International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022, pp. 1129~1139

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i2.pp1129-1139  1129

An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-

based generation systems under non-uniform weather

Issam A. Smadi, Ahmad AL-Ramaden

Electrical Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper presents a fast and simple algorithm to extract the maximum
power under non-uniform weather from the photovoltaic (PV) based
Received Sep 18, 2021 generation systems. The proposed algorithm’s three stages are the scanning
Revised Mar 21, 2022 stage, the tracking stage, the detecting and avoiding the hidden points stage.
Accepted Apr 1, 2022 The hidden points are caused by a transition between the global maximum
power point (GMPP) and a local maximum power point (LMPP) when the
partial shading conditions (PSCs) are changed. This transition cannot be
Keywords: observed by monitoring only the power difference of the PV generation
system. Simulation results with comparisons to other algorithms developed
Hidden points for global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT) under PSCs are
LabVIEW provided to clarify and show the effectiveness of the proposed GMPPT
Maximum power algorithm. The average tracking speed of the proposed algorithm is two
Non-uniform conditions times faster than the compared MPPT algorithms, with about 2% more
PV generation system power generated with no additional cost. Moreover, the proposed GMPPT
algorithm is implemented in real-time using National Instruments (NI)
CompactRIO in field-programmable gate array (FPGA) mode to confirm the
applicability of the proposed work.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Issam A. Smadi
Electrical Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology
3030, Ar-Ramtha, Irbid, Jordan
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Photovoltaic (PV) based power generation systems are among the key players in the world’s future
energy mix due to their cost-effectiveness and the advanced ability to connect them to the grid [1]. However,
some issues still need to be addressed to maximize the output energy from the PV-based power generation
systems. One of the emerging issues is the extraction of the maximum power under non-uniform weather
[2]−[4]. The hill-climbing and its related maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms, such as perturb
and observe (P&O) [5]−[7] and incremental conductance (INC) [8]−[10] are simple and powerful methods in
locating the maximum power point under uniform conditions. However, under non-uniform weather, they
may be stuck at a local maximum power point (LMPP) because of the existence of multiple maxima in the
power-voltage (P−V) curve [11].
PV based power generation systems with reconfigurable PV modules were investigated in [12]
and [13] to minimize energy drop due to the partial shading effect. Although reconfiguration techniques can
produce higher output power than the fixed configuration in the PV based power generation systems,
reconfiguring the PV modules’ location is not trivial and needs additional hardware. This will cause higher
costs and greater system complexity.

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

1130  ISSN: 2088-8694

The artificial bee colony (ABC) is adopted to detect the partial shading conditions (PSCs) and the
P&O is used to locate the global maximum power point (GMPP) in [14], forming a two-stage MPPT
algorithm. Another two-stage global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT) algorithm is proposed in [15],
where particle swarm optimization (PSO) is responsible for detecting the PSC and the P&O is accountable
for the final GMPP tracking. Statistical evaluations of different MPPT algorithms based on stochastic
optimization techniques regarding stability, success rate, and convergence speed are done in [16] and [17].
However, as in any stochastic optimization technique locating the global maxima is not guaranteed, which
may cause energy loss. Besides, the time to track the GMPP in these techniques is relatively long.
Other GMPPT algorithms divide the P−V curve into several voltage segments. Then at each voltage
segment, the LMPP is tracked using P&O or related MPPT methods. The GMPP is then located comparing
all LMPPs [18]−[20]. The module open-circuit voltage (𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 ) of the PV array is usually used for voltage
segmentation where 0.8 𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 is adopted in [18] while 0.5 𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 is preferable in [19]. How much fraction
from the 𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 suffices to track the GMPP is unclear, and the actual GMPP can be missed if the voltage step
is not adequately selected [20]. Also, the transient voltage of the PV generation system must be wisely taken
care of while scanning the P−V curve; otherwise, misleading LMPPs will be registered instead of the actual
LMPPs.
Ghasemi et al. [21] replaced the voltage step scanning with ramp function scanning to mitigate the
PV voltage transient effect on the MPP. The work in [22] uses the current variation to detect the MPP at
sampling multiple of 𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 , then the hill-climbing algorithm is called when a peak is detected to locate the
exact LMPP. By estimating an upper power limit for each sub-region at some samples of the I-V curve, the
search region is minimized in [23]. The procedure will continue until the voltage segment length is less than
the 𝑉𝑜𝑐𝑀𝑂𝐷 , then the GMPPT is located using P&O. This method may fail if the peak points are closed to each
other.
The algorithms above cannot deal with the hidden points because they rely on power variation to
detect partial shading (PS). The hidden points are points in the P−V curve caused by a transition between the
GMPP and LMPP when the PSCs are changed, which cannot be observed by monitoring only the power
difference of the PV-based power generation system. Therefore, this paper proposes an effective and fast
algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV based power generation systems under non-uniform
conditions by detecting the quasi-maximum points based on the current variation that can detect the hidden
point. Besides the forward scanning, the proposed algorithm also tracks the GMPP using reverse scanning
with termination criterion, reducing the search space dramatically. Comparisons with other algorithms
developed for MPPT under PSCs are considered clarifying and showing the effectiveness of the proposed
method. Finally, the proposed MPPT algorithm is implemented in real-time using national instruments (NI)
CompactRIO in field-programmable gate array (FPGA) mode to demonstrate the viability of the proposed
work.
This paper is organized as: the effect of PSC on the PV-based power generation systems is revisited,
and the definition of the hidden point is given in section 2. Section 3 introduces the proposed GMPPT
algorithm. Numerical comparisons with other algorithms developed for MPPT under PSCs are provided in
section 4. Experimental validation is discussed in section 5. Finally, conclusions are given in section 6.

2. PV BASED POWER GENERATION SYSTEMS

2.1. PV based power generation system characteristic under partial shading
Several PV modulus configurations are adopted in practice to achieve the desired PV based power
generation sizing. Without loss of generality, the PV generation system shown in Figure 1 is taken as an
example to highlight the partial shading effect and define the hidden points. Because of different obstacles
like shadows, moving clouds, and snow, the solar panels in the PV array are not facing the same weather.
The non-uniform weather causes partial shading effects in the PV modules. The current produced by the
shaded PV module is less than the other shine modules. This may damage the shaded module or reduce the
generated power from the PV array. A bypass diode is connected to each module to protect the shaded
module and minimize the power losses, as shown in Figure 1. The bypass diodes short-circuit the shaded
modules to prevent them from operating at negative voltage [24]. However, multiple peaks exist in the P-V
curve because of the activation of the bypass diodes Figure 2, assuming two different weather. The existence
of multiple peaks puts stress on the adopted MPPT algorithm and may lead to tracking failure.

2.2. The effect of the hidden points on MPPT

Most of the GMPPT algorithms proposed in the literature use a power variation threshold (i.e.,
|∆P|≥5%) to detect the weather change [25]. However, monitoring the power variation alone, it is difficult to
notice the change in weather. Figure 3 shows a PV generation system under different weathers, in which

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 1129-1139
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1131

Figure 3(a) shows the PV generation system under uniform weather, while Figures 3(b) and 3(c) under non-
uniform weather. Figure 3(d) shows the P-V curves under uniform and non-uniform weather. Let the GMPP
be located when the PV generation system faces the first partial shading condition (PSC 1). The weather
changed after some time and the PV generation system met another partial shading condition (PSC2). While
the irradiance shifts between PSC1 and PSC2, the old GMPP was preserved as a new LMPP with no power
variation. Hence, any GMPPT algorithm relying on power variation cannot figure out this transition in
weather. In this paper, this point is called the partial shading hidden point (PSHP). The existence of the PSHP
reduces the maximum generated power; hence, it must be avoided. The proposed GMPPT algorithms can
figure out the presence of PSHPs and avoid them without additional cost or burden.

vstring
+

-
Istring

PV1

PV2

PV3

PV4
p

Figure 1. PV based power generation system

Array power (w)
Array current (A)

Array voltage (V)

Figure 2. The P−V and I−V curves for a shaded PV array under non-uniform weather

Figure 3. Series-parallel configurations PV generation system under different weathe (a) uniform irradiance
condition (UIC), (b) partial shading condition 1 (PCS1), (c) partial shading condition 2 (PCS2), and (d) P-V
curves under different weather

An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems … (Issam A. Smadi)
1132  ISSN: 2088-8694

3. THE PROPOSED GMPPT METHOD

Three simple stages form the proposed algorithm: the scanning stage in which all the quasi-
maximum power points are located and stored. The maximum of these points is passed to the second stage to
find the exact GMPPT employing P&O. A hidden point stage is adopted to bypass the PSHP in the P−V
curve if it exists. Moreover, the reverse scanning procedure is integrated with the proposed work to minimize
the search space. Figure 4 shows the flowchart of the proposed GMPPT algorithm, and the detailed
description of each stage is discussed in the following sections.

Start

Initialize: ,
, , and flag=1

No flag==3 No No flag==1
flag==2

Yes Yes Yes

Avoiding the PSHP Tracking Stage Scanning Stage

Stage Section (3.3) Section (3.2) Section (3.1)

Figure 4. The flowchart of the proposed MPPT algorithm

3.1. Scanning the P−V curve stage

3.1.1. Forward scanning
Scanning the PV curve can be either forward or reverse Figure 5. In forwarding direction scanning
(Figure 5(a)), the reference voltage is updated from a lower voltage (𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) to an upper voltage (𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).

𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘𝑇𝑠 ) = 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 ((𝑘 − 1)𝑇𝑠 ) + ∆𝑉 (1)

where 𝑘 is an integer number, 𝑇𝑠 is the sampling time, 𝑘𝑇𝑠 is the current sample, (𝑘 − 1)𝑇𝑠 is the previous
sample, and ∆𝑉 is the voltage step. The DC-DC converter duty cycle is regulated to follow the reference
voltage of the PV generation system. At each sample, the current is sensed, and the current variation is
calculated using:
𝐼(𝐾𝑇𝑠 )−𝐼((𝐾−1)𝑇𝑠 )
∆𝐼 = | | (2)
𝐼((𝐾−1)𝑇𝑠 )

The first instant at which ∆𝐼 ≥ 5% is detected is the nearest to the actual peak, as shown in Figure 6.
Therefore, an MPP is detected; this point is saved as a quasi-local maximum power point (QLMPP). The
switch in the flowchart of Figure 5(a) is adopted for this purpose. According to Figure 5, updating the voltage
reference is ended if the saved QLMPPs is equal to the number of series modules or the reference voltage hits
𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑦
the maximum limit. Normally, 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑉𝑚𝑝𝑝 and 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.9𝑉𝑂𝐶 [23].

3.1.2. Reverse scanning

In the reverse scanning (Figure 5(b)), the current at 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 is sensed and registered as 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 . Then, the
P−V curve scanning is done from 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 toward 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 updating 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 as in (3) while monitoring the PV current
as in (2).

𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘𝑇𝑠 ) = 𝑉𝑟𝑒𝑓 ((𝑘 − 1)𝑇𝑠 ) − ∆𝑉 (3)

In the reverse scanning, the last occurrence of |∆𝐼|≥5% is the closest to the actual peak, as
demonstrated in Figure 6. Therefore, at this point, an MPP is detected and saved as a QLMPP. The switch in
the flowchart of Figure 5(b) is adopted for this purpose. The scanning is ended if either the PV current holds
𝐼𝑝𝑣 ≥ 0.95𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 or the minimum voltage is reached.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 1129-1139
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1133

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Scanning the P−V curve stage adopting (a) forward scanning (b) reverse scanning
Array power (w)

Forward Scanning Reverse Scanning

Array current (A)

Array voltage (V)

Figure 6. P−V curve forward and reverse scanning

3.2. GMPPT and partial shading detection

In this stage, the P&O will take the maximum of the stored QLMPP to track the actual GMPP
(Figure 7(a)). During this stage, the power variation is found using:

𝑃(𝑘𝑇𝑠 )−𝑃((𝑘−1)𝑇𝑠 )
∆𝑃 = | | (3)
𝑃((𝑘−1)𝑇𝑠 )

If ∆P ≥ 5%, then the weather changes, and the algorithm will activate stage 3.1, scanning the P−V curve. If
there is no variation in power for a threshold time, the algorithm will call stage 3.3, avoiding hidden points
(Figure 7(b)).
An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems … (Issam A. Smadi)
1134  ISSN: 2088-8694

Start
Start Start
Start

Start Timer
Start Timer
5min 5min

Run P&O algorithm Run P&O algorithm

and tune and tune

Yes Yes
5% 5% No No

No No
Yes Yes
No No
Time= Time=
No No
Yes Yes

Yes Yes
Yes Yes

No No

flag flag flag flag flag flag flag

flag

END END END END

(a) (a) (a) (b) (b) (b)

Figure 7. GMPPT and PS detection (a) tracking stage (b) avoiding the hidden point stage

3.3. Avoiding hidden point

To prevent the PSHP, a timer is activated once the P&O tracks the actual GMPP. If a threshold time
is over without detecting PSC observing the variation in power, the algorithm will check the saved QLMPPs,
as shown in the flow chart of Figure 7(b). If there is any variation in the stored QLMPP power, the algorithm
will detect a PSC and activate stage 3.1. If no change in power is noticed, the timer is initialized, and the
algorithm will call stage 3.2, tracking and monitoring the power variation (Figure 7(a)).

4. NUMERICAL SIMULATION
The proposed GMPPT method in this work is independent of the adopted PV generation system
configuration. Thus, the series-parallel configuration shown in Figure 3 is nominated without loss of
generality. The simulated sub-modules and system parameters are given in Table 1. Figure 8 shows the
implementation of the proposed GMPPT algorithm in which a buck-boost DC-DC converter interfaces the
PV generation system to a load.

Table 1. The sub-module and simulation

parameters
Parameters Symbole Value
Output power 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 35 W
𝑚𝑜𝑑
Open circuit voltage 𝑉𝑂𝐶 11.1 V
𝑚𝑜𝑑
Short circuit current 𝐼𝑠𝑐 4.15 A
𝑚𝑜𝑑
Voltage at 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑉𝑚𝑝𝑝 9V
𝑚𝑜𝑑
Current at 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑝 3.89 A
Buck-Boost inductance 𝐿 1 mH
Input side capacitance 𝐶𝑖𝑛 470 µF
Output side capacitance 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑡 100 µF
Switching Frequency 𝑓𝑠 20 kHz Figure 8. The implementation of the proposed GMPPT
Resistive load 𝑅𝐿 100 algorithm

4.1. Hidden point simulation

This simulation verifies the capability of the proposed GMPPT algorithm to detect and avoid the
PSHP. The forward scanning-based algorithm (Figure 5(a)) is nominated without loss of generality. The
simulation will mimic the scenarios shown in Figure 3 and uses the system shown in Figure 8. Three kinds of
weather are taking place: a UIC for one second, PSC1 for another one second, and PSC 2 for the remaining

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 1129-1139
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1135

time of the simulation. The proposed algorithm starts with the scanning stage and finds one peak (𝑃 =
850 W) at (𝑉 = 80 V). The P&O finds the actual GMPP (𝑃 = 853.3 W) at (𝑉 = 81.7 V) while monitoring
the power. The hidden point stage of the proposed method is activated once the timer hits the timer threshold.
Under UIC, no change in power has been detected; hence, the algorithm returns to stage 3.2. A PSC
is detected at 0.9 sec.; hence the algorithm initiates stage 3.1, locating two QLMPP. The maximum among
them is passed to stage 3.2, and the P&O finds the GMPP. At 1.4 sec., the threshold time is reached, and
stage 3.3 is activated. The algorithm examines the saved QLMPP; no power variation is noticed, indicating
no weather change. Therefore, the timer is initialized, and stage 3.2 is triggered. A change in the weather
occurs at t =1.9 sec., with an LMPP equal to the previous GMPP. Hence, any algorithm that relies on the
power variation will fail. However, the proposed algorithm can detect this event by checking the saved
QLMPPs power. A change in power is noticed. Thus, stage 3.1 is called. Figure 9 shows the results that
clarify and demonstrate the proposed method’s capability to overcome the PSHPs.
Array voltage (V)

Stage 3.2 Stage 3.2

Stage 3.2

Stage 3.2 Stage 3.2

Stage 3.3

Stage 3.3
Stage 3.3

Stage 3.1
Stage 3.1
Array power (w)

Time (s)

Figure 9. The hidden point simulations

4.2. Comparisons with other methods

Comparisons with the works given in [22], [23] are carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the proposed GMPPT algorithm. Figure 10 shows the P−V curve under different weather conditions. At first,
the UIC1 occurs between 𝑡𝜖[0,0.59) sec. At 𝑡=0.59 sec, PSC1 occurs until t=1.47 sec, followed by PSC2
until 2.2 sec, and UIC2 until t=3.5 sec. Adopting the forward scanning, all the voltage range between 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛
and 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 is scanned, while it is unnecessary to examine all the voltage range in the reverse scanning method.
Figure 11 shows the browsed voltage range adopting the reverse scanning under each condition. Figure 12
shows the comparison between the proposed and other algorithms, in which Figure 12(a) depicts the results
of the proposed method adopting the forward scanning. In contrast, Figure 12(b) shows the results of the
proposed method assuming reverse scanning. Figures 12(c) and 12(d) show the results adopting the
approximate I-V and the PV current variation-based methods, respectively. Figure 13 shows a zoom-in of
comparing the proposed and other algorithms. Figures 12 and 13 show that although all utilized methods can
track the GMPP, the proposed method has the shortest tracking time. Hence, the higher average power is
generated adopting the proposed method. A summary of the results is given in Table 2 .

1000
UIC1

800
Array power [W]

600 PSC1

PSC2
400

200
UIC2

0 20 40 60 80 100
Array voltage [V]

Figure 10. P−V curves under different PSC

An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems … (Issam A. Smadi)
1136  ISSN: 2088-8694

Figure 11. The browsed voltage range adopting the reverse scanning

Proposed method adopting forward scanning

Proposed method adopting forward scanning
Proposed method adopting forward scanning
Proposed method adopting forward scanning (a)
P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O (a)
P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O
(a)
(a)
P&O P&O
P&O P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O

Proposed method adopting reverse scanning (a)

Proposed method adopting reverse scanning
Proposed method adopting reverse
P&O
scanning
P&OProposed method adopting reverse scanning
P&O
(b)
P&O
P&O
P&O
(b)
P&O P&O (b)
P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O
P&O
(b)
P&O
P&O
P&O

Methodinin[18]
Method [23]

P&O
Methodinin[18]
Method [23]
P&O P&O
(b) (c)
Methodinin[18]
Method [23]
Methodinin[18]
Method [23]
P&O P&O
P&O P&O (c)
P&O P&O P&O (c)
P&O P&O
P&O P&O (c)
P&O
P&O

Method in [17]
Method in [22]

P&O
Method in [17]
Method in [22]P&O P&O
(d)
Method in [17]
Method in [22] (c)
Method
Method in
P&O [22]P&O
in [17] (d)
P&O P&O

P&O
P&O P&O
(d)
P&O P&O
P&O P&O
(d)
P&O

P&O

(d)

Figure 12. Comparison between the proposed and other algorithms (a) the proposed method adopting the
forward scanning, (b) the proposed method adopting the reverse scanning, (c) approximate I-V based
method, and (d) PV current variation-based method

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 1129-1139
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1137

Figure 13. Zoom-in of the comparison between the proposed and other algorithms

Table 2. Comparison between the proposed and other algorithms developed for MPPT under PSCs
Method Total Tracking time Average power Storing LMPPs Calling the P&O
The proposed work integrating forward scanning 140 ms 571.64 watt Yes Once
The proposed work integrating reverse scanning 90 ms 573.33 watt Yes Once
The method in [23] 200 ms 570.84 watt No Once
The method in [22] 294 ms 567.77 watt Yes Number of LMPPs

5. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
The LabVIEW CompactRIO 9063 is used to validate the proposed method experimentally, as shown
in Figure 14. The current is sensed using shunt resistance and interfaced to NI9225 analog to digital converter.
The PV voltage is interfaced directly to the NI9225. Three PV modules (PS M36s-100W) manufactured by
Philadelphia Soler are connected in series. The used PV module has the data as listed in Table 3.
Buck-Boost Converter

LabVIEW FPGA

Load

Gate Pulse
cRIO-9063

Shunt Resistor
current sensing
PV array

Figure 14. Experimental setup test-bed

Table 3. Data of PV module PS M36s-100W

Parameters Value
𝑃𝑚𝑝𝑝 100  3% W
𝑉𝑜𝑐 22.64 V
𝐼𝑠𝑐 5.72 A
𝑉𝑚𝑝𝑝 18.39 V
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑝 5.44 A

An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems … (Issam A. Smadi)
1138  ISSN: 2088-8694

Four scenarios are considered to validate the proposed work; the data for each scenario has been
collected and listed in Table 4. The first scenario has no partial shadow; in this case, the proposed algorithm
detects only one peak at 50.17 V, and the P&O locates the exact GMPP at 47.86 V. One of the PV modules
faces a partial shadow in the second scenario. The scanning stage of the proposed method locates two
QLMPPs at 41.07 and 55.25 V, respectively. The maximum at 41.07 V is given to the tracking stage, and the
P&O finds the exact GMPP at 39.09 V.
The third test is for two partially shaded modules. In this case, three peaks are detected; the
maximum among them is given to the P&O to find the exact GMPP. Finally, all of the modules are facing
different irradiances. In this case, three peaks are detected; the maximum among them is given to the P&O to
find the exact GMPP. The results listed in Table 4 validate the applicability of the proposed MPPT algorithm
in locating the GMPP under partial shading conditions.

Table 4. Experimental test data under different irradiances

Partial Shading condition LMPP1 LMPP2 LMPP3 GMPP
PV1 PV2 PV3 V1 P1 V2 P2 V3 P3 VP&O PP&O
⎯ ⎯ ⎯ 50.17 182.29 ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ 47.86 191.23
⎯ PS ⎯ 41.07 150.51 55.25 115.37 ⎯ ⎯ 39.09 156.7
PS PS ⎯ 30.69 119.69 44.89 108.67 55.23 114.12 30.25 121.08
PS PS PS 21.58 87.07 44.92 108.22 55.2 113.44 54.49 115.4

6. CONCLUSION
An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems under non-
uniform weather, with the ability to detect and bypass the hidden point in the partially shaded P−V curve, is
presented in this paper. PSHP is caused by a transition between GMPP to an LMPP once the partial shading
patterns have been changed, which is hard to be observed monitoring the power difference alone. Three
simple stages form the proposed algorithm: the scanning stage in which all the quasi-maximum power points
are located and stored. The maximum of these points is passed to the second stage to find the exact GMPPT
employing P&O. A hidden point stage is adopted to bypass the PSHP in the P−V curve if it exists. The
reverse scanning procedure is integrated with the proposed work to minimize the search space. The
performance indices of the proposed GMPPT algorithm, compared with other algorithms developed for
MPPT under PSCs, are better in terms of the generated power and the time to track the actual global peak.
The proposed MPPT algorithm is two times faster than the compared methods, generating almost 2% extra
power. Besides the simulation verification, the proposed MPPT algorithm is implemented in real-time using
NI Compact-RIO in FPGA mode to demonstrate the viability of the proposed work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Besides the open-access fees, the deanship of research at Jordan University of Science and
Technology supported the findings in this paper under grant number 20180250.

REFERENCES
[1] I. Smadi and R. AL-Qudah, “Explicit one-step model and adaptive maximum power point tracking algorithm for a photovoltaic
module,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 85, p. 106659, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106659.
[2] A. AL-Ramaden and I. A. Smadi, "Partial Shading Detection and Global MPPT Algorithm for PV System," 2019 IEEE Jordan International
Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (JEEIT), 2019, pp. 135-140, doi: 10.1109/JEEIT.2019.8717442.
[3] H. Mirazizi and M. Shafiyi, “A comprehensive analysis of partial shading effect on output parameters of a grid-connected PV system,”
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 749–762, 2018, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v8i2.pp749-762.
[4] M. H. Al-Jumaili, A. S. Abdalkafor, and M. Q. Taha, “Analysis of the hard and soft shading impact on photovoltaic module
performance using solar module tester,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive System (IJPEDS), vol. 10, no. 2,
pp. 1014–1021, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v10.i2.pp1014-1021.
[5] H. Attia and S. Ulusoy, “A new perturb and observe MPPT algorithm based on two steps variable voltage control,” International
Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2201–2208, Dec. 2021, doi:10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i4.
[6] S. Kollimalla and M. Mishra, “A novel adaptive P&O MPPT algorithm considering sudden changes in the irradiance,” IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 602–610, 2014, doi: 10.1109/tec.2014.2320930.
[7] K. Saidi, M. Maamoun, and M. Bounekhla, “A new high performance variable step size perturb-and-observe MPPT algorithm for
photovoltaic system,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1662–1674,
Sep. 2019, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v10.i3.pp1662-1674.
[8] F. Zhang, K. Thanapalan, A. Procter, S. Carr, and J. Maddy, “Adaptive hybrid maximum power point tracking method for a
photovoltaic system,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 353–360, 2013, doi: 10.1109/tec.2013.2255292.
[9] M. Al-Dhaifallah, A. Nassef, H. Rezk, and K. Nisar, “Optimal parameter design of fractional order control based INC-MPPT for
PV system,” Solar Energy, vol. 159, pp. 650–664, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.040.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2022: 1129-1139
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1139

[10] M. Moutchou and A. Jbari, “Fast photovoltaic IncCond-MPPT and backstepping control, using DC-DC boost converter,”
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1101–1112, Feb. 2020, doi:
10.11591/ijece.v10i1.pp1101-1112.
[11] M. Atig, Y. Miloud, A. Miloudi, and A. Merah, “A novel optimization of the particle swarm based maximum power point
tracking for photovoltaic systems under partially shaded conditions,” International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive
Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1795–1803, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i3.pp1795-1803.
[12] X. Gao, F. Deng, H. Zheng, N. Ding, Z. Ye, Y. Cai, and X. Wang, “Followed the regularized leader (FTRL) prediction model
based photovoltaic array reconfiguration for mitigation of mismatch losses in partial shading condition,” IET Renew. Power
Gener. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 159–176, 2021, doi: 10.1049/rpg2.12275.
[13] M. Baka, P. Manganiello, D. Soudris, and F. Catthoor, “A cost-benefit analysis for reconfigurable PV modules under shading,”
Solar Energy, vol. 178, pp. 69–78, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.11.063.
[14] D. Pilakkat and S. Kanthalakshmi, “An improved P&O algorithm integrated with artificial bee colony for photovoltaic systems
under partial shading conditions,” Solar Energy, vol. 178, pp. 37–47, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.008.
[15] D. K. Mathi and R. Chinthamalla, “A hybrid global maximum power point tracking method based on butterfly particle swarm
optimization and perturb and observe algorithms for a photovoltaic system under partially shaded conditions,” International
Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 30, no. 10, p. e12543, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.12543.
[16] M. A. Mohamed, A. A. Diab, and H. Rezk, “Partial shading mitigation of PV systems via different meta-heuristic techniques,”
Renewable energy, vol. 130, pp. 1159–1175, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.077.
[17] H. Rezk, et al., “A novel statistical performance evaluation of most modern optimization-based global MPPT techniques for partially
shaded PV system,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 115, p. 109372, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109372.
[18] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, “Maximum power point tracking scheme for PV systems operating under partially shaded conditions,”
IEEE transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1689–1698, 2008, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2008.917118.
[19] M. Boztepe, F. Guinjoan, G. Velasco-Quesada, S. Silvestre, A. Chouder, and E. Karatepe, “Global MPPT scheme for photovoltaic
string inverters based on restricted voltage window search algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 7,
pp. 3302–3312, 2014, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2013.2281163.
[20] Y. H. Liu, J. H. Chen, and J. W. Huang, “Global maximum power point tracking algorithm for PV systems operating under
partially shaded conditions using the segmentation search method,” Solar Energy, vol. 103, pp. 350–363, May 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2014.02.031.
[21] M. A. Ghasemi, H. M. Foroushani, and M. Parniani, “Partial shading detection and smooth maximum power point tracking of PV
arrays under PSC,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 6281–6292, 2015, doi:
10.1109/TPEL.2015.2504515.
[22] A. Ramyar, H. Iman-Eini, and S. Farhangi, “Global maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic arrays under partial
shading conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 2855–2864, 2016, doi:
10.1109/TIE.2016.2632679.
[23] M. A. Ghasemi, A. Ramyar, and H. Iman-Eini, “MPPT method for PV systems under partially shaded conditions by approximating I–
V curve,” IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 3966–3975, 2017, doi:10.1109/TIE.2017.2764840.
[24] K. L. Shenoy, C. G. Nayak, and R. P. Mandi, “Effect of partial shading in grid connected solar pv system with FL controller,”
International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS), vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 431–440, Mar. 2021, doi:
10.11591/ijpeds.v12.i1.pp431-440.
[25] I. Yadav, S. K. Maurya, and G. K. Gupta, “A literature review on industrially accepted MPPT techniques for solar PV system,”
International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2088–8708, Apr. 2020, doi:
10.11591/ijece.v10i2.pp2117-2127.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Issam A. Smadi is an IEEE senior member. He is currently the acting chairman

of the Electrical Engineering Department and an Associate Professor with the Jordan
University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. His research interests include
integrating renewable energy in power systems, control in power electronics, dynamic state
estimation, electric drives, power system dynamics, and control. He can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Ahmad AL-Ramaden was born in 1993. He received the B.Sc. and M.Sc
degrees in electrical engineering, especially in power and control, from the Jordan
University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan, in 2016 and 2019, respectively.
Currently, he is with Chart General Construction Company, Amman, Jordan, working as a
site maintenance electrical engineer. His research interests include control, algorithms, and
simulation of photovoltaic systems. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

An algorithm to extract the maximum power from the PV-based generation systems … (Issam A. Smadi)