Hindawi

International Journal of Photoenergy

Volume 2018, Article ID 6979723, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6979723

Research Article
MPPT for Photovoltaic System Using Nonlinear Controller

Ramsha Iftikhar,1 Iftikhar Ahmad ,1 Muhammad Arsalan,1 Neelma Naz,1 Naghmash Ali,2
and Hammad Armghan2
1
SEECS, National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
2
School of Electrical Engineering, The University of Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan

Correspondence should be addressed to Iftikhar Ahmad; iftikhar.rana@seecs.edu.pk

Received 5 December 2017; Accepted 12 February 2018; Published 4 April 2018

Academic Editor: Nimrod Vazquez

Copyright © 2018 Ramsha Iftikhar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Photovoltaic (PV) system generates energy that varies with the variation in environmental conditions such as temperature and
solar radiation. To cope up with the ever increasing demand of energy, the PV system must operate at maximum power point
(MPP), which changes with load as well as weather conditions. This paper proposes a nonlinear backstepping controller to
harvest maximum power from a PV array using DC-DC buck converter. A regression plane is formulated after collecting
the data of the PV array from its characteristic curves to provide the reference voltage to track MPP. Asymptotic stability
of the system is proved using Lyapunov stability criteria. The simulation results validate the rapid tracking and efficient
performance of the controller. For further validation of the results, it also provides a comparison of the proposed
controller with conventional perturb and observe (P&O) and fuzzy logic-based controller (FLBC) under abrupt changes in
environmental conditions.

1. Introduction shining on a PV device that is converted into usable

electricity is termed as conversion efficiency [2]. Hence,
Human dependence on fossil fuels, for the generation of different techniques have been devised to extract maximum
energy, has created numerous environmental catastrophes power from PV cells, so that they can operate at their
across the planet. Increased carbon emission, global warm- maximum operating efficiency [3].
ing, and ozone depletion are the direct consequences of this The power characteristics of photovoltaic cells are
ill use of fossil fuels. This dire environmental situation is nonlinear, that vary with the variation in the environmental
demanding us to utilize renewable energy resources to conditions [4]. Variation in temperature and irradiance, for
restore the damage done by fuel consumption. Renewable instance, changes the voltage produced, as well as, the gener-
energy sources are not only ecofriendly but are also conve- ated current by the PV module [5]. As a result, the generated
niently available to everyone and everywhere. The most power also varies. Consequently, the operating point of PV
eminent among these renewable sources for energy genera- array for maximum power generation changes. This operat-
tion is solar energy [1]. Energy expenditure on earth is ing point is called maximum power point, and the voltage
almost ten thousand times lesser than the energy bestowed at which PV module can produce maximum power is called
upon us by the sun. Therefore, there is a dire need to maximum power voltage (or peak power voltage). As this
develop instruments to utilize this unrestricted energy point varies by varying environmental conditions, it makes
source. Solar cell is one such promising device that converts the maximum power extraction a complex task. The power
solar energy into electrical energy that can be used directly characteristic curve of a PV module at different irradiance
in a number of ways. Although solar or PV cells are quite levels is shown in Figure 1. Since the temperature and irradi-
promising, yet they are unable to convert all the solar ance changes all the time, so a procedure is required to track
energy into electricity. The percentage of the solar energy this maximum power point.
2 International Journal of Photoenergy

4000
1.6 kW/m2
3000 1.4 kW/m2

Power (W)
1.2 kW/m2
2000 1 kW/m2
0.8 kW/m2
0.6 kW/m2
1000 0.4 kW/m2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Voltage (V)

Figure 1: Power characteristics of a PV module.

Numerous methods have been proposed in the litera- partial shading, that is, when a number of PV modules are
ture to accomplish the goal of maximum power point connected with each other and some of them are under
tracking (MPPT). They can be categorized into three families shadow while rest are under sunlight, then the whole system
of techniques, each having distinct approach to reach MPP. will experience multiple local maxima. The conventional
They are algorithms are viable to converge at these local maxima, since
they are unable to distinguish between a global and a local
(i) conventional algorithms, peak [11]. Similarly, both the methods continuously oscillate
about the MPP, thus introducing oscillations in the system
(ii) bioinspired algorithms,
and power loss.
(iii) artificial intelligence- (AI-) based algorithms. Bioinspired algorithms are much efficient when com-
pared to the conventional ones. They are capable enough to
Conventional algorithms mainly constitute a number of quickly converge to a global maxima and hence can save
variants of two basic techniques, namely, perturb and power loss even in a partially shaded environment. These
observe (P&O) and incremental conductance [6]. In P&O- algorithms generate a population of individuals and each
based algorithms, the output voltage of PV module is per- individual represents a distinguished solution. Depending
turbed and output power is observed. If ΔPower > 0, then on the type of algorithm, they interact with each other to
the voltage will be further perturbed in the same direction, converge at the maxima. Since the population is initialized
that is, voltage will be increased if it was previously increased randomly, the chances of reaching a global maxima becomes
and vice versa. But if it is less than 0, then the voltage will be very high. Genetic algorithm (GA) is one such algorithm that
perturbed in the opposite direction. These perturbations are solved the obstacle of partial shading [12]. Hardware
introduced periodically and the whole process keeps on implementation of GA-based MPPT using FLBC verified its
repeating itself to eventually reach the maximum power effectiveness under partial shading [13]. Particle swarm
point [7]. As the perturbations are periodic in nature, they optimization (PSO) is another bioinspired algorithm, which
result in oscillations of the operating point about the MPP. is employed successfully in [14]. The particles or solutions
The downside of this algorithm is its slow convergence swarm independently and evaluate their respective positions
to the MPP, resulting in degraded efficiency, especially in using a cost function to estimate their closeness to MPP.
conditions where environmental variables are varying rap- The particles eventually converge on a solution that will
idly. Perturbations in the output are also an eventual provide MPP.
outcome of this algorithm. Despite their usefulness in varying environmental condi-
Incremental conductance (IC) is more expeditious, as tions, these techniques are inefficient because of their slow
well as efficient in comparison with P&O [8]. This algo- response. These algorithms continuously evaluate and com-
rithm works on the principle that the ΔI PV /ΔV PV is equal pare the outcomes of a large number of possible solutions,
to −I PV /V PV at MPP. So, if the PV module is being oper- which also introduce oscillations in the output of the PV
ated at the left of MPP in the power VS voltage curve, then array. To reduce these oscillations, an improved variant of
ΔI PV /ΔV PV > −I PV /V PV . But, if it is operating on the right PSO was suggested in [15], which increased the efficiency
of MPP, then ΔI PV /ΔV PV < −I PV /V PV [9]. The algorithm of the system. Similarly, PSO was combined with P&O in
is capable of tracking the MPP, even when the environmen- [16] to achieve results that are better in comparison with
tal conditions are varying swiftly. Once the system reaches either of the two parent techniques. Ant colony optimization
MPP, it will eventually stop the iterations and will result (ACO) is another population-based algorithm which was
in much better efficiency in comparison with that of P&O. integrated with P&O in [17] to reduce oscillations. Although
The cost of better performance is increased complexity there are several advantages of bioinspired algorithms, but
and the execution of larger number of instructions to accu- their difficult encoding schemes, too many parameter assign-
rately perform the necessary calculations [10]. ments, slow convergence under rapidly varying conditions,
Both P&O and IC are also categorized as hill-climbing and difficult theoretical analysis inhibit their practical usage.
methods, since their principle of operation is based on the There are two manifestations of AI-based MPPT algo-
assumption of existence of global maxima. In the event of rithms, which are different in nature from one another. Fuzzy
International Journal of Photoenergy 3

logic-based controllers (FLBCs) or algorithms incorporate the Surface plot of Vpvr versus T, I
human knowledge and information of a particular system in
determining a fuzzy rule base to control it. It does not require
any mathematical model of the system but it maps the inputs
to the output using fuzzy If Else rules. Hence, its performance
completely depends on the designer’s information about the
behavior of the system and its working in varying environ-
ment. Due to this property of fuzzy systems, these controllers 330
are relatively simple to design and are robust in performance,
300
since they are also nonlinear in nature [18]. Their only disad-

Vpvr
vantage is computational complexity especially during 270
implementation. The second type of AI algorithm is artificial 240
neural network- (ANN-) based MPPT. It is computationally
less costly and improves its performance with time on its
own. It does require a training data set in the beginning to 00
500 660
train the input output relation, but once deployed, they
40
become robust in operation in response to rapid variation 1000

T
in input parameters [19]. A variant of both FLBC- and 20
ANN-based controller is developed in [20], which outper- 1500 0
forms its predecessors in performance, robustness, and effi-
ciency. The resultant artificial neuro fuzzy interference Figure 2: Regression plane.
system (ANFIS) shows less overshoot, less settling time,
and few oscillations about the MPP.
In this paper, data points were collected using character- comparing the proposed controller with the conventional
istic curves of a PV module. These points map a particular P&O and FLBC. The advantages and disadvantages of the
irradiance and temperature to the peak power voltage. Linear abovementioned techniques are presented in Section 6.
regression is then executed over these data points to generate Finally the conclusion is presented in Section 7.
a regression plane, which provides the reference peak power
voltage under varying temperature and irradiance levels. 2. Reference Voltage Generation by
The generation of reference is the first step in achieving Regression Plane
MPPT. To extract actual power, we require a DC-DC con-
verter to operate in succession with the PV array. Sometimes, PV characteristic curves are generated by varying tempera-
the operating voltage for loads is different than the output ture from 5°C to 75°C at constant irradiance level of
voltage of a PV module. For instance, the nominal voltage 1000 W/m2. Similarly, more data points were obtained by
of a battery is usually much lower than the panel’s output varying irradiance levels from 200 W/m2–1400 W/m2 at
voltage. In this scenario, it is obvious to use some kind of constant temperature of 25°C. The data set obtained by these
interface between the input power and the output load [21]. characteristic curves is used for generation of regression
DC-DC buck converter is used in the proposed study to plane that provides us the required peak power voltage
interface loads that require low input voltage [22]. Being vPVR . The generated regression plane is shown in Figure 2
the simplest among all the converters, it has the advantage and is given by the following equation:
of lowest part count [23]. For the same output power, the size
of inductor is much smaller than that of a boost converter, vPVR = 322 − 1 31 ∗ T − 0 00037 ∗ I, 1
which makes buck more efficient [24]. Buck converter can
where T is temperature and I is irradiance.
be operated at full range of duty cycle, that is, [0.1], because
it is inherently stable [25]. Converters are usually modelled
with the assumption that they depict linear behavior, which
3. Modeling of Buck Converter
is wrong. Abrupt changes in duty cycle introduces abrupt Buck is a switched mode DC-DC converter, whose output
transients in the output that depicts the nonlinear behavior voltage has lesser magnitude than the input voltage. It is also
of converters. Hence, it is unwise to use a linear controller termed as a step-down converter. Its circuit diagram is shown
for a tracking problem with the converters [5]. in Figure 3. It is assumed to be operated in continuous con-
The paper is organized in the following manner. The duction mode (CCM) throughout this paper. It has two
model of buck converter is established in Section 2. Section 3 modes of operation. In mode1, Switch S is on and Diode D
describes the generation of regression plane and the refer- is off. By Kirchoff’s current and voltage law, we can write
ence voltage to extract maximum power from the PV
array. A nonlinear backstepping controller is designed in iC1 = iPV − iL ,
Section 4, and the analysis of global asymptotic stability
using Lyapunov stability criteria is given in the same vL = vC1 − vC2 , 2
section. Results obtained after simulation are revealed in v
iC2 = iL − C2
Section 5. This section also includes results obtained after R
4 International Journal of Photoenergy

S Assuming e1 to be the error between actual and required

iPV iL L
PV array output voltage
+ +
C2 R
VPV

VC1 C1

VC2
− −
D e1 = x1 − x1ref 7
−
The goal is to converge the error signal e1 to zero. Deriv-
ative of (7) with respect to time gives
Figure 3: Buck converter.
e1 = x1 − x1ref 8
In mode 2, Switch S is off and Diode D is on. Using Inserting (6) in (8) gives
Kirchoff’s current and voltage laws, we get
iPV x2
iC1 = iPV , e1 = − μ − x1ref 9
C1 C1
vL = −vC2 , 3
Let V 1 be a positive definite Lyapnuov candidate function
v
iC2 = iL − C2 for checking the convergence of e1 to 0.
R
1 2
By utilizing inductor’s volt second balance and capaci- V1 = e 10
tor’s charge balance, we can write: 2 1
To ensure asymptotic stability, derivative of the Lyap-
d vC1 iPV i
= − L u, nuov function must be negative definite. Taking time deriva-
dt C1 C 1 tive of (10), we have
diL vC1 v
= u − C2 , 4 V 1 = e1 e1 11
dt L L
dvC2 i v Using (9), we get
= L − C2
dt C2 RC2 iPV x2
V 1 = e1 − μ − x1ref 12
After averaging the model for one switching period and C1 C1
assuming x1 , x2 , x3 , and μ to be the average value of vC1 , iL ,
vC2 , and u, respectively, we can write them as For V 1 to be negative definite, let

x1 = vC1 , iPV x2
− μ − x1ref = −K 1 e1 , 13
C1 C1
x 2 = iL ,
5 so that V 1 becomes
x3 = vC2 ,
μ= u V 1 = −K 1 e1 2 14

Evaluating the time derivative of (5) using (4), we get Rewriting (13) as

iPV x2 C1 i
x1 = − μ, x2 = K 1 e1 + PV − x1ref 15
C1 C1 μ C1
x x
x2 = 1 μ − 3 , 6 Let (15) be the reference current for inductor, given by
L L
x2 x3
x3 = − C1 i
C 2 RC2 β= K 1 e1 + PV − x1ref 16
μ C1
This averaged state space model is then used to track the
reference peak power voltage. Let us define the error e2 to track x2 to β
e2 = x 2 − β 17
4. Backstepping Control
Rewriting (17) as
In order to effectively track the reference generated by the
regression plane, a nonlinear controller based on backstep- x2 = e2 + β 18
ping approach is designed. The controller provides the input
μ that will determine the duty ratio to be supplied to the Putting (18) in (9) gives
switch in buck converter. The reference vPVR generated in
iPV e2 + β
Section 2 is termed here as x1ref to avoid any confusion while e1 = − μ − x1ref 19
deriving the controller. C1 C1
International Journal of Photoenergy 5

Putting β from (16) in (19). After simplification, we get Table 1: Parameters of PV array.
e
e1 = −K 1 e1 − 2 μ 20 Parameter Value
C1 PV module per string 10
Parallel connected strings 1
Hence, (11) becomes
Number of cells per module 72
e2 Open circuit voltage 363
V 1 = e1 e1 = e1 −K 1 e1 − μ , 21
C1 Short circuit current 7.84
e1 e2 Voltage at MPP 290
V 1 = −K 1 e1 2 − μ 22 Current at MPP 7.35
C1
Maximum power per module 213.15
Here, the first term in (22) is negative definite, but we are
not sure about the second term. By taking the derivative of
(16) and (17) and simplifying the expressions
Table 2: Parameters of controller and converter.
e2 = x2 − β, 23
Parameter Value
and K1 8
K2 26,000
C1 i μ i Input capacitor, C 1 39 uF
β= K 1 e1 + PV − x1ref − C K e + PV − x1 ref
μ C1 μ2 1 1 1 C 1 Inductor, L 7 mH
24 Output capacitor, C 2 39 uF
Load resistor, R 10 ohms
Simplifying using (16) and (20) Switching frequency, f s 100 KHz
C1 e i μ
β= K 1 −K 1 e1 − 2 μ + PV − x1ref − β 25
μ C1 C1 μ
where K 2 is a positive constant. So that the V C becomes
Inserting (25) in (23), e2 becomes
V C = −K 1 e21 − K 2 e22 31
C1 K e C iPV μ
e = x2 − −K 21 e1 − 1 2 μ − 1 − x1ref + β Using (6), (26), and (30), we get
μ C1 μ C1 u
x1 x K 2C e
26 −K 2 e2 = μ − 3 + 1 1 1 + K 1 e2
L L μ
32
Now, to guarantee convergence of both e1 and e2 to zero, iPV C 1 x1ref μ e
a composite Lyapunov function V c is defined as follows: − + + β− 1 μ
μ μ μ C1
1 2
VC = V1 + e 27 Solving (32) for μ
2 2
μ x x K 2C e
If the time derivative of V C is negative definite, then μ= −K 2 e2 − 1 μ + 3 − 1 1 1
according to Lyapunov stability criteria, both the errors e1 β L L μ
33
and e2 will converge to 0. In other words, it will ensure that μ iPV C 1 x1ref e
x1 will converge to x1ref , so that our system can reach to −K 1 e2 + − + 1μ ,
β μ μ C1
MPP. Taking the time derivative of (27), we get
where 0 < μ < 1 and β ≠ 0. Using μ obtained by integrating
ee
V C = V 1 + e2 e2 = −K 1 e1 − 1 2 μ + e2 e2 ,
2
28 (33), V C becomes negative definite, proving the asymptotic
C1 stability of the system, which is evident from (31) as V C ≤ 0.
Moreover, the convergence of e1 to 0 or PV array input
or voltage to vPVR is also ensured.
e1
V C = −K 1 e21 + e2 e2 − μ 29 5. Simulation and Results
C1
The parameters of PV array that are used in this work are
For V C to be negative definite, take mentioned in Table 1. Similarly, the parameters of controller
and converter are mentioned in Table 2. Simulations of the
e1
e2 − μ = −K 2 e2 , 30 proposed controller are performed in MATLAB/SIMULINK
C1 to verify its performance. The section is divided into four
6 International Journal of Photoenergy

PV array voltage Vpv

300

250

200

Voltage (V)
150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)

Reference
Vpv

Figure 4: Tracking of PV module voltage.

Power at varying irradiance

2500

2000
Power (W)

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)

Power at varying irradiance

Figure 5: Generated power under varying irradiance.

subsections. The first two subsections critically analyzes to 55°C. Throughout this experiment, the irradiance is
the performance of the proposed controller under sudden kept 1000 W/m2, so that the system’s performance can be
changes in temperature and irradiance. Whereas, the latter verified only under varying temperature condition. The
two compare the proposed controller with P&O and proposed controller yet again successfully tracks the refer-
FLBC-based MPPT algorithms. ence voltage, as shown in Figure 6. Similarly, the controller
is robust enough to maximize the power by reaching MPP
5.1. Test under Varying Irradiance. To test the proposed in less than 0.001 seconds. The generated power under
controller in harsh environment, the initial irradiance is kept varying temperature is shown in Figure 7.
at 200 W/m2, which is abruptly changed to 600 W/m2 after
0.1 s. Similarly, after 0.2 s, it is changed to 1000 W/m2. The
whole experiment is performed while keeping the temper- 5.3. Comparison with P&O. Conventional P&O and the
ature of PV module equal to 25°C. The regression plane proposed controller are first compared under varying irradi-
successfully generates the tracking peak power voltage ance while keeping the temperature constant and then under
which is successfully tracked by the controller, as shown varying temperature while keeping the irradiance constant.
in Figure 4. Similarly, Figure 5 depicts the change in gen- The conditions of both the tests are kept same as before in
erated power by the system as a result of abrupt variation the previous respective experiments. The proposed controller
in irradiance. Again, the PV module reaches at maximum clearly outperforms the P&O algorithm. Here, in Figure 8,
power within 0.002 seconds with almost negligible ripple. the generated power under varying irradiance is shown.
The proposed controller is not only robust, but the ripples
5.2. Test under Varying Temperature. In this case, the ini- are also negligible. The efficiency of the system is greatly
tial temperature of the PV cell is first maintained at 25°C, enhanced when the proposed controller is used. The power
which is then increased to 40°C after an interval of 0.1 s. generated under varying temperature conditions, shown in
Similarly, after 0.2 s, the temperature is sharply increased Figure 9, also verifies the abovementioned results. The P&O
International Journal of Photoenergy 7

PV array voltage Vpv

300

250

200

Voltage (V)
150

100

50

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)
Reference voltage
Vpv

Figure 6: Tracking of PV module voltage.

Power at varying temperature

2500

2000
Power (W)

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)
Power at varying temp

Figure 7: Generated power under varying temperature.

Backstepping versus P&O

2500
1300

1200
2000 1100

1000

900
1500
Power (W)

800

700

600
1000
500

400
0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13
500

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)

Perturb and observe

Backstepping

Figure 8: Power comparison under varying irradiance.

8 International Journal of Photoenergy

Backstepping versus P&O

2500

2000

1500
Power (W)

2000
1950
1000 1900
1850
1800
500 1750
1700

0.175 0.18 0.185 0.19 0.195 0.20 0.205 0.21 0.215 0.22 0.225
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Time (s)

Perturb and observe

Backstepping

Figure 9: Power comparison under varying temperature.

Backstepping versus fuzzy logic-based controller

2500
1340
1320
1300
2000 1280
1260
1240
1220
1500
Power (W)

0.0095 0.01 0.0105 0.011 0.0115 0.012 0.0125 0.013

1000

500

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Time (s)
Backstepping
Fuzzy

Figure 10: Power comparison under varying irradiance.

algorithm also takes considerably much more time to reach generated power under varying irradiance is shown in
the MPP when initially the conditions were kept constant. Figure 10, and the comparison under temperature variation
is shown in Figure 11. The results that are obtained by using
5.4. Comparison with FLBC. Once again, the same two tests backstepping controller are free of ripples and overshoot, but
were performed to study the comparison between backstep- with FLBS, both of them are easily visible. To compare the
ping and fuzzy logic-based controller, except for one change. two techniques further, a comparison between the voltage
Since both the controllers showed very rapid response to tracking of the two controllers under varying temperature is
variations, the time between the successive variations was shown in Figure 12. Although both the controllers success-
reduced 10 times. So the changes in temperature and irradi- fully track the reference, but still the FLBC displays large
ance are introduced after every 0.01 s. The comparison of ripples in the voltage waveform along with an overshoot. If
International Journal of Photoenergy 9

Backstepping versus fuzzy logic-based controller

2500

2000

1500
Power (W)

2000

1950

1000 1900

1850

1800
500 1750

1700

0.019 0.0195 0.02 0.0205 0.021 0.0215

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Time (s)
Backstepping
Fuzzy

Figure 11: Power comparison under varying temperature.

Backstepping versus fuzzy logic-based controller

350

300

250
Voltage (V)

200
280

150 270

260
100
250

50
240

0.0185 0.019 0.0195 0.02 0.0205 0.021 0.0215 0.022

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Time (s)

Fuzzy
Backstepping
Reference

Figure 12: vPVR tracking, backstepping versus FLBC.

we take into account the computational complexity and the results are presented in Table 3. The results are compared
results unveiled in this document, we can easily state that on the basis of rise time (RT), settling time (ST) (2% and
the proposed backstepping controller successfully outper- 5% criteria), steady-state error (SSE), and overshoot and rip-
forms the FLBC-based MPPT. ples in the output voltage of PV array, measured in voltage
from peak to peak. Both P&O and FLBC show large oscilla-
6. Comparison between Analyzed Techniques tions about the reference, so their output voltage never
reached within 2% of the steady-state value. Their value is
All the techniques analyzed in the previous section vary the shown as not applicable (NA) in Table 3.
output voltage of PV array by varying the duty cycle of the Both the backstepping-based control and FLBC with
converter. Hence, the PV array output voltage waveforms regression plane require three sensors in total; one voltage
obtained using all the techniques are compared and the sensor, one temperature sensor, and one sensor to measure
10 International Journal of Photoenergy

Table 3: Comparison.

Method RT (ms) ST 5% criteria (ms) ST 2% criteria (ms) SSE (%) Overshoot (V) Ripples (V)
Backstepping 1.4 1.6 1.81 0.16 0.6 0.9
P&O 1.3 59 NA 0.3 70 8.9
FLBC 1.3 1.9 NA 0.29 12.8 9

irradiance. However, P&O algorithm requires a voltage and a [4] Z. Wang, Y. Li, K. Wang, and Z. Huang, “Environment-
current sensor to measure PV array output voltage and adjusted operational performance evaluation of solar photovol-
current for its operation. The regression plane, used in the taic power plants: a three stage efficiency analysis,” Renewable
proposed technique and FLBC, requires regular maintenance and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 76, pp. 1153–1162, 2017.
to accurately generate the reference. FLBC is also computa- [5] A. D. Martin, J. M. Cano, J. F. A. Silva, and J. R. Vazquez,
tionally complex and can cause unwanted delays in MPPT, “Backstepping control of smart grid-connected distributed
which will result in wastage of useful energy. However, photovoltaic power supplies for telecom equipment,” IEEE
P&O is the simplest of all. But when we analyze the data pre- Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1496–
1504, 2015.
sented in Table 3, the superiority of the proposed technique
becomes evident. Robustness of controller along with negligi- [6] D. Sera, L. Mathe, T. Kerekes, S. V. Spataru, and R. Teodorescu,
“On the perturb-and-observe and incremental conductance
ble steady-state error validates its exceptional performance.
MPPT methods for PV systems,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics,
Similarly, least overshoot and ripples have been recorded
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1070–1078, 2013.
for backstepping-based approach. Consequently, electrical
[7] M. A. Elgendy, B. Zahawi, and D. J. Atkinson, “Evaluation of
components with small sizes, such as inductor, capacitor,
perturb and observe MPPT algorithm implementation
switches, and diodes, can be selected, when used with the techniques,” in 6th IET International Conference on Power
proposed controller, which will increase the efficiency of the Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD 2012), pp. 1–6, Bris-
overall system. tol UK, 2012.
[8] M. A. Elgendy, B. Zahawi, and D. J. Atkinson, “Assessment of
7. Conclusion the incremental conductance maximum power point tracking
algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 4,
In this paper, nonlinear backstepping controller is proposed no. 1, pp. 108–117, 2013.
to be used for MPPT using buck converter. To extract maxi- [9] M. W. Rahman, C. Bathina, V. Karthikeyan, and R. Prasanth,
mum power, the duty cycle of buck converter is controlled to “Comparative analysis of developed incremental conductance
track the reference generated by the regression plane using (IC) and perturb & observe (P&O) MPPT algorithm for
the proposed controller. The performance of the proposed photovoltaic applications,” in 2016 10th International Confer-
controller outclassed the conventional P&O and FLBC and ence on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), pp. 1–6, Coim-
it also proves the global asymptotic stability using Lyapunov batore, India, 2016.
stability criteria, whereas the previous two techniques are [10] G. J. Kish, J. J. Lee, and P. W. Lehn, “Modelling and control of
unable to do so. Regression plane does require some mainte- photovoltaic panels utilising the incremental conductance
nance, because in real world, the PV arrays are subjected to method for maximum power point tracking,” IET Renewable
wear and tear. The work can be further extended by success- Power Generation, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 259, 2012.
fully implementing the proposed converter in experimental [11] D. F. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian, “A
setup. Similarly, robustness of bioinspired algorithms can modified firefly algorithm for photovoltaic maximum power
be improved to generate the reference voltage swiftly and it point tracking control under partial shading,” IEEE Journal
should replace the regression plane. of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 661–671, 2017.
Conflicts of Interest [12] M. B. Smida and A. Sakly, “Genetic based algorithm for
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for grid connected
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. PV systems operating under partial shaded conditions,” in
2015 7th International Conference on Modelling, Identification
and Control (ICMIC), pp. 1–6, Sousse, Tunisia, 2015.
References
[13] A. A. S. Mohamed, A. Berzoy, and O. A. Mohammed, “Design
[1] G. K. Singh, “Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) and hardware implementation of FL-MPPT control of PV
technology: a review,” Energy, vol. 53, pp. 1–13, 2013. systems based on GA and small-signal analysis,” IEEE Trans-
[2] F. Dincer, “The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation actions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 279–290, 2017.
status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar [14] F. M. de Oliveira, F. R. Durand, V. D. Bacon, S. A. O. da Silva,
energy,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, L. P. Sampaio, and L. B. G. Campanhol, “Grid-tied photovol-
no. 1, pp. 713–720, 2011. taic system based on PSO MPPT technique with active power
[3] M. Metry, M. B. Shadmand, R. S. Balog, and H. Abu-Rub, line conditioning,” IET Power Electronics, vol. 9, no. 6,
“MPPT of photovoltaic systems using sensorless current- pp. 1180–1191, 2016.
based model predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on [15] K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, M. Amjad, and S. Mekhilef, “An
Industry Applications, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1157–1167, 2017. improved particle swarm optimization (PSO)–based MPPT
International Journal of Photoenergy 11

for PV with reduced steady-state oscillation,” IEEE Transac-

tions on Power Electronics, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 3627–3638, 2012.
[16] K. L. Lian, J. H. Jhang, and I. S. Tian, “A maximum power
point tracking method based on perturb-and-observe
combined with particle swarm optimization,” IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 626–633, 2014.
[17] K. Sundareswaran, V. Vigneshkumar, P. Sankar, S. P. Simon,
P. Srinivasa Rao Nayak, and S. Palani, “Development of an
improved P&O algorithm assisted through a colony of
foraging ants for MPPT in PV system,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 187–200, 2016.
[18] A. El Khateb, N. A. Rahim, J. Selvaraj, and M. N. Uddin,
“Fuzzy-logic-controller-based SEPIC converter for maximum
power point tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica-
tions, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 2349–2358, 2014.
[19] L. M. Elobaid, A. K. Abdelsalam, and E. E. Zakzouk, “Artificial
neural network-based photovoltaic maximum power point
tracking techniques: a survey,” IET Renewable Power Genera-
tion, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1043–1063, 2015.
[20] R. K. Kharb, S. L. Shimi, S. Chatterji, and M. F. Ansari,
“Modeling of solar PV module and maximum power point
tracking using ANFIS,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 33, pp. 602–612, 2014.
[21] R. Abid, F. Masmoudi, B. S. Fatma, and D. Nabil, “Modeling
and simulation of conventional DC-DC converters deticated
to photovoltaic applications,” in 2016 7th International
Renewable Energy Congress (IREC), pp. 1–6, Hammamet,
Tunisia, July 2016.
[22] L. An and D. D. C. Lu, “Design of a single-switch DC/DC
converter for a PV-battery-powered pump system with
PFM+PWM control,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec-
tronics, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 910–921, 2015.
[23] J. Chauhan, P. Chauhan, T. Maniar, and A. Joshi, “Comparison
of MPPT algorithms for DC-DC converters based photovoltaic
systems,” in 2013 International Conference on Energy Efficient
Technologies for Sustainability, pp. 476–481, Nagercoil, India,
July 2013.
[24] L. Corradini, D. Maksimovic, P. Mattavelli, and R. Zane,
Continuous-Time Averaged Modeling of DC–DC Converters,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015.
[25] T. Laagoubi, M. Bouzi, and M. Benchagra, “Analysis and
comparison of MPPT nonlinear controllers for PV system,”
in 2015 3rd International Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Conference (IRSEC), pp. 1–5, Marrakech, Morocco, 2015.
 Nanomaterial
Nanomaterials
Journal of

Journal of
The Scientific
Photoenergy
International Journal of
Analytical Methods Journal of

Hindawi
in Chemistry
Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Chemistry
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Advances in International Journal of

Physical Chemistry
Hindawi
Medicinal Chemistry
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Bioinorganic Chemistry Journal of

and Applications
Hindawi
Materials
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Advances in Journal of BioMed International Journal of International Journal of

Tribology
Hindawi
Chemistry
Hindawi
Research International
Hindawi
Spectroscopy
Hindawi
Electrochemistry
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of Journal of Journal of Enzyme Biochemistry

Analytical Chemistry
Hindawi
Spectroscopy
Hindawi
Nanotechnology
Hindawi
Research
Hindawi
Research International
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018