644
2, APRIL 2015
An Optimal Maximum Power Point Tracking
Algorithm for PV Systems With Climatic
Parameters Estimation
Ali Chikh, Member, IEEE, and Ambrish Chandra, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a maximum power point track-
ing (MPPT) method for photovoltaic (PV) systems with reduced
hardware setup. It is realized by calculating the instantaneous
conductance and the junction conductance of the array. The first
one is done using the array voltage and current, whereas the
second one, which is a function of the array junction current,
is estimated using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS) solar cell
model. Knowing the difficulties of measuring solar radiation and
cell temperature, since those require two extra sensors that will
increase the hardware circuitry and measurement noise, an ana-
lytical model is proposed to estimate them with a denoising-based
wavelet algorithm. The proposed MPPT technique helps to reduce
the hardware setup using only one voltage sensor, while increases
the array power efficiency and MPPT response time. The simula-
tion and experimental results are provided to validate the MPPT
algorithm operation as well as the climatic parameters estimation
capabilities.
Index Terms—Adaptive neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS) solar cell model,
instantaneous conductance, junction conductance, junction cur-
rent, maximum power point tracking (MPPT), photovoltaic (PV)
system.
I. I NTRODUCTION
N OWADAYS, environmental problems produced by the
use of classical power generation seem to acquire more
attention around the world [1]. The extensive use of these
types of energies increases continuously the earth temperature
and warming. Nowadays, renewable energies, especially pho-
tovoltaic (PV) energy, considered as palliative energy resource,
are growing rapidly and are used in several applications,
e.g., battery charging, home energy supply, and pumping sys-
tems. They have long life, require minimum maintenance, and
produce no noise or disturbing effects. Therefore, they are
environmental-friendly. However, they suffer from a relatively
low conversion efficiency, which makes their optimization
necessary. This is done by extracting their maximum power
for fluctuating climatic environments. Well-known “maximum
power point tracking (MPPT)” is done through a particular
control of a converter. Various techniques have been proposed
Manuscript received July 23, 2014; revised December 03, 2014; accepted
February 07, 2015. Date of publication March 09, 2015; date of current version
March 18, 2015. Paper no. TSTE-00368-2014.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Ècole de
Technologie Supèrieure, Montreal, QC H3C 1K3 Canada (e-mail: achikh@
yahoo.com; ambrish.chandra@etsmtl.ca).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSTE.2015.2403845
1949-3029 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 6, NO.
depending on their complexity, sensors used, convergence,
setup, and in further aspects [2]–[8], [22]–[25].
The current–voltage (I−V ) and the power–voltage (P −V )
curves of the array are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively,
under uniform solar radiations [3].
It is noticed from Fig. 2 that the array maximum power
varies with the solar radiation. Therefore, it is necessary to
track constantly these points. The most common methods are
the perturb and observe (P&O), and the incremental conduc-
tance (InCond). The first method is popular due to its hardware
simplicity. It functions by creating a perturbation in the volt-
age, which results in variation in the array power [3], [20].
However, the system oscillates around the MP points, which
wastes energy while it cannot distinguish between the radiation
variation and the tracker’s perturbation. Many solutions are pre-
sented based on an adaptive step size or optimization functions
[3]–[5], [9], [21], [26]. The second InCond method has a great
accuracy with good flexibility to rapidly varying climatic condi-
tions [24]. Therefore, it is possible to recognize when the MPP
is achieved within a given accuracy [7], [22] by computing the
instantaneous and InConds and verifying if they are identical.
However, it involves an increased hardware and software com-
plexity. Many improvements are proposed using variable and
modified step size algorithms [8], [22]–[24]. A sliding mode
control has been used to improve tracking accuracy [11] and
InCond using reference voltage and direct duty ratio perturba-
tion [12]. Finally, a model-based (MB) control is used [13].
Nowadays, intelligent systems are progressively used due to
their human-like capability and ability to adapt and improve
their performance [14], [19], [26], [27]. Many neural networks
(NN)- and fuzzy logic (FL)-based techniques are proposed. An
artificial NN algorithm is developed with climatic conditions as
inputs and applied to a boost tracker [28]. Using FL theory, a
feed-forward MPPT scheme, a fuzzy controller, and an adaptive
P&O-FL control method are proposed [9], [15], [16], [30].
The combination of NN and FL seems to be more attractive
since it associates the learning capabilities of the ANN with the
ability of the FL to trait inaccurate data, which makes it suitable
for PV applications [17]. A radial-basis NN function (RBFNN)
is presented to deliver the reference information to a recurrent
FNN controller (RFNNC) [31]. Another method is proposed
based on a generalized dynamic FNN (GD-FNN) [32]. Finally,
adaptive MPPT controllers-based neuro-fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) is presented [33], [34].
CHIKH AND CHANDRA: OPTIMAL MPPT ALGORITHM FOR PV SYSTEMS 645

Fig. 3. Equivalent circuit of a solar cell.

Fig. 1. Array current–voltage curve.

Fig. 4. ANFIS decoupled solar cell model.

The output current of the PV cell is given by [6], [17],

[21], [24]
   
V
I = Iph − Id = Iph − Io exp −1 (1)
Vt

where Iph is the photocurrent, Id is the junction current, Io is

the reverse saturation current, and Vt is the thermal voltage.
Fig. 2. Array power–voltage curve. The photocurrent is a linear function of (G, Tc ) [1], [6],
[17], [21]
It can be noticed from the literature that all the proposed G
Iph = [Isc,ref + ki (Tc − Tc,ref )] = f (G, Tc ) (2)
MPPT methods need information on the array voltage, current, Gref
and environmental parameters, in some cases, which is a diffi-
cult task resulting in an increased and complex hardware with where Isc,ref is the cell short-circuit current in the standard test
high failure probability and noise measurements. conditions (STC), G is the solar radiation, Gref = 1000 W/m2
This paper provides an efficient MPPT method with reduced is the solar radiation in the STC, Tc is the cell temperature,
hardware. It computes the instantaneous and junction array con- Tc,ref = 25◦ C is the cell temperature in the STC, and ki is the
ductances. The first one is done using the array current and coefficient of the short-circuit current.
voltage, whereas the second one uses the array junction cur- The other current involved in (1) is the junction current Id ,
rent, which is estimated using ANFIS cell model presented in which is highly nonlinear [1], [6], [8], [10], [21]
a recent paper of the authors [17]. Still, it requires informa-  3   
tion on the climatic parameters. Hence, it is proposed as an Tc q EG 1 1
Id = Io, ref exp −
analytical model with a denoising-based wavelet algorithm to Tc,ref kA Tc,ref Tc
   
estimate them, which helps reducing the hardware using only qV
× exp − 1 = g (V, Tc ) (3)
one voltage sensor. The simulation and experimental results are kA Tc
provided to validate the proposed MPPT scheme capabilities.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II provides an where Io,ref is the reverse saturation current in the STC, EG
overview of how to estimate the junction current. The pro- is the band gap energy of the cell semiconductor, k is the
posed MPPT scheme is developed and explained in Section III. Boltzmann’s constant, and q is the electron’s electric charge.
Section IV shows in detail the estimation of environmental Finally, the cell current can be modeled as follows:
parameters. The simulation results based on MATLAB/SPS are
presented in Section V and the experimental verifications are I (V, G, Tc ) = f (G, Tc ) − g (V, Tc ) . (4)
discussed in Section VI. Section VII gives a conclusion.
It is called a “decoupled solar cell model” [17]. Due to
the nonlinear dependence of the junction current Id on the
cell voltage and temperature, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy (ANFIS)
II. E STIMATING THE A RRAY J UNCTION C URRENT
algorithm is proposed to estimate it as shown in Fig. 4 [17].
In this paper, the one-diode solar cell model is used to The cell current is then computed by determining separately
represent the PV cell as illustrated in Fig. 3. the photocurrent Iph and the junction current Id .
646 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 6, NO. 2, APRIL 2015

III. P ROPOSED MPPT T ECHNIQUE

The proposed MPPT scheme is built around the solar cell
model shown in Fig. 4 and in (1)–(3). Taking into account the
fact that Iph  Io , three equations have been developed based
on three array operating states as follows.
• In the MPP state:
 
Vm
Im = Iph − Io exp . (5)
Vt
Fig. 5. Proposed MPPT algorithm.
• In the short-circuit state:

Isc = Iph . (6) Finally, after some rearrangements, the power derivative is
• In the open-circuit state: ∂P V
  = I − Id . (15)
Voc ∂V Vt
Iph = Io exp (7)
Vt
We are seeking for the voltage that maximizes the power, so
where Im is the MPP current, Vm is the MPP voltage, and Voc

∂P

Vm
is the open-circuit voltage.

= 0 ⇒ Im − Idm = 0. (16)
By combining (6) and (7), we get ∂V V =Vm Vt
Isc
Io =  . (8) Thus, expression (16) can tell us easily when the PV array is
exp VVoct delivering its maximum power as follows [25]:

By replacing (8) in (5), we get Im Idm

Ym = = = Yd (17)
   Vm Vt
Vm − Voc
Im = Isc 1 − exp . (9)
Vt where Ym is the “instantaneous conductance” and Yd is defined
as the “junction conductance.”
From expression (9), we notice that, at the MPP, the only The proposed MPPT scheme is illustrated in Fig. 5.
unknown parameter is the thermal voltage expressed as The operation of this technique starts by measuring Vpv and
Vm − Voc estimating Ipv using the ANFIS model (Fig. 4). Next, the ther-
Vt =  . (10) mal voltage Vt is computed. However, for the algorithm to
ln IscI−I m
sc operate continuously, the parameters (G, Tc ) must be estimated
Expression (10) can be further simplified using the propor- as explained in the next section.
tionality relationship between the array Isc and Im [2]

Im = K1 Isc (11) IV. E STIMATING S OLAR R ADIATION AND C ELL

T EMPERATURE
where K1 depends on the array under use (0.78 ≺ K1 ≺ 0.92).
By replacing expression (11) in (10), the thermal voltage is Initially, an analytical model for the environmental parame-
ters (G, Tc ) is developed. Then, a wavelet denoising model is
Vm − Voc Vm − Voc proposed as a next step to get filtered out parameters.
Vt = = . (12)
ln (1 − K1 ) K2
To compute the array maximum power, the analytical output
power must be derived from (1) as follows: A. Analytical Model
    For commercial PV modules, manufacturers give only infor-
V
P = IV = Iph V − Io exp − 1 V. (13) mation on: (Im , Vm , Isc , Voc ) in the STC which are subject to
Vt
variations in the climatic conditions (G, Tc ) as [17], [35]–[37]
By deriving the power expression, we get    
        G G
∂P V V V ΔI = α (Tc − Tc,ref ) + − 1 Isc,ref (18)
= Iph − Io exp − 1 + Io exp −1 . Gref Gref
∂V Vt Vt Vt ΔV = −β(Tc − Tcref ) − Rs ΔI (19)
(14)

From expressions (1) and (3), we have where ΔI and ΔV are the corresponding variations in the cell
          current and voltage, α is the cell’s short-circuit current tempera-
V V ture coefficient, β is the cell’s open-circuit voltage temperature
Iph −Io exp −1 = I and Io exp −1 = Id .
Vt Vt coefficient, and Rs is the cell series resistance.
CHIKH AND CHANDRA: OPTIMAL MPPT ALGORITHM FOR PV SYSTEMS 647

The estimation of G and Tc is done by solving simultane-

ously (18) and (19) for G and Tc
 
Isc, ref + ΔI
G = Gref (20)
Isc, ref − αβ (Rs ΔI + ΔV )

and Fig. 6. Process of discrete wavelet transforms.

1
Tc = Tc,ref − (Rs ΔI + ΔV ) . (21)
β

Finally, the ambient temperature can be estimated as [17]

G
Ta = Tc − (NOCT − Ta,r ) (22)
Gr
where Ta,r = 20◦ C is the nominal ambient temperature,
NOCT is the nominal operating cell temperature, and Gr =
800 W/m2 is the nominal solar radiation.
Expressions (20)–(22) seem to be a nice estimation for the
environmental parameters.
Fig. 7. Overall control system.

B. Proposed Wavelet Denoising Model expressions (23) and (24) as shown in Fig. 6, where (↓ 2) is a
Wavelet theory has been considerably used recently [38]– down sampling with a factor of 2.
[42]. It allows a decomposition of complex information into Fig. 7 shows the overall control system where only one
basic forms at diverse positions and scales [38]. Wavelet trans- voltage sensor is used and the parameters (Ipv , Vt , G, Tc ) are
form is based on small waves positioned in different times, estimated.
which are computed using scaling and translation of a scaling
function; hence, it gives good capability to represent signals
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
as compared to FT, which make it nicely applied to signal
denoising [38], [39]. Wavelet analysis is implemented using Simulations were done using a PV array built of two mono-
successive filters where the input at each step is constantly crystalline 80−W modules (Appendix) [43] (Figs. 1 and 2).
divided into two bands, whereas the lower band is furthermore
divided into two other bands till a chosen resolution is reached.
This can be resumed as follows [41], [42]: A. Performance of the Proposed MPPT Algorithm

To examine the performance of the proposed MPPT algo-
aj+1 (k) = h(2 k − n) aj (n) (23) rithm by means of MATLAB/Simulink, we simulated, in a short
n

time period of 0.4 s, three step variations in solar radiation (250,
2
dj+1 (k) = g(2 k − n) aj (n) (24) 500, 750, and 1000 W/m ) with a constant cell temperature
m Tc = 25◦ C. The resulting array operating voltage and current
are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
where h(k) and g(k) refer, respectively, to unit sampling We can notice that the array voltage and current track sig-
responses of low-pass and high-pass digital filters, and aj and nificantly their corresponding references, which means that
dj are, respectively, the approximations and details coefficients the array is operating at its maximum power. This can be
at level j and k is the index of the coefficient at each level. confirmed by observing its power, which is following precisely
The filters are computed using the two scale equations [41] the corresponding MPP (Fig. 10). The tracking capability of the

−1 algorithm under varying solar radiation is shown in Fig. 11.
N
√
ϕ(t) = h(k) 2 ϕ (2t − k) (25) It is shown in Fig. 11 that, due to the first radiation value,
k=1 the voltage varies through a certain range before it converges to
−1
its first MP point P1 at Vpv = Vm1 . Then, Vm1 is used as the


N
√
ψ(t) = g(k) 2 ϕ (2t − k). (26) initial value for the next iteration. This procedure is continued
k=1
to reach P2 , P3 , and P4 when Vpv equals to Vm2 , Vm3 , and Vm4 ,
respectively. Then, the instantaneous and junction conductances
The scaling function ϕ(t) is associated with the low-pass are tested if they satisfy the condition in expression (17), as
filters {h(k), k ∈ Z} and the wavelet function ψ(t) is asso- shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
ciated with the high-pass filters {g(k), k ∈ Z}. The discrete It is seen clearly that the curves of Ypv (Vpv ) and Yd (Vpv )
wavelet transform algorithm performs the decomposition pro- intersect exactly when the MPP is achieved, which confirms
cess by passing the input signal through the filters defined by the validity of the proposed scheme. Moreover, this condition
648
Fig. 8. Array voltage Vpv .
Fig. 9. Array current Ipv .
Fig. 10. Array power Ppv .
Fig. 11. Array power tracking.
can also be verified by confirming that the difference between
the two conductances at the MPP condition is equal to zero,
i.e., [Ypv (Vpv ) − Yd (Vpv )]MPPT = 0 as predicted in expres-
sion (17) and illustrated in Fig. 13. The simulation results
presented in Figs. 8–13 show obviously that the developed algo-
rithm ensures the maximum power operation of the PV array.
Its estimated power follows the maximum power under very
fast varying solar radiation with a very good precision. The
steady-state error is shown in Table I.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 6, NO. 2, APRIL 2015
Fig. 12. Proposed MPPT test condition.
Fig. 13. MPPT condition using Ypv and Yd .
TABLE I
A RRAY P OWER E STIMATION E RROR
The mean MPPT error through the entire solar radiation
range is found to be around 1.75 %, which is very reason-
able. Moreover, the radiation variations are done through a very
short period of time (t = 0.4 s). Therefore, it can be said that
the algorithm reacts adequately to fast fluctuations in climatic
conditions and operates using only one voltage sensor, which
results in a reduced hardware implementation.
B. Performance of the Climatic Parameters Estimator
Measuring the environmental parameters is a difficult task,
which yields to noisy and inefficient data. Therefore, using
expressions (18) and (19), an analytical model is developed to
estimate them. Also, in order to get usable data, a wavelet-based
denoising algorithm is proposed to filter them out where the fil-
ters are built based on expressions (23) and (24). The resulted
radiation approximation coefficients aj | j=1, 2, ..., 7 and detail
coefficients dj | j=1, 2, ..., 7 are shown in Fig. 14.
The estimated cell and ambient temperatures are shown in
Figs. 15 and 16.
CHIKH AND CHANDRA: OPTIMAL MPPT ALGORITHM FOR PV SYSTEMS
Fig. 14. Wavelet parameters for solar radiation.
Fig. 15. Estimated cell temperature.
Fig. 16. Estimated ambient temperature.
The estimated radiation in Fig. 14 exhibits a precise track
of its reference values. The estimated cell temperature is found
to be around 25◦ C (Fig. 15). Finally, ambient temperature is
shown in Fig. 16. From the observed curves, it is clear that the
proposed model gives precise results; therefore, extra sensors to
measure (G, Tc ) are avoided.
VI. E XPERIMENTAL V ERIFICATION
The experimental setup developed to validate the proposed
MPPT strategy includes a PV emulator, a boost converter con-
nected to a resistive load, a gate drive circuitry, a voltage
sensor, a current sensor used only to visualize the array cur-
rent, and an MPPT controller implementation based on DS1104
DSP of dSPACE (Fig. 7). A climatic parameters model and
thermal voltage estimator are also used. The PV emulator rep-
resents two 80 W peak power PV panels coupled in series
649
Fig. 17. Array voltage.
Fig. 18. Array current.
Fig. 19. Array power.
to provide a 160−W array (see the Appendix). It is realized
using a dc power supply that operates in the current mode.
By stepping its output current sink, changes in radiation can
be emulated following the curves illustrated in Figs. 8 and 10.
Due to the limitation in the dSPACE, the time interval used
in experimental investigations is 40 s, which is small enough
to confirm the algorithm response to rapid varying climatic
conditions. All the experimental curves are captured using the
dSPACE ControlDesk Developer environment in real time. The
experimental results are presented in Figs. 17–25.
A. MPPT Controller Operation
To highlight the capability of the proposed MPPT scheme,
the PV emulator is programmed to make three step changes in
its output current corresponding to a variation in solar radiation
2
from 250, 500, 750, to 1000 W/m . During its operation, the
algorithm measures the voltage Vpv in order to estimates the
parameters G and Tc . Then, the photocurrent Iph is computed
analytically using expression (2), whereas the diode current Id
650
Fig. 20. Instantaneous conductance.
Fig. 21. Junction conductance.
Fig. 22. Condutance difference Ypv − Yd .
Fig. 23. MPPT response time due to a change in solar radiation.
is estimated through the ANFIS algorithm presented in Fig. 4.
Next, the thermal voltage Vt is computed using expression (12).
Finally, all these parameters are injected into the MPPT con-
troller to compute the instantaneous and junction conductances,
so that a corresponding PWM signal with an appropriate duty
cycle is generated for controlling the boost converter (Fig. 7).
The experimental results of the array voltage, current, and
power are shown in Figs. 17–19.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 6, NO. 2, APRIL 2015
Fig. 24. Solar radiation.
Fig. 25. Cell temperature.
TABLE II
A RRAY P OWER E XPERIMENTAL E RROR
The experimental results show a good agreement with the
predicted curves presented in the simulation. Moreover, the
array current, voltage, and power follow the reference values in
the hall PV operating range (Figs. 8–10). Thus, the algorithm
is seen to converge quickly under fast-varying solar radiation.
On the other hand, the oscillation in the output power can be
reduced by increasing the value of the boost inductor L.
It is noticed that the emulator current and voltage are very
close to the MPPT reference values (Figs. 17 and 18). Similarly,
its power follows the solar radiation changes almost instantly as
shown in Fig. 19 with an error of 2 %, which is too close to the
one predicted by the simulation (Table II).
Finally, the MPPT operation can be verified by evaluating
the conductances difference [Ypv − Yd ] under varying solar
radiation as shown in Figs. 20–22.
CHIKH AND CHANDRA: OPTIMAL MPPT ALGORITHM FOR PV SYSTEMS
Fig. 26. Ambient temperature.
It is clear from Fig. 22 that Ypv − Yd = 0. This interest-
ing result demonstrates that the MPP condition is reached.
Therefore, the proposed method is valid under fast-varying
climatic conditions with high MPPT efficiency and reduced
hardware implementation.
All the proposed MPPT techniques in the literature use at
least two sensors [2], [6]–[13], [28], [16], [17], [31], [32],
which increases their hardware and noise measurements. On
the other hand, the losses in the power extracted from the array
is reported to be equal to 8 % at 1000 W/m2 , where the MPPT
implementation need two sensors for measuring the current and
voltage [11], whereas the utilization efficiency varies from 95%
to 98.5% depending on the radiation with the use of two sen-
sors [12]. Furthermore, an error of 4.46 % in maximum power
tracking reported with the use of three sensors for measuring
current, voltage, and solar radiation [28]. However, an impor-
tant improvement is pointed out in the proposed method, as it
needs only the measurement of the array voltage. For the pro-
posed methodology, the mean power loss for the hall PV range
is around 2 %, which an interesting result.
On the other hand, it is important to verify the response time
of the proposed methodology, as the papers presented in the
literature show diverse results. The extremum seeking (ES) con-
troller achieves the MPP with response time of less than 0.1 s
[8]. However, in all the studied cases in [10], it takes 6.62 s
for the proposed particle swarm optimization (PSO) method to
reach the MPP. In response to a sudden change in radiation, the
experiments in [11] show a typical convergence time of 15 ms
where, in [12], with a 1−Vstep size, the algorithm to respond
to a step takes 5 s when using a perturbation frequency of 1 Hz,
while it takes only 0.5 s with a perturbation frequency of 10 Hz.
In [16], the fastest response achieved by the adaptive P&O-
fuzzy algorithm is about 20 ms, followed by the conventional
FL controller (FLC) algorithm, which is around 35 ms and the
P&O algorithm shows the worst performance with about 40 ms.
The simulation results of the proposed GD-FNN show that the
MPP can be achieved in 0.01 s [31], whereas the ANFIS MPPT
controller in [32] reaches its steady state at 0.12 s. As compared
to the literature, it can be concluded that the proposed method-
ology demonstrates fast response time, which is around 1.7 ms,
as shown in Fig. 23:
B. Climatic Parameters Estimator Operation
To verify the proposed climatic parameters estimator, exper-
imental results of the solar radiation, cell, and ambient temper-
atures are shown in Figs. 24–26.
651
It is found that the solar radiation G and the ambient tempera-
ture Ta follow precisely their respective reference step changes,
whereas the cell temperature Tc is constant and equals 25◦ C.
These results are similar to those predicted by the simulation
as shown in Figs. 14–16, which demonstrate that the proposed
estimator is capable to estimate climatic parameters perfectly.
The proposed method has four major advantages over the
techniques reported in the literature: 1) reduced hardware
implementation (only voltage sensor used); 2) fast tracking
capability; 3) very low error in the tracked power; and 4) finally,
it allows the estimation of the environment parameters.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper develops an optimal MPPT method that has been
tested under varying climatic conditions. It has been shown that
it can be implemented with reduced hardware setup since only
one voltage sensor has been used. The array current, solar radia-
tion, and cell temperature are estimated using an ANFIS model
and a climatic parameters estimator. The simulation results
supported by experimental verification confirm the effective-
ness of the presented method under varying solar radiation.
The experimental results exhibit a mean MPPT efficiency error
of 2 % with a response time of 1.7 ms, which ensures that
the developed technique can extract accurately the maximum
power from a PV array with a very low response time, which
makes its operation optimal with reduced hardware.
A PPENDIX
PV module characteristics [43]: Vm = 17.3 V, Im =
4.6 A, Pm = 80 W, Voc = 21.9 V, Isc = 5 A, α = 0.05 %/K,
β = −0.36 %/K, and NOCT = 38◦ C ± 2◦ C.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Koutroulis, K. Kalaitzakis, and N. C. Voulgaris, “Development of a
microcontroller-based, photovoltaic maximum power point tracking con-
trol system,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46–54, Jan.
2001.
[2] T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, “Comparison of photovoltaic array max-
imum power point tracking techniques,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 439–449, Jun. 2007.
[3] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “Optimization of per-
turb and observe maximum power point tracking method,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 963–973, Jul. 2005.
[4] N. Femia, D. Granozio, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli,
“Predictive & adaptive MPPT perturb and observe method,” IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 934–950, Jul. 2007.
[5] A. Pandey, N. Dasgupta, and A. K. Mukerjee, “High-performance algo-
rithms for drift avoidance and fast tracking in solar MPPT system,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 681–689, Jun. 2008.
[6] D. Sera, R. Teodorescu, J. Hantschel, and M. Knoll, “Optimized max-
imum power point tracker for fast-changing environmental conditions,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2629–2637, Jul. 2008.
[7] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “A technique for
improving P&O MPPT performances of double-stage grid-connected
photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 11,
pp. 4473–4482, Nov. 2009.
[8] S. L. Brunton, C. W. Rowley, S. R. Kulkarni, and C. Clarkson,
“Maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic optimization using
ripple-based extremum seeking control,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2531–2540, Oct. 2010.
652
[9] F. Zhang, K. Thanapalan, A. Procter, S. Carr, and J. Maddy, “Adaptive
hybrid maximum power point tracking method for a photovoltaic sys-
tem,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 353–360,
Jun. 2013.
[10] K. L. Lian, J. H. Jhang, and I. S. Tian, “A maximum power point track-
ing method based on perturb-and-observe combined with particle swarm
optimization,” IEEE J. Photovoltaics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 626–633, Mar.
2014.
[11] Y. Levron and D. Shmilovitz, “Maximum power point tracking employing
sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 724–
732, Mar. 2013.
[12] M. A. Elgendy, B. Zahawi, and D. J. Atkinson, “Assessment of the incre-
mental conductance maximum power point tracking algorithm,” IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 108–117, Jan. 2013.
[13] L. Cristaldi, M. Faifer, M. Rossi, and S. Toscani, “An improved model-
based maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic panels,” IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 63–71, Jan. 2014.
[14] J.-S. R. Jang, “ANFIS: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 665–685, May/Jun.
1993.
[15] M. Veerachary, T. Senjyu, and K. Uezato, “Feedforward maximum power
point tracking of PV systems using fuzzy controller,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp.
Electron. Syst., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 969–981, Jul. 2002.
[16] M. A. A. M. Zainuri1, M. A. M. Radzi1, A. C. Soh1, and N. Abd Rahim,
“Development of adaptive perturb and observe-fuzzy control maximum
power point tracking for photovoltaic boost dc–dc converter,” IET Renew.
Power Gener., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 183–194, Mar. 2014.
[17] A. Chikh and A. Chandra, “Adaptive neuro-fuzzy based solar cell model,”
IET Renew. Power Gener., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679–686, Aug. 2014.
[18] J.-S. R. Jang, C.-T. Sun, and E. Mizutani, Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft
Computing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[19] H. P. Desai and H. K. Patel, “Maximum power point algorithm in PV
generation: An overview,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Power Electron. Drive
Syst. (PEDS’07), 2007, pp. 624–630.
[20] C. W. Tan, T. C. Green, and C. A. Hernandez-Aramburo, “An improved
maximum power point tracking algorithm with current-mode control
for photovoltaic applications,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron.
Drives Syst., 2005, pp. 489–494.
[21] Y. Yusof, S. H. Sayuti, M. Abdul Latif, and M. Z. Che Wanik, “Modeling
and simulation of maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic system,”
in Proc. Nat. Power Energy Conf. (PECon), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
2004, pp. 88–93.
[22] J. Ho Lee, H. Bae, and B. H. Cho, “Advanced incremental conductance
MPPT algorithm with a variable step size,” in Proc. 12th Int. Power
Electron. Motion Control Conf. (EPE-PEMC’06), Portoroz, Slovenia,
Aug. 30/Sep. 1, 2006, pp. 603–607.
[23] B. Liu, S. Duan, F. Liu, and P. Xu, “Analysis and improvement of
maximum power point tracking algorithm based on incremental con-
ductance method for photovoltaic array,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Power
Electron. Drive Syst. (PEDS’07), Bangkok, Thailand, Nov. 27–30, 2007,
pp. 637–641.
[24] Z. Yan, L. Fei, Y. Jinjun, and D. Shanxu, “Study on realizing MPPT by
improved incremental conductance method with variable step-size,” in
Proc. IEEE 3th Ind. Electron. Appl. Conf., 2008, pp. 547–550.
[25] A. Chikh and A. Chandra, “An optimum method for maximum power
point tracking in photovoltaic systems,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc.
Gen. Meeting, Detroit, MI, USA, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[26] K. Samangkool and S. Premrudeepreechacharn, “Maximum power point
tracking using neural networks for grid-connected photovoltaic system,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Future Power Syst., 2005, 4 pp.
[27] R. Ramaprabha1, B. L. Mathur, and M. Sharanya, “Maximum power
point tracking using GA-optimized artificial neural network for solar PV
system,” in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Elect. Energy Syst. (ICEES), India, 2011,
pp. 264–268.
[28] B. M. Wilamowski and X. Li, “Fuzzy system based maximum power
point tracking for PV system,” in Proc. 28th IEEE Annu. Conf. Ind.
Electron. Soc. (IECON’02), 2002, pp. 3280–3284.
[29] A. M. Subiyanto and M. A. Hannan, “Maximum power point tracking in
grid connected PV system using a novel fuzzy logic controller,” in Proc.
Stud. Conf. Res. Develop. (SCOReD’09), UPM Serdang, Malaysia, Nov.
16–18, 2009, pp. 349–352.
[30] L. Chun-hua, J. Xu, and Z. Xin-jian, “Study on control strategy for pho-
tovoltaic energy systems based on recurrent fuzzy neural networks,” in
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Nat. Comput., 2009, pp. 282–286.
[31] X. Yang and C. Zeng, “Generalized dynamic fuzzy neural network-based
tracking control of PV,” in Proc. Asia-Pac. Power Energy Eng. Conf.
(APPEEC), 2010, pp. 1–4.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 6, NO. 2, APRIL 2015
[32] N. Khaehintung, P. Sirisuk, and W. Kurutach, “A novel ANFIS controller
for maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic systems,” in Proc. 5th
Int. Conf. Power Electron. Drive Syst. (PEDS’03), 2003, pp. 833–836.
[33] C. A. Otieno, G. N. Nyakoe, and C. W. Wekesa, “A neural fuzzy based
maximum power point tracker for a photovoltaic system,” in Proc. IEEE
Conf. (AFRICON’09), Nairobi, Kenya, Sep. 23–25, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[34] A. Chikh and A. Chandra, “Optimization and control of a photovoltaic
powered water pumping system,” in Proc. IEEE Elect. Power Energy
Conf. (EPEC), Montreal, Canada, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[35] A. Chikh and A. Chandra, “Voltage and frequency controller for a stand-
alone PV system with battery storage element,” in Proc. 38th Annu. Conf.
IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc. (IECON’12), Montreal, Canada, Oct. 25–28,
2012, pp. 1172–1177.
[36] A. Chikh and A. Chandra, “Sizing and power management for a stand-
alone PV system in cold climate,” in Proc. IEEE PES Transm. Distrib.
Conf. Expo. (T&D), May 7–8, 2012, pp. 1–6.
[37] H. Liu, G. Liu, and Y. Shen, “A novel harmonics detection method based
on wavelet algorithm for active power filter,” in Proc. 6th World Congr.
Intell. Control Autom., China, Jun. 21–23, 2006, pp. 7617–7621.
[38] S. G. Mihov, R. M. Ivanov, and A. N. Popov, “Denoising speech signals
by wavelet transform,” Annu. J. Electron., pp. 1–6, 2009, ISSN 1313-
1842.
[39] J. Ning and W. Gao, “Continuous wavelet-based active filter design for
harmonic mitigation in hybrid electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Veh.
Power Propul., Michigan, Sep. 7–11, 2009, pp. 859–865.
[40] H. T. Yalazan, T. Sürgevil, and E. Akpinar, “Wavelet transform applica-
tion in active power filter used for slip energy recovery drives,” in Proc.
Int. Aegean Conf. Elect. Mach. Power Electron., Turkey, Sep. 10–12,
2007, pp. 398–403.
[41] A. H. Ghaemi, H. Askarian Abyaneh, K. Mazlumi, and S. H. H. Sadeghi,
“Voltage notch indices determination using wavelet transform,” in Proc.
IEEE Powertech, Switzerland, Jul. 1–5, 2007, pp. 80–85.
[42] K. H. Kashyap and U. J. Shenoy, “Classification of power system faults
using wavelet transforms and probabilistic neural networks,” in Proc.
Proc. Int. Symp. Circuits Syst. (ISCAS’03), Bangkok, May 25–28, 2003,
pp. 423–426.
[43] [Online]. Available: http://website www.mrsolar.com/content/pdf/Solar
tech/
Ali Chikh (S’09–M’11) received the B.E. degree in
electrical engineering from the National Institute of
Electricity and Electronics, Boumerdès, Algeria, in
1993, and the master’s degree in electrical engineer-
ing from the University of Sciences and Technology
of Algiers, Algiers, Algeria, in 1998. He is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the Electrical Machines
Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering,
École de Technologie Supérieure (ETS), Montreal,
QC, Canada.
He worked as a Researcher with the Research
Unit of Renewable energies, Algeria. He is working as a Teacher with the
Electrical Machines Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, École
de Technologie Supérieure (ETS), Montreal, QC, Canada. His research interests
include renewable energy resources, power quality, and active power filters.
Ambrish Chandra (S’85–M’86–SM’99–F’14)
received the B.E. degree from the University of
Roorkee (presently IIT), Roorkee, India, the M.Tech.
degree from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
New Delhi, India, and the Ph.D. degree from the
University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, in 1977,
1980, and 1987, respectively.
He worked as a Lecturer and later as a Reader
with the University of Roorkee. In 1994, he joined
the Electrical Engineering Department, École de
Technologie Supérieure (ÉTS), Universié du Québec,
Montréal, QC, Canada, as an Associate Professor and became a Full Professor
in 1999. Currently, he is the Director of a multidisciplinary graduate program
on renewable energy and energy efficiency at ÉTS.
Prof. Chandra is a Fellow of Institution of Engineering and Technology,
U.K. (FIET), Fellow of Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication
Engineers, India (FIETE), Fellow of Institution of Engineers, India (FIE), and
Life Member of Indian Society for Technical Education (ISTE). He is registered
as a Professional Engineer in the province of Quebec.