case presents the sudden drop in the irradiance from 900 to 600 W/m2 , as shown in
Figure 12. In this example, the first two measuring periods corresponding to 0–0.01 s and 1–1.01 s
are performed under the same irradiance of 900 W/m2 . Therefore, the same open circuit voltage of
0.596 V is measured on the semi-pilot. During these measuring periods, the DC-DC converter is set to
the Vmpp = 4.37 V. After these measurement periods begin supply periods that take place between
0.01–1 s and 1.01–2 s. The corresponding DC-DC converter’s voltage is calculated by Vmpp = 4.86 V.
Although there is change of irradiance in the middle of the second supply period (at 1.5 s) from 900
to 600 W/m2 , the DC-DC converter will stay tuned to the 4.86 V voltage which is not the maximal
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 10 of 20

power voltage for the irradiance of 600 W/m2 . As a result, the output power of the PV array will
be 15.7 W instead of maximal 15.78 W. The difference between the maximal and obtained powers is
only 0.08 W (0.5%) because Vmpp voltage is almost uninfluenced by the irradiance variations unlike
the Impp current which is significantly effected by the irradiance changes, see Figure 8. This small
mismatch can be further reduced by increasing the frequency of the operation cycle according to the
irradiance conditions. During the third measurement period (2–2.01 s), the measured open circuit
voltage of the semi-pilot is 0.58 V that corresponds to the Vmpp = 4.26 V. After the third measurement
period, in the following supply periods, the DC-DC converter is operated with Vmpp = 4.73 V which is
updated to the irradiance of 600 W/m2 and the output power of the PV array is increased to 15.78 W.
These simulations show that the proposed SPC-FOCV method is accurate for constant and varying
irradiance conditions.

Figure 11. Scenario 2: Cloudy day with varying irradiance.

Figure 12. Scenario 3: Sudden drop in the irradiance.

The first scenario was extended and simulated for constant irradiance values of 800, 600, 400,
and 200 W/m2 . The Vmpp voltages calculated by SPC-FOCV method can be compared to the Vmpp
voltages measured from the graph shown in Figure 9. This comparison is presented in Table 4 which
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 11 of 20

shows that there is an accurate match between the measured and estimated Vmpp until irradiance
values of 200 W/m2 , where the estimation error rises from zero to 0.2%.

Table 4. Comparison between measured and estimated Vmpp voltages for different irradiance values.

Irradiance [W/m2 ] 1000 800 600 400 200

Vmpp (measured) [V] 4.896 4.825 4.736 4.608 4.39
Vmpp (estimated by SPC-FOCV) [V] 4.896 4.825 4.736 4.608 4.38
Error [%] 0 0 0 0 0.2

The proposed SPC-FOCV method is compared to the conventional FOCV, pilot cell-based FOCV
and P&O methods in Table 5, for different irradiance levels and duty cycles Dc at constant cells
temperature of 25 ◦ C, which is the nominal temperature of the cells. The comparison is based on PV
supplied power Psup , total power losses ∆Ptot , and the efficiency η.

Table 5. Comparison between the proposed SPC-FOCV, conventional FOCV, and the pilot cell-based
FOCV methods.

Irradiance [W/m2 ] 1000 600 200

Method Pmax Psup ∆Ptot η Pmax Psup ∆Ptot η Pmax Psup ∆Ptot η
SPC (Dc = 99%) 27.14 27.11 0.22 99.07 15.78 15.76 0.09 99.3 4.84 4.83 0.018 99.42
SPC (Dc = 95%) 27.14 27 0.33 98.26 15.78 15.7 0.15 98.54 4.84 4.81 0.038 98.59
SPC (Dc = 90%) 27.14 26.86 0.47 97.23 15.78 15.62 0.23 97.52 4.84 4.79 0.085 97.21
Pilot Cell 27.14 24.42 2.71 90 15.78 14.2 1.57 90 4.84 4.35 0.48 90
FOCV (Dc = 99%) 27.14 26.86 0.45 97.31 15.78 15.62 0.21 97.65 4.84 4.79 0.048 97.97
FOCV (Dc = 95%) 27.14 25.78 1.53 89.35 15.78 14.99 0.84 89.67 4.84 4.59 0.247 89.73
FOCV (Dc = 90%) 27.14 24.42 2.88 79.36 15.78 14.2 1.63 79.65 4.84 4.35 0.437 80.84
P&O 27.14 27.14 0 100 15.78 15.78 0 100 4.84 4.84 0 100

The SPC-FOCV calculated power losses for different irradiance values are shown in Table 6. It can
be seen that the sum of the calculated switching losses of switches 1 and bypass has very low values-
[uW] and therefore, only the the conduction losses effect the total power losses of the Mosfets. If the
switching frequency will be significantly increased to the values of kHz, the switching losses will
become more dominant and they will have to be taken into account.

Table 6. Calculated switches power losses for different irradiance values, SPC-FOCV. Switching
frequency is 1 Hz.

Irradiance [W/m2 ] 1000 600 200

Conduction power losses [W] 0.19 0.07 8.15m
Switching power losses [W] 0.29u 0.17u 0.051u
Total power losses ∆Psw [W] 0.19 0.07 8.15m

Table 5 shows that for all simulated values of irradiance and duty cycles, the proposed SPC-FOCV
method ensures highest supplied power Psup , lowest power losses Ploss and as a result highest efficiency
compared to the conventional FOCV and the pilot cell methods.
The increase of the duty cycle results in higher efficiency. Therefore, the duty cycle should be set
to the highest possible value. The operation frequency should be defined according to two parameters-
estimation accuracy and switching power losses. The increase of the operation frequency will result in
better accuracy of the estimated VMPP voltage but the Mosfet power losses will be also increased and
the efficiency will be decreased. Therefore, the operation frequency should be matched according to
the irradiance conditions of the PV installation.
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 12 of 20

The P&O method identifies the maximum power point without disconnection of the PV from the
load and therefore, the power losses are zero and its efficiency is 100%. However, the implementation
of the P&O method is more complicated and requires DSP.

4.2. SPC-FOCV Operation under Temperature Variations

Other set of simulations was performed for temperature variations between 25 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C
while the irradiance was kept constant at 1000 W/m2 (the nominal temperature of the simulated
panel is 25 ◦ C). The graph of the simulated PV output power vs. output voltage curves for different
temperature values is shown in Figure 13. This graph can be used in order to measure the value of the
PV array’s Vmpp voltage for each specific temperature. These curves were obtained by using simulation
setup shown in Figure 9 where the temperature of the PV array was changed according to the desired
curve. It can be seen that the temperature variations significantly effect the open-circuit voltage which
is reduced when the temperature is increased. The calculated voltage factor for different temperature
values is shown in Table 7.

Figure 13. Output power with respect to output voltage for various temperatures.

Table 7 shows that the voltage factor decreases when temperature changes from 45 ◦ C to 65 ◦ C.
Therefore, for these temperature values an error in Vmpp estimation is expected.

Table 7. The calculated voltage factor for different temperature values.

Temperature 25 35 45 55 65
K pv (calculated) 0.816 0.816 0.801 0.795 0.789

The PV panel from the previous section was operated by SPC-FOCV at 25 to 35, 45, 55, and 65 ◦ C
with operation cycle of 1 s and Dc = 99%. The Vmpp voltages calculated by SPC-FOCV method
under varying temperatures can be compared to the Vmpp voltages measured from the graph shown
in Figure 13. This comparison is presented in Table 8. It can be seen that Vmpp estimation error
appears at temperature of 45 ◦ C and increases with the temperature rise. At temperature of 65 ◦ C,
the estimation error is maximal 0.95%. However, this error value is very low and acceptable according
to IEEE standards.

Table 8. Comparison between directly measured and SPC-FOCV estimated Vmpp voltage for different
temperature values.

Temperature 25 35 45 55 65
Vmpp (measured) [V] 4.896 4.735 4.49 4.3 4.11
Vmpp (estimated by SPC-FOCV) [V] 4.896 4.735 4.573 4.411 4.249
Error [%] 0 0 0.28 0.51 0.95
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 13 of 20

It can be seen that the SPC-FOCV method provides precise estimation of Vmpp voltage during
the irradiance and temperature changes except for high temperature and/or low irradiance values
where small errors are present. Additional errors can appear if the irradiance or temperature vary very
fast while the frequency of the operation cycle is too low and not matched to the rate of changes in
irradiance or temperature. This inaccuracy can be reduced or completely avoided by increasing the
frequency of the operation cycle according to the irradiance or temperature conditions.
The semi-pilot cell and its switching mechanism has to be integrated into the PV array during
its manufacturing process. The proposed SPC-FOCV method is more suitable for small PV systems
consisted of limited number of PV panels. The integration of the semi-pilot cell in every panel of
a large PV system with many PV panels would require high manufacturing costs.

5. Semi-Pilot Panel SPP-FOCV Method

The SPP-FOCV method is intended for application in large PV systems consisted of many PV
panels, see Figure 14. The semi-pilot panel method is the extended version of the semi-pilot cell
method and their operation principle is similar. The Vmpp voltage of the whole PV system is estimated
by measuring the open circuit voltage of the semi-pilot panel. The operation cycle is divide into
two stages- during the first stage the semi-pilot panel feeds the load and during the second stage,
the semi-pilot panel is switched off from the array by two transistors and bypassed by the diode.
During the measurement only N − 1 panels supply power to the load. Unlike the SPC-FOCV where
semi-pilot cell and its switching circuit have to be internally integrated into the PV array during PV
manufacturing, the semi-pilot panel and the switching circuit in the SPP-FOCV method are external
and can be installed during the deployment of the PV system. Equations (2)–(9), which were presented
earlier for SPC-FOCV method, are also valid for the SPP-FOCV method.

− + − + − + − + − + − +
+ +
− −
+ − + − + − + − + − + −

(a) (b)

Figure 14. PV array configuration during one measurement cycle. (a) First stage: all N panels provide
power to the load, semi-pilot panel is connected to the array; (b) Second stage: the semi pilot panel is
disconnected from the array.

6. Experimental Validation and Analysis of the SPP-FOCV Method

To experimentally verify the operation of the proposed SPP-FOCV method, a special box was
constructed, see Figure 15. The purpose of this box is to set the desired irradiance values for each PV
panel and to eliminate the effect of light from outside. Six 500 W lamps were installed on the top of the
box. Each pair of lamps is installed above PV panel and equipped with dimmer that allows precise
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 14 of 20

irradiance control. For each experiment, the lamps were tuned to the specific irradiance values that
were applied to the PV panels.

Figure 15. The box with six lamps and three dimmers that was designed for the experiments.

The three tested PS10M-12/B PV panels are connected in series and installed inside the box, under
the lamps, as shown in Figure 16. The principle scheme of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 17.
It is operated in the same manner as explained in Section 3. Each panel consists of 36 mono-crystal
Si solar cells connected in series. The parameters of the panels are shown in Table 9. The calculated
voltage factor of these PV panels is 0.8. The third panel is the semi-pilot panel equipped with three
Mosfet switches (switches 1, 2 and bypass). The control unit for switches and Buck-Boost converter
control is implemented by Altera DE2. The switches are implemented by CSD19531KCS Mosfets.
The open circuit voltage of the semi-pilot panel is measured by the voltage sensor and its value is
transfered to the Altera. The accuracy of the voltage sensor used in the experimental setup is ±5 mV.
The PV array’s output power is measured by the GPM-8212 multi-meter whose accuracy is ±0.2%
of reading.
Two sets of experiments were performed in order to verify the proposed FOCV-SPP method.
The complete operation cycle of the semi-pilot panel was set 1 s (frequency 1 Hz) with duty cycle of 99%
i.e., the semi-pilot panel feeds the load during 0.99 s together with other two panels and disconnected
for open circuit voltage measurement for 0.01 s. The Vmpp voltage was estimated by multiplying the
measured open circuit voltage of the switched semi-pilot panel by voltage factor K pv and the number
of solar modules in the PV array (three). The estimated Vmpp voltage was compared to the directly
measured Vmpp voltage that was obtained before testing the FOCV-SPP method. To obtain the directly
measured Vmpp voltage, three PV panels were tested for each irradiance value under load implemented
by varying voltage source that was swept between zero to Voc = 64.2 V voltage of the array.
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 15 of 20

During the first set of experiments, the Vmpp voltage was estimated by the FOCV-SPP method for
different irradiance values while the ambient and PV cells temperature was 25 ◦ C. The comparison
between directly measured and FOCV-SPP calculated Vmpp voltage for this set of experiments is shown
in Table 10.

Figure 16. The experimental setup with three PS10M-12/B PV modules connected in series, loads,
and electronic control.

+
PV Panel
-
Multi
meter

+
PV Panel Buck-Boost load
-

Sw2

+ Voltage
sensor
PV Panel
-
Bypass
Semi pilot panel switch
Sw1

Altera DE2

Control unit

Figure 17. The principle scheme of the experimental setup.

Electronics 2019, 8, 321 16 of 20

Table 9. Technical parameters of PS10M-12/B PV module.

Parameter Value
Rated power [W] 10
Open circuit voltage [V] 21.4
Short circuit current [A] 0.68
Rated voltage [V] 16.8
Rated current [A] 0.6
Nominal operation temperature [◦ C] 45

Table 10. Experimental comparison between directly measured and SPP-FOCV estimated Vmpp voltage
for different irradiance values. The temperature of the PV cells is 25 ◦ C.

Irradiance [W/m2 ] 1000 800 600 400 200

Output power [W] 30.3 23.73 17.1 10.7 4.9
Directly measured Vmpp voltage [V] 50.2 49 47.3 45.5 43
SPP-FOCV estimated Vmpp voltage [V] 50.1 48.9 47.1 44.9 42.4
Measured Voc of semi-pilot panel [V] 20.87 20.37 19.6 18.7 18
Estimation error [%] 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.3 1.4

It can be seen that estimation of the Vmpp voltage by the proposed SPP-FOCV algorithm is precise
under various irradiance conditions. The maximal estimation error is around 1.4%.
The second set of experiments was performed under partial shading conditions. In general,
the standard FOCV method is not intended for use under partial shading conditions, as well as many
other common MPPT methods such as P&O, IC etc. The accuracy of these methods is limited under
partial shading conditions. Therefore, the proposed SPP-FOCV method which is improvement of the
standard FOCV method, is also is not intended for implementation under partial shading conditions.
A lot of special MPPT methods for partial shading conditions were developed and presented in
the literature [56–58].
To understand how the accuracy of the proposed SPP-FOCV method will be effected under partial
shading conditions, the experimental setup was tested under three partial shading cases while the
temperature of the cells was 25 ◦ C. In the first case, the irradiance of 400 W/m2 was applied to the
PV panel 1, 600 W/m2 to the PV panel 2 and 800 W/m2 to the PV panel 3 (semi-pilot panel). In the
second case, the irradiance of 800 W/m2 was applied to the PV panel 1, 600 W/m2 to the PV panel 2
and 400 W/m2 to the PV panel 3 (semi-pilot panel). In the third case, the irradiance of 800 W/m2 was
applied to the PV panel 1, 400 W/m2 to the PV panel 2 and 600 W/m2 to the PV panel 3 (semi-pilot
panel). The obtained experimental results are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Experimental comparison between directly measured and SPP-FOCV estimated Vmpp voltage
under partial shading conditions. The temperature of the PV cells is 25◦ C.

Case 1 2 3
Irradiance on PV panel 1 [W/m2 ] 400 800 800
Irradiance on PV panel 2 [W/m2 ] 600 600 400
Irradiance on PV panel 3 (semi-pilot panel) [W/m2 ] 800 400 600
Directly measured Vmpp voltage [V] 50.8 50.8 50.8
SPP-FOCV estimated Vmpp voltage [V] 48.9 44.9 47.1
Measured Voc of semi-pilot panel [V] 20.37 18.7 19.6
Estimation error [%] 3.8 13.1 7.8

This Table shows that the lowest estimation error of 3.8% was obtained in case 1 where the
irradiance on the semi-pilot panel was highest (800 W/m2 ) while the largest error (13.1%) was obtained
in case 2 where the irradiance on the semi-pilot panel was lowest (400 W/m2 ). Therefore, in some
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 17 of 20

cases of the partial shading, the proposed SPP-FOCV method will be accurate enough while in other
cases, its accuracy will be limited and the special partial shading MPPT methods should be used.

7. Conclusions
Two general challenges of the conventional FOCV method are to improve the accuracy and to
reduce the power loss. To solve these issues, we propose to reduce the power loss during open-circuit
voltage measurements by replacing the pilot cell by a semi-pilot cell. During normal operation,
the semi-pilot cell is a part of the PV array and contributes to the total generated power. The open-circuit
voltage is measured when the semi-pilot cell is disconnected from the array. As a result the power of
the semi-pilot cell is lost only when it is disconnected, and not constantly. The proposed methods are
validated using simulations and experiments. It is shown that both methods can accurately estimate
the maximum power point voltage, and hence improve the overall efficiency.

Author Contributions: All authors have worked on this manuscript together and all authors have read and
approved the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Barchowsky, A.; Parvin, J.P.; Reed, G.F.; Korytowski, M.J.; Grainger, B.M. A comparative study of MPPT
methods for distributed photovoltaic generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies, Washington, DC, USA, 16–18 January 2012; pp. 1–7.
2. De Brito, M.A.G.; Galotto, L.; Sampaio, L.P.; de Azevedo e Melo, G.; Canesin, C.A. Evaluation of the main
MPPT techniques for photovoltaic applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 1156–1167. [CrossRef]
3. Esram, T.; Chapman, P.L. Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2007, 22, 439–449. [CrossRef]
4. Murtaza, A.F.; Sher, H.A.; Chiaberge, M.; Boero, D.; Giuseppe, M.D.; Addoweesh, K.E. Comparative analysis
of maximum power point tracking techniques for PV applications. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Multi Topic Conference, Lahore, Pakistan, 19–20 December 2013; pp. 83–88.
5. Subudhi, B.; Pradhan, R. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 89–98. [CrossRef]
6. Bastidas-Rodriguez, J.D.; Franco, E.; Petrone, G.; Ramos-Paja, C.A.; Spagnuolo, G. Maximum power point
tracking architectures for photovoltaic systems in mismatching conditions: A review. IET Power Electron.
2014, 7, 1396–1413. [CrossRef]
7. Elobaid, L.M.; Abdelsalam, A.K.; Zakzouk, E.E. Artificial neural network-based photovoltaic maximum
power point tracking techniques: A survey. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2015, 9, 1043–1063. [CrossRef]
8. Bendib, B.; Belmili, H.; Krim, F. A survey of the most used MPPT methods: Conventional and advanced
algorithms applied for photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 637–648. [CrossRef]
9. Dolara, A.; Faranda, R.; Leva, S. Energy comparison of seven MPPT techniques for PV systems. J. Electromagn.
Anal. Appl. 2009, 1, 152. [CrossRef]
10. Hsieh, G.C.; Hsieh, H.I.; Tsai, C.Y.; Wang, C.H. Photovoltaic power-increment-aided incremental-
conductance MPPT with two-phased tracking. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 2895–2911. [CrossRef]
11. Safari, A.; Mekhilef, S. Simulation and hardware implementation of incremental conductance MPPT with
direct control method using Cuk converter. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 1154–1161. [CrossRef]
12. Hossain, M.J.; Tiwari, B.; Bhattacharya, I. An adaptive step size incremental conductance method for faster
maximum power point tracking. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference,
Portland, OR, USA, 5–10 June 2016; pp. 3230–3233.
13. Lakshmi, D.; Rashmi, M. A modified incremental conductance algorithm for partially shaded PV array.
In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Technological Advancements in Power and Energy,
Kollam, India, 21–23 Decembner 2017; pp. 1–6.
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 18 of 20

14. Tey, K.S.; Mekhilef, S. Modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm to mitigate inaccurate responses
under fast-changing solar irradiation level. Sol. Energy 2014, 101, 333–342. [CrossRef]
15. Lokanadham, M.; Bhaskar, K.V. Incremental conductance based maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for
photovoltaic system. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2012, 2, 1420–1424.
16. Sivakumar, P.; Kader, A.A.; Kaliavaradhan, Y.; Arutchelvi, M. Analysis and enhancement of PV efficiency
with incremental conductance MPPT technique under non-linear loading conditions. Renew. Energy
2015, 81, 543–550. [CrossRef]
17. Kish, G.J.; Lee, J.J.; Lehn, P. Modelling and control of photovoltaic panels utilising the incremental
conductance method for maximum power point tracking. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2012, 6, 259–266.
[CrossRef]
18. Dhar, S.; Sridhar, R.; Mathew, G. Implementation of PV cell based standalone solar power system employing
incremental conductance MPPT algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Circuits,
Power and Computing Technologies, Nagercoil, India, 20–21 March 2013; pp. 356–361.
19. Xiong, Y.; Qian, S.; Xu, J. Research on constant voltage with incremental conductance MPPT method.
In Proceedings of the Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2012 Asia-Pacific, Shanghai, China,
27–29 March 2012; pp. 1–4.
20. Zhu, W.; Shang, L.; Li, P.; Guo, H. Modified hill climbing MPPT algorithm with reduced steady-state
oscillation and improved tracking efficiency. J. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1878–1883. [CrossRef]
21. Al-Atrash, H.; Batarseh, I.; Rustom, K. Effect of measurement noise and bias on hill-climbing MPPT
algorithms. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2010, 46, 745–760. [CrossRef]
22. Kjær, S.B. Evaluation of the “Hill climbing” and the “Incremental conductance” maximum power point
trackers for photovoltaic power systems. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2012, 27, 922–929. [CrossRef]
23. Xiao, W.; Dunford, W.G. A modified adaptive hill climbing MPPT method for photovoltaic power systems.
In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE 35th Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference, Aachen, Germany,
20–25 June 2004; pp. 1957–1963.
24. Al-Atrash, H.; Batarseh, I.; Rustom, K. Statistical modeling of DSP-based hill-climbing MPPT algorithms in
noisy environments. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference,
Austin, TX, USA, 6–10 March 2005; pp. 1773–1777.
25. Peftitsis, D.; Adamidis, G.; Balouktsis, A. A new MPPT method for Photovoltaic generation systems based
on Hill Climbing algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Electrical Machines,
Wuhan, China, 17–20 October 2008.
26. Abuzed, S.; Foster, M.; Stone, D. Variable PWM step-size for modified Hill climbing MPPT PV converter.
In Proceedings of the 7th IET International Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives
(PEMD 2014), Manchester, UK, 8–10 April 2014.
27. Ahmed, A.; Ran, L.; Bumby, J. Perturbation parameters design for hill climbing MPPT techniques.
In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Hangzhou, China,
28–31 May 2012; pp. 1819–1824.
28. Elgendy, M.; Zahawi, B.; Atkinson, D. Dynamic behaviour of hill-climbing MPPT algorithms at low
perturbation rates. In Proceedings of the IET Conference on Renewable Power Generation, Edinburgh, UK,
6–8 September 2011.
29. Raza, K.S.M.; Goto, H.; Guo, H.J.; Ichinokura, O. A novel speed-sensorless adaptive hill climbing algorithm
for fast and efficient maximum power point tracking of wind energy conversion systems. In Proceedings of
the IEEE International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies, Singapore, 24–27 November 2008;
pp. 628–633.
30. Bahari, M.I.; Tarassodi, P.; Naeini, Y.M.; Khalilabad, A.K.; Shirazi, P. Modeling and simulation of hill climbing
MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic application. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Symposium on Power
Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, Anacapri, Italy, 22–24 June 2016; pp. 1041–1044.
31. Elgendy, M.A.; Zahawi, B.; Atkinson, D.J. Assessment of perturb and observe MPPT algorithm
implementation techniques for PV pumping applications. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2012, 3, 21–33.
[CrossRef]
32. Raj, C.M.J.S.; Jeyakumar, A.E. A novel maximum power point tracking technique for photovoltaic module
based on power plane analysis of I–V characteristics. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2014, 61, 4734–4745.
[CrossRef]
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 19 of 20

33. Sera, G.; Teodorescu, R.; Hantschel, J.; Knoll, M. Optimized maximum power point tracker for fast-changing
environmental conditions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55, 2629–2637. [CrossRef]
34. Femia, N.; Petrone, G.; Spagnuolo, G.; Vitelli, M. A technique for improving P&O MPPT performances of
double-stage grid-connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 4473–4482.
35. Femia, N.; Petrone, G.; Spagnuolo, G.; Vitelli, M. Optimizing duty-cycle perturbation of P&O MPPT
technique. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE 35th Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference,
Aachen, Germany, 20–25 June 2004; pp. 1939–1944.
36. Al-Diab, A.; Sourkounis, C. Variable step size P&O MPPT algorithm for PV systems. In Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment, Brasov, Romania,
20–22 May 2010; pp. 1097–1102.
37. Kollimalla, S.K.; Mishra, M.K. A novel adaptive P&O MPPT algorithm considering sudden changes in the
irradiance. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2014, 29, 602–610.
38. Sher, H.A.; Murtaza, A.F.; Noman, A.; Addoweesh, K.E.; Al-Haddad, K.; Chiaberge, M. A new sensorless
hybrid MPPT algorithm based on fractional short-circuit current measurement and P&O MPPT. IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 1426–1434.
39. Al Nabulsi, A.; Dhaouadi, R. Efficiency optimization of a DSP-based standalone PV system using fuzzy
logic and dual-MPPT control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2012, 8, 573–584. [CrossRef]
40. Chikh, A.; Chandra, A. An optimal maximum power point tracking algorithm for PV systems with climatic
parameters estimation. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 6, 644–652. [CrossRef]
41. Chiu, C.S.; Ouyang, Y.L. Robust maximum power tracking control of uncertain photovoltaic systems:
A unified TS fuzzy model-based approach. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2011, 19, 1516–1526. [CrossRef]
42. Larbes, C.; Aït Cheikh, S.M.; Obeidi, T.; Zerguerras, A. Genetic algorithms optimized fuzzy logic control for
the maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system. Renew. Energ. 2009, 34, 2093–2100. [CrossRef]
43. Vinay, P.; Mathews, M.A. Modelling and analysis of artificial intelligence based MPPT techniques for
PV applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Advances in Green Energy,
Thiruvananthapuram, India, 17–18 December 2014; pp. 56–65.
44. Ahmad, J. A fractional open circuit voltage based maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic
arrays. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Technology and Engineering,
San Juan, PR, USA, 3–5 October 2010; Volume 1, pp. V1-247–V1-250.
45. Sandali, A.; Oukhoya, T.; Cheriti, A. Modeling and design of PV grid connected system using a modified
fractional short-circuit current MPPT. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Conference, Ouazazate, Morocco, 17–19 October 2014; pp. 224–229.
46. Khatib, T.T.; Mohamed, A.; Amim, N.; Sopian, K. An improved indirect maximum power point tracking
method for standalone photovoltaic systems. In Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on
Applications of Electrical Engineering, Selangor, Malaysia, 23–25 March 2010; pp. 56–62.
47. Vitorino, M.A.; Hartmann, L.V.; Lima, A.M.; Correa, M.B. Using the model of the solar cell for determining
the maximum power point of photovoltaic systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 European Conference on
Power Electronics and Applications, Aalborg, Denmark, 2–5 September 2007; pp. 1–10.
48. Chang, S.; Wang, Q.; Hu, H.; Ding, Z.; Guo, H. An NNwC MPPT-based energy supply solution for sensor
nodes in buildings and its feasibility study. Energies 2019, 12, 101. [CrossRef]
49. Harrag, A.; Messalti, S. Variable step size modified P&O MPPT algorithm using GA-based hybrid
offline/online PID controller. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 1247–1260.
50. Li, W.; He, X. Review of nonisolated high-step-up DC/DC converters in photovoltaic grid-connected
applications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 1239–1250. [CrossRef]
51. York, B.; Yu, W.; Lai, J.S. An integrated boost resonant converter for photovoltaic applications. IEEE Trans.
Power Electron. 2013, 28, 1199–1207. [CrossRef]
52. Baimel, D.; Shkoury, R.; Elbaz, L.; Tapuchi, S.; Baimel, N. Novel optimized method for maximum power
point tracking in PV systems using Fractional Open Circuit Voltage technique. In Proceedings of the 2016
International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, Anacapri, Italy,
22–24 June 2016; pp. 889–894.
53. Frezzetti, A.; Manfredi, S.; Suardi, A. Adaptive FOCV-based control scheme to improve the MPP tracking
performance: An experimental validation. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2014, 47, 4967–4971. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2019, 8, 321 20 of 20

54. Huang, Y.P. A rapid maximum power measurement system for high-concentration photovoltaic modules
using the fractional open-circuit voltage technique and controllable electronic load. IEEE J. Photovolt.
2014, 4, 1610–1617. [CrossRef]
55. Lopez-Lapena, O.; Penella, M.T. Low-power FOCV MPPT controller with automatic adjustment of the
sample & hold. Electron. Lett. 2012, 48, 1301–1303.
56. Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Horan, B.; Soon, T.K.; Rahmani, R.; Oo, A.M.T.; Mekhilef, S.; Stojcevski, A.
State of the art artificial intelligence-based MPPT techniques for mitigating partial shading effects on
PV systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 435–455. [CrossRef]
57. Mohapatra, A.; Nayak, B.; Das, P.; Mohanty, K.B. A review on MPPT techniques of PV system under partial
shading condition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 854–867. [CrossRef]
58. Lyden, S.; Haque, M.E.; Gargoom, A.; Negnevitsky, M. Review of maximum power point tracking
approaches suitable for PV systems under partial shading conditions. In Proceedings of the 2013 Australasian
Universities Power Engineering Conference, Hobart, Australia, 29 September–3 October 2013; pp. 1–6.

c 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).