# A review study of photovoltaic array maximum power tracking algorithms

- 4.4k Downloads
- 9 Citations

## Abstract

There are numerous maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms for improving the energy efficiency of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. The main differences between these algorithms are digital or analog implementation, simplicity of the design, sensor requirements, convergence speed, range of effectiveness, as well as hardware costs. Therefore, choosing the right algorithm is very important to the users, because it affects the electrical efficiency of PV system and reduces the costs by decreasing the number of solar panels needed to get the desired power. This paper provides the comparison of 62 different techniques used in tracking the maximum power based on literature survey. This paper is intended to be a reference for PV systems users.

## Keywords

Maximum power point tracking system (MPPT) Photovoltaic (PV) System efficiency## Background

Recently, renewable energy technology has been swiftly developed where it has an important role in clean energy application. An important type of renewable energy is solar energy that produces electrical energy directly using PV modules supported by MPPT algorithm to maximize the output power. The objective of obtaining MPP in PV systems is to regulate the actual operating voltage of PV panels to the voltage at MPP, by adjusting the output power of the inverter (Libo et al. 2007).

In literature, there are plentiful MPPT methods as in (Esram and Chapman 2007; Ali et al. 2012; Jusoh et al. 2014; Kamarzaman and Tan 2014; Liu et al. 2015; Lyden and Haque 2015). Kamarzaman and Tan (2014) used four categories to review MPPT algorithms as follows: conventional MPPT algorithms (perturb and observation P&O and incremental conductance IC); hill-climbing (open circuit voltage and short circuit current); ripple correlation current; and stochastic-based MPPT algorithms (particle swarm optimization, fuzzy logic controller, artificial neural network, and differential evolution). Liu et al. (2015) gave a review of MPPT techniques for use in partially shaded conditions. Lyden et al. (2015) divided the tracking techniques to three types: conventional MPPT techniques, global MPPT techniques, and power electronics-based approaches.

This paper presents a brief comparison between different techniques to help the users to choose an MPPT technique for a particular application. The comparison between the MPPT methods includes cost, analog or digital implementation, sensor dependence, convergence speed, hardware complexity, and effectiveness.

Second section illustrates the statement of the problem. Comparison between different MPPT techniques is given in third section. In fourth section, the methodology is presented followed by the fifth section in which results are introduced and three most popular algorithms are presented. Finally, the conclusion is presented in the last section.

## Statement of the problem

*V*

_{ OC }, short circuit current

*I*

_{ SC }, and the cell voltage, current, and power at the maximum power point,

*V*

_{ MPP },

*I*

_{ MPP }, and

*P*

_{ MPP }, respectively.

*FF*and efficiency

*η*are considered.

*FF*measures the quality of the PV array. It is the ratio of the actual MPP (

*P*

_{ MAX }) to the product of

*V*

_{ OC }and

*I*

_{ SC }as in (1) (Chen 2011).

While the efficiency, *η*, of a solar cell is defined as the ratio of the output electric power over the input solar radiation power under standard illumination conditions at the maximum power point (Chen 2011).

## Comparison between MPPT techniques

The MPPT techniques vary in many aspects, which might help the users to decide the system that suits their unique applications. These parameters include hardware implementation, sensor, convergence speed, multiple local maximum, cost, application, and dependency on array parameter. Hardware implementation is simply the type of circuit: analog or digital (Esram and Chapman 2007). Sensors and their numbers affect the decision makers to decide which MPPT to use. The more precise MPPT requires more sensors (Reported issued by National Instruments 2009). Usually, it is easier to sense voltage than current. The irradiance or temperature sensors are very expensive and uncommon (Faranda and Leva 2008).

Convergence speed is the time taken to reach the MPP (Walker et al. 2011). For a high-performance MPPT system, the time taken to converge to the required operating voltage or current should be low. The lower time and periodic tuning taken to reach the *MPP* minimize power losses and maximize efficiency.

The ability to detect multiple local maxima when the system is under different irradiance levels is another important parameter. The power loss can reach 70 % under partial shading condition, if a local maximum is tracked instead of the real MPP (Reported issued by National Instruments 2009; Ji et al. 2009).

Performance cost is another parameter that concerns the users. It is usually cheaper to use analog system than digital system. Moreover, the number and type of sensors, using other power or electronic components, add extra cost to the system (Faranda and Leva 2008).

Different MPPTs are suitable for various applications. Depending on the application, different aspects may be considered important when choosing the PV system. As an example, in space satellites and orbital stations applications that involve a large amount of money, the costs and complexity of the MPP tracker are not as important as its performance and reliability. The tracker should be able to continuously track the true MPP in minimum amount of time and should not require periodic tuning (Khatib et al 2010).

*PV*voltage and/or current measurements. These direct methods have the advantage of being independent from the prior knowledge of the

*PV*array configuration and parameter values for their implementation. Thus, the operating point is independent of irradiance, temperature, or degradation levels. The indirect methods are based on the use of a database of parameters that include data of typical

*P*–

*V*curves of PV systems for different irradiances and temperatures, or on the use of mathematical functions obtained from empirical data to estimate the MPP (Khatib et al. 2010; Jain and Agarwa 2007). Table 1 summarizes the most important characteristics of MPPT algorithm that is used to compare between different techniques.

Parameters used to compare MPPT algorithms

Parameters | Statement |
---|---|

PV array dependent/independent | Methods can be applied to any PV array with or without the knowledge of its configuration and parameter values |

True MPPT | The MPPT algorithm can operate at maxima or others. If the actual MPP is not the true MPP, then the output power will be less than the expected one actually |

Types of circuitry | Analog or digital |

Periodic tuning | Is there an oscillation around the MPP or not |

Convergence speed | It is the amount of time required to reach MPP |

Implementation complexity | This standard describes the method in general |

Sensors | It depends on the number of variables under consideration |

## Methodology

Comparison between different MPPT algorithms (*V* voltage, *I* current, *Ir* irradiance)

MPPT technique | PV array dependence | True MPPT | Analog/digital | Periodic tuning | Convergence speed | Implementation complexity | Sensors | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

1. | Hill-climbing P&O (Sera et al. 2006; Busa et al. 2012; Jusoh et al. 2014; Kamarzaman and Tan 2014) | No | Yes | Both | No | Vary | Low | |

2. | Incremental conductance (Esram and Chapman 2007; Yadav et al. 2012; Rashid 2011; Zainudin and Mekhilef 2010; Jusoh et al. 2014; Kamarzaman and Tan 2014) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Vary | Medium | |

3. | Fractional V | Yes | No | Both | Yes | Medium | Low | |

4. | Fractional I | Yes | No | Both | Yes | Medium | Medium | |

5. | Fuzzy logic control (Ali et al. 2012; Rezaei and Gholamian 2013; Takun et al. 2011; Rahmani et al. 2013; Jusoh et al. 2014; Kamarzaman and Tan 2014). | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Fast | High | Varies |

6. | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Fast | High | Varies | |

7. | No | Yes | Analog | No | Fast | Low | | |

8. | Current weep (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Slow | High | |

9. | DC link capacitor droop control (Ali et al. 2012) | No | No | Both | No | Medium | Low | |

10. | Load | No | No | Analog | No | Fast | Low | |

11. | dP/dV or dP/dI feedback control (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Medium | |

12. | β method (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | High | |

13. | System oscillation method (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | Yes | Analog | No | N/A | Low | |

14. | Constant voltage tracker (Ali et al. 2012; Coelho et al. 2010) | Yes | No | Digital | Yes | Medium | Low | |

15. | Lookup table method (Ali et al. 2012; Abdulmajeed et al. 2013) | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Fast | Medium | and |

16. | Online MPP search algorithm (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | High | |

17. | Yes | No | Digital | Yes | Slow | High | | |

18. | Linear current control (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | No | Digital | Yes | Fast | Medium | |

19. | IMPP and VMPP computation (Morales 2010) | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | N/A | Medium | |

20. | State based MPPT (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | Yes | Both | Yes | Fast | High | |

21. | OCC MPPT (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | No | Both | Yes | Fast | Medium | |

22. | BFV (Ali et al. 2012) | Yes | No | Both | Yes | N/A | Low | None |

23. | LRCM (Esram and Chapman 2007) | Yes | No | Digital | No | N/A | High | |

24. | Slide control (Esram and Chapman 2007; Ali et al. 2012; Tse et al. 2002; Chen 2011; Reported issued by National Instruments 2009; Faranda and Leva 2008; Walker et al. 2011; Ji et al. 2009; Khatib et al. 2010; Jain and Agarwa 2007; Sera et al. 2006; Busa et al. 2012; Yadav et al. 2012; Rashid 2011; Zainudin and Mekhilef 2010; Kumari and Babu 2011; Lee 2011; Rezaei and Gholamian 2013; Takun et al. 2011; Rahmani et al. 2013; Coelho et al. 2010; Abdulmajeed et al. 2013; Israel 2015; Morales 2010; Ghazanfari and Farsangi 2013) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Medium | |

25. | Temperature method (Ali et al. 2012; Faranda and Leva 2008; Brito et al. 2013) | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Medium | Low | |

26. | IC Based On PI (Brito et al. March 2013; Lyden and Haque 2015) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Medium | |

27. | Three point weight comparison (Ali et al. 2012)(Walker et al. 2011; Jiang et al. 2005). | No | Yes | Digital | No | Low | Low | |

28. | POS control (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | N/A | Low | |

29. | Biological swarm chasing MPPT (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Varies | High | |

30. | Variable inductor MPPT (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Varies | Medium | |

31. | INR method (Ali et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

32. | Parasitic capacitances (Zainudin and Mekhilef 2010; Rekioua and Matagne 2012; Hohm and Ropp 2003). | No | Yes | Analog | No | High | Low | |

33. | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | | |

34. | Modified INC algorithm (Mastromauro et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Medium | High | |

35. | Pilot cell (Kumar et al. 2013) | Yes | No | Both | Yes | Medium | Low | |

36. | Modified Perturb and Observe (Liu et al. 2004) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

37. | Estimate, Perturb and Perturb (Liu et al. 2004; Yafaoui et al. 2007) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

38. | Numerical method quadratic interpolation (QI) (Hu et al. 2009) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

39. | MPP locus characterization (Israel 2015) (Vladimir et al. 2009) | Yes | High | Low | | |||

40. | CVT + INC CON (P&O) + VSS method (Go et al. 2011) | Yes | Yes | Both | No | High | Medium | |

41. | Piecewise linear approximation with temperature compensated method (Yang and Yan 2013) | Yes | Yes | Both | Yes | High | Low | |

42. | Particle swarm optimization PSO algorithm (Mandour and Elamvazuthi 2013; Lyden and Haque 2015) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Low | |

43. | PSO-INC structure (Mandour and Elamvazuthi 2013) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Low | |

44. | Dual carrier chaos search algorithm (Zhou et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

45. | Algorithm for stimulated annealing (SA) (Rahman et al. 2013) | Yes | Yes | Digital | No | High | High | |

46. | VH-P&O MPPT algorithm (Abdalla et al. 2011) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Medium | Medium | |

47. | Artificial neural network (ANN | No | Yes | Both | No | High | Medium | |

48. | Ant colony algorithm (Qiang and Nan 2013) | No | Yes | Digital | No | High | Medium | |

49. | Variable DC link voltage algorithm (Lee and Lee 2013) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Medium | Medium | |

50. | Extremum seeking control method (ESC) (Reisi et al. 2013) | No | Yes | Both | No | Fast | Medium | |

51. | Gauss–Newton method (Xiao et al. 2007) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Low | |

52. | Steepest-descent method (Xiao et al. 2007) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Medium | |

53. | Analytic method (Rodriguez and Amaratunga 2007) | Yes | No | Both | Yes | Medium | High | |

54. | Azab method (Azab 2008) | Yes | Yes | Digital | Yes | Medium | Low | – |

55. | Newton-like extremum seeking control method (Zazo et al. 2012) | No | Yes | Analog | No | Fast | High | |

56. | Sinusoidal extremum seeking control method (Leyva and Olalla 2012) | No | Yes | Analog | Yes | Fast | High | |

57. | low-power (<1 W) (Lapeña et al. 2010) | Yes | Yes | Analog | No | Fast | Low | |

58. | GA-optimized ANN (Kulaksiz and Akkaya 2012) | No | Yes | Digital | Yes | Fast | High | |

59. | Differential evolution (DE) (Kamarzaman and Tan 2014) | No | Yes | Digital | No | Fast | Low | |

60. | Ripple correlation control (Lyden and Haque 2015) | No | No | No | Fast | Low | – | |

61. | Chaos search (Lyden and Haque 2015) | No | Yes | No | Fast | Medium | – | |

62. | Simulated annealing (Lyden and Haque 2015) | No | Yes | No | Varies | Low/moderate | – |

## Results

The comparison between 62 algorithms is shown in Table 2. According to the table, the most common algorithms are perturb and observe (P&O)/”hill-climbing,” incremental conductance algorithm, and fuzzy logic controller (FLC).

Below is a quick review of these three well-known algorithms.

### Perturb and Observe (P&O)/”hill-climbing”

The P&O is the most popular for its low cost, ease of implantation, simple structure, and few measured parameters, which are required. It only measures the voltage (*V*) and current (*I*) of the PV array. PV system controller changes PV array output with a smaller step in each control cycle. The step size is generally fixed, while mode can be increased or decreased. Both PV array output voltage and output current can be the control object; this process is called “perturbation.” It depends on the fact that the derivative of power with respect to voltage is zero at MPP point (Sera et al. 2006; Busa et al. 2012). This method fails under rapidly changed atmospheric conditions and has a slow response speed oscillation around the MPP (Sera et al. 2006).

### Incremental conductance algorithm

*I*/

*V*) and the incremental conductance is zero at MPP. Figure 2 shows the slope of the PV array power curve compared to (

*I*/

*V*). Thus, incremental conductance can determine that the MPPT has reached the MPP and stop perturbing the operating point of the PV array as explained in Fig. 2.

Although incremental conductance is an improved version of P&O, it can track rapidly increasing and decreasing irradiance conditions with higher accuracy than P&O. However, this algorithm is more complex than P&O. This increases computational time and slows down the sampling frequency of the array voltage and current (Esram and Chapman 2007; Chen 2011; Yadav et al. 2012; Rashid 2011; Zainudin and Mekhilef 2010).

### Fuzzy logic controller (FLC)

*E*) and the error change (Δ

*E*), at sampled times

*k*. The input

*E*(

*k*) shows if the load operation point at the instant

*k*is located on the left or on the right of the maximum power point on the PV characteristic, while the input Δ

*E*(

*k*) expresses the moving direction of this point (Esram and Chapman 2007; Ali et al. 2012; Faranda and Leva 2008; Brito et al. 2013).

## Conclusion

In this work, we presented a comparison of 62 MPPT algorithms. In the comparison, we used several parameters including the complexity of the system, number of sensors, kind of circuitry (digital or analog), tuning, convergence speed, and the dependency of the parameters. The results are shown in the table to serve the users to choose the suitable system that suits their specific applications. Moreover, we presented a summary of three most common MPPT algorithms.

## Notes

### Authors’ contributions

HJE and TS originated the problem idea. KM collected and demonstrated the idea. RE contributed in writing and reviewing the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

### Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## References

- Abdalla, I., Zhang, L., & Corda, J. (2011). “Voltage-Hold Perturbation & Observation Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm (VH-P&O MPPT) for Improved Tracking over the Transient Atmospheric Changes,” presented at Power Electronics and Applications (EPE 2011) of the 2011-14th European Conference, (pp.1–10).Google Scholar
- Abdulmajeed, Q. M., Kazem, H. A., Mazin, H., Abd Malek, M. F., Maizana, D., Alwaeli, A. H. A., Albadi, M. H., Sopian, K., & Said Al Busaidi, A. (2013). “Photovoltaic maximum tracking power point system: review and research challenges,” International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering (IJATCSE), Vol. 2, No. 5. (pp.16–21).Google Scholar
- Ali, A., Saied, M., Mostafa, M., & Moneim, T. (2012). A survey of maximum PPT techniques of PV Systems.
*Energytech*, 2012 IEEE.Google Scholar - Amrouche, B., Belhamel, M., & Guessoum, A. (2007). ”Artificial intelligence based P&O MPPT method for photovoltaic systems,” Revue des Energies Renouvelables ICRESD, Vol. 7, (pp. 11–16).Google Scholar
- Azab, M. (2008). A new maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic systems.
*World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,**44*, 571–574.Google Scholar - Brito, M., Galotto, L., Sampaio, L., Melo, G., & Canesin, C. (2013). Evaluation of the Main MPPT Techniques for Photovoltaic Applications.
*IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,**60*(3), 1156–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Busa, V., Narsingoju, K. K., & Kumar, G. V. (2012). Simulation analysis of maximum power control of photo voltaic power system.
*International Journal on Advanced Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJAEEE),**1*(1), 9–14.Google Scholar - Chen, C. J. (2011).
*Physics of solar energy*. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Coelho, R., Concer, F., & Martins, D. (2010). ”A MPPT Approach Based on Temperature Measurements Applied in PV Systems,” IEEE/IAS International Conference on Industry Applications, (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
- Esram, T., & Chapman, P. (2007). Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques.
*IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,**22*(2), 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Faranda, R., & Leva, S. (2008a). Energy comparison of MPPT techniques for PV systems.
*Wseas Transaction on Power Systems,**3*, 446–455.Google Scholar - Faranda, R., & Leva, S. (2008b). Energy comparison of MPPT techniques for PV systems.
*Wseas Transaction on Power Systems,**3*, 446–455.Google Scholar - Ghazanfari, J., & Farsangi, M. (2013). Maximum power point tracking using sliding mode control for photovoltaic array.
*Iranian Journal of Electrical & Electronic Engineering,**9*(3), 189–196.Google Scholar - Go, S., Ahn, S., Choi, J., Jung, W., Yun Yun, S., & Song, II. “Simulation and Analysis of Existing MPPT Control Methods in a PV Generation System.” Journal of International Council on Electrical Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 446-451, 2011.Google Scholar
- Hohm, D. P., & Ropp, M. E. (2003). ”Comparative Study of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithms,” Progress in Photovoltaic: Research and Application, (pp. 47–62).Google Scholar
- Hu, J., Zhang, J., & Wu, H. (2009).
*“Novel MPPT control algorithm based on numerical calculation for PV generation systems,” presented at Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference*(pp. 2103–2107). China: Baoding.Google Scholar - Israel, J. (2015). “Summary of maximum power point tracking methods for photovoltaic cells,” electronic matter, retrieved on May 2015.Google Scholar
- Jain, S., & Agarwa, V. (2007). Comparison of the performance of maximum power point tracking schemes applied to single-stage grid-connected photovoltaic systems.
*The Institution of Engineering and Technology Power Appl.,**1*(5), 753–762.Google Scholar - Ji, Y. H., Jung, D. Y., Won, C. Y., Lee, B. K., & Kim, J. W. (2009). Maximum power point tracking method for PV array under partially shaded condition. Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition, 2009. ECCE 2009. IEEE. (pp. 307–312).Google Scholar
- Jiang, J., Huang, T., Hsiao, Y., & Chen, Ch. (2005). Maximum power tracking for photovoltaic power systems.
*Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering,**8*(2), 147–153.Google Scholar - Jusoh, A., Sutikno, T., Guan, T. K., & Mekhilef, S. (2014). A Review on favourable maximum power point tracking systems in solar energy application.
*Telkomnika,**12*(1), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kamarzaman, N., & Tan, C. W. (2014). A comprehensive review of maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic systems.
*Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,**37*, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Khatib, T. T. N., Mohamed, A., & Amim, N. (2010). An improved indirect maximum power point tracking method for standalone photovoltaic systems,” presented at Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Applications of Electrical Engineering, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. (56–62).Google Scholar
- Kulaksiz, A., & Akkaya, R. (2012). Training data optimization for ANNs using genetic algorithms to enhance MPPT efficiency of a stand-alone PV system.
*Turk J Elec Eng and Comp Sci,**20*(2), 241–254.Google Scholar - Kumar, Ch., Dinesh, T., & Babu, S. (2013). Design and Modelling of PV System and Different MPPT Algorithms.
*International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT),**4*, 4104–4112.Google Scholar - Kumari, J., & Babu, Ch. (2011). Comparison of maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic system.
*International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology,**1*, 133–148.Google Scholar - Lapeña, O., Penella, M., & Gasulla, M. (2010). A New MPPT Method for Low-Power Solar Energy Harvesting.
*IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,**57*(9), 3129–3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lee, J. (2011).
*Advanced electrical and electronic engineering*. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lee, J. S., & Lee, K. B. (2013). Variable DC-link voltage algorithm with a wide range of maximum power point tracking for a two-string PV System.
*Energies,**6*, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Leyva, R., Olalla Martinez, C., Zazo, H., Cabal, C., Cid-Pastor, A., Queinnec, I., & Alonso, C. (2012). “MPPT Based on Sinusoidal Extremum-Seeking Control in PV Generation,”.
*International Journal of Photoenergy,**2012*, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Libo, W., Zhengming, Z., & Jianzheng, L. (2007). A single-stage three-phase grid-connected photovoltaic system with modified MPPT method and reactive power compensation.
*IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion,**22*(4), 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Liu, Y., Chen, J., & Huang, J. (2015). A review of maximum power point tracking techniques for use in partially shaded conditions.
*Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,**41*, 436–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Liu, C., Wu, B., & Cheung R. (2004). “Advanced Algorithm for MPPT Control of Photovoltaic System,” presented at Canadian Solar Buildings Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
- Lyden, S., & Haque, M. E. (2015). ” Maximum Power Point Tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems: A comprehensive review and comparative analysis,” Vol. 52, (pp.1504–1518).Google Scholar
- Mandour, R., & Elamvazuthi, I. (2013). Optimization of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) of photovoltaic system using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms.”
*Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences*, Vol. 4, No. 8.Google Scholar - Mastromauro, R., Liserre, M., & Aquila, A. (2012). Control issues in single-stage photovoltaic systems: MPPT, current and voltage control.
*IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics,**8*(2), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Morales, D. S. (2010).
*“Maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic applications, “A thesis presented to the faculty of electronics*. Communications and Automation: Aalto University, Finland.Google Scholar - Qiang, F., & Nan, T. (2013). A Strategy Research on MPPT Technique in Photovoltaic Power Generation System.
*Telkomnika,**11*(12), 7627–7633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rahman, Md, Poddar, S., Mamun, M., Mahmud, S., & Yeasin, Md. (2013). Efficiency comparison between different algorithms for maximum power point tracker of a solar system.
*International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM),**1*, 157–167.Google Scholar - Rahmani, R., Seyedmahmoudian, M., Mekhilef, S., & Yusof, R. (2013). Implementation of fuzzy logic maximum power point tracking controller for photovoltaic system.
*American Journal of Applied Sciences,**10*, 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rashid, M. H. (2011).
*Power Electronic Handbook*(3rd ed.). USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar - Reisi, A., Moradi, M., & Jamasb, S. (2013). Classification and comparison of maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic system: A review.
*Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,**19*, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rekioua, D., & Matagne, E. (2012).
*Optimization of photovoltaic power systems modelization, simulation and control*. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Reported issued by National Instruments. (2009). Maximum power point tracking. http://www.ni.com/white-paper/8106/en.
- Rezaei, A., & Gholamian, S. A. (2013). Optimization of New Fuzzy Logic Controller by Genetic Algorithm for Maximum Power Point Tracking in Photovoltaic System.
*Journal of Science and Technology,**9*(1), 9–16.Google Scholar - Rodriguez, C., & Amaratunga, G. (2007). Analytic solution to the photovoltaic maximum power point problem.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and System,**54*(9), 2054–2060.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Sera, D., Kerekes, T., Teodorescu, R., & Blaabjerg, F. (2006a). Improved MPPT algorithms for rapidly changing environmental conditions presented at Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, 2006.
*EPE-PEMC,**2006*, 1614–1619.Google Scholar - Sera, D., Kerekes, T., Teodorescu, R., & Blaabjerg, F. (2006b). “Improved MPPT Algorithms for Rapidly Changing Environmental Conditions,” presented at Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, 2006.
*EPE-PEMC,**2006*, 1614–1619.Google Scholar - Takun, P., Kaitwanidvilai, S., & Jettanasen, C. (2011)“Maximum power point tracking using fuzzy logic control for photovoltaic systems,” presented at International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
- Tse, K. K., Ho, M. T., Chung, H. S.-H., & Hui, S. Y. (2002). “A novel maximum power point tracker for PV panels using switching frequency modulation,”.
*IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics,**17*(6), 980–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Vladimir V. R., Scarpa, S., Buso, G., & Spiazzi. (2009). “Low-complexity MPPT technique exploiting the PV module MPP locus characterization.”
*IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics*, Vol. 56, No. 5.Google Scholar - Walker, S., Sooriyaarachchi, N., Liyanage, N., Abeynayake, P., & Abeyratne, S. (2011). Comparative analysis of speed of convergence of MPPT techniques. presented at 6th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, Sri Lanka, (pp. 522–526).Google Scholar
- Walker, S., Sooriyaarachchi, N., Liyanage, N., Abeynayake, P., & Abeyratne, S. (2011)”Comparative Analysis of Speed of Convergence of MPPT Techniques,” presented at 6th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, Sri Lanka, (pp. 522-526).Google Scholar
- Xiao, W., Dunford, W., Palmer, P., & Capel, A. (2007). Application of centered differentiation and steepest descent to maximum power point tracking.
*IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,**54*(5), 2539–2549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Yadav, A., Thirumaliah, S., & Haritha, G. (2012). Comparison of MPPT algorithms for DC–DC converters based PV systems.
*International Journal of Advanced Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering,**1*, 18–23.Google Scholar - Yafaoui, A., Wu, B., & Cheung, R. (2007). ” Implementation of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm For Residential Photovoltaic Systems,” presented at 2nd Canadian Solar Buildings Conference, Calgary.Google Scholar
- Yang, Y., & Yan, Z. (2013). A MPPT method using piecewise linear approximation and temperature compensation.
*Journal of Computational Information Systems,**9*(21), 8639–8647.Google Scholar - Zainudin, H., & Mekhilef, S. (2010).
*“Comparison study of maximum power point tracker techniques for PV systems,” presented at international middle east power systems conference (MEPCON’10)*(pp. 750–755). Egypt: Cairo University.Google Scholar - Zazo, H., Leyva, R., & Castillo, E. (2012). “Analysis of Newton-Like Extremum Seeking Control in Photovoltaic Panels,” presented at International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ‘12), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.Google Scholar
- Zhou, L., Chen, Y., Liu, Q., & Wu, J. (2012). Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) control of a photovoltaic system based on dual carrier chaotic search.
*J Control Theory Appl,**10*(2), 244–250.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.