Factors limiting the efficiency of DMPPT in PV applications

M. Balato, M. Vitelli
Dept. of Information Engineering Second University of Naples Aversa (CE), 81031, Italy massimo.vitelli@unina2.it

N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo

DIIIE, Universit di Salerno Fisciano (SA), 84084, Italy femia, gpetrone, gspagnuolo@unisa.it

Abstract In this paper, the main factors limiting the efficiency of Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking (DMPPT) in PV applications are analyzed. It is shown why, in a PV system adopting DMPPT and operating under mismatching conditions, it is not always possible to obtain the working of each PV module in its own MPP. Index TermsPV systems, mismatching, DMPPT.

I.

INTRODUCTION

PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems usually adopt the Field Maximum Power Point Tracking (FMPPT), that is the tracking of the Maximum Power Point (MPP) of the Power vs. Voltage (P-V) characteristic of the whole field composed by paralleled PV strings (Fig.1). In case of mismatch, the P-V characteristic of the PV field may exhibit more than one peak, due to the adoption of bypass diodes, and MPPT algorithms can fail causing a severe decrease in the overall system efficiency [3], unless the whole P-V characteristic is periodically swept. Even when FMPPT is able to catch the absolute maximum power of the mismatched PV field, such a power is lower than the sum of the available maximum powers that the mismatched modules are able to provide. In the literature the problem of power drops due to mismatching effects is faced in different ways. Among the others, two approaches seem to be the most promising ones. The first approach is based on a suitable re-configuration of the PV field by using switches allowing to settle the series/parallel arrangement of PV modules, thus ensuring the highest power production for the given irradiation distribution [1][2]. Such a solution requires devices which are not only able to switch high DC currents off, but which are also characterised by a high reliability. A semiconductor device (e.g. a MOSFET), put in parallel with an electromechanical switch, can be closed as first, so that the electromechanical device can be switched off at a low voltage (Fig. 2). On the other side, in the on state, the electromechanical switch ensures the minimization of conduction losses. This solution allows to make the most of the current breaking capabilities of the electromechanical switches: in fact, their DC voltage rating is significantly lower than the AC one, but their commutation at a low voltage value allows to ascribe the aging effect to the mechanical switching action only, thus

ensuring millions of commutations. The second solution adopted to overcome the drawbacks associated to mismatching phenomena in PV applications is called Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking (DMPPT). Two different DMPPT approaches can be used. The first one is based on the adoption of one microinverter per PV module converting DC power to grid-compliant AC power. The second approach is instead based on the use of a MPPT Module Dedicated DC/DC Converter realizing the MPPT for each module (Fig. 3) and centralized inverters [4][5]. In this paper, only PV systems adopting the second approach will be discussed and analysed. Hereafter, a system composed by a PV module with a dedicated dcdc converter will be referred to as selfcontrolled PV module (SCPVM). The main drawbacks of DMPPT applications are essentially two. The first one is represented by the fact that DMPPT is able to ensure higher energy efficiency than FMPPT, in presence of mismatching phenomena, only if the efficiency of the power stage of MPPT DC/DC converters is enough high [6]. The second drawback is represented by the fact that conditions exist in which also the DMPPT approach does not allow the working of each PV module of the field in its MPP. In other words, also by using the DMPPT approach, the total power extracted by the PV field can be lower than the sum of the maximum available powers of the single modules and, in addition, it can be also lower than the power extracted by using the FMPPT approach. This aspect is not only related to constraints associated to the more or less limited voltage conversion ratio of the particular DC/DC converters adopted. Indeed, limitations of DMPPT performances may occur not only when using the boost topology which is able only to step up the output voltage with respect to the input voltage but also when using DC/DC topologies, such as the buckboost and the Cuk topology, which are able to step up or step down the output voltage with respect to the input voltage and that therefore, at a first sight, could be considered able to allow the desired performances of DMPPT applications in whichever operating condition. In fact, lower than expected DMPPT performances can take place also due to the finite ratings of devices used in the power stage of SCPVMs [7] and/or due to a non optimal value of the string voltage [8]. This aspects will be discussed in greater detail in the following Sections.

978-1-4244-8930-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

604

II.

FEASIBLE OPERATING REGIONS

In the following, without loss of generality we will refer only to a step up topology (boost) and to a step up/down topology (buckboost). Lets consider a string of N SCPVMs with the output ports connected in series (Fig. 2). It is worth noting that, depending on the adopted converter topology, on the ratings of the adopted devices, on the irradiance Sk and on the temperature Tk characterizing the k-th module, not all the possible sets of PV operating voltages [Vpan1, .., VpanN] allow to fulfill the following set of conditions:

the output voltage with respect to the input voltage (D < 0.5), the currents in the switches may exceed the safety threshold Ids max. III. NUMERICAL RESULTS

0<Vpank < Vock N k=1 Ppank (Vpank )=Ptot Iout =

Ptot Vbulk Ppank Iout

(1.a) (1.b) (1.c) (1.d) (1.e) (1.f) (1.g) (1.h) (1.i)

Voutk =

Ioutk =Iout V Mk = outk

Vpank

where Vpank is the voltage of the k-th PV module and Ppank(Vpank) is the corresponding extracted power, Vock is the open circuit voltage of the k-th module, Voutk and Ioutk respectively are the output voltage and current of the k-th SCPVM, Vbulk is the inverter DC input voltage, Mk is the voltage conversion ratio of the k-th converter and Mmin and Mmax are the corresponding minimum and maximum values (Mmin=1 and Mmax for the ideal boost converter, Mmin=0 and Mmax for the ideal buckboost converter). Voffk represents the value of the voltage across the switches of the converter when they are in the OFF state and Vds max is the corresponding maximum allowed value which depends on the voltage rating of the adopted devices. Ionk represents the peak value of the current in the switches of the converter when they are in the ON state and Idsmax is the corresponding maximum allowed value which depends on the ratings of the adopted devices. It is worth noting that, whereas in the boost topology the voltage across the active switch and the output capacitor, during its off subinterval, is equal to the output voltage Voutk [9], in the case of the buckboost topology, the voltage across the active switch, during its off subinterval, is equal to the sum of the input and output voltages Vpank - Voutk [9]. Moreover, it is worth noting that constraint (1.i) plays a strong effect only in the case of the buckboost converter. In fact, when using the boost converters, it is enough to ensure that their switches are able to conduct the short circuit currents of the PV modules connected at their input ports (the peak value of the currents in the switches is equal to the PV current). Instead, in the case of the buckboost converters, when the value of the duty-cycle D decreases, then the peak value of the switches currents increase (the peak value of the currents in the switches is equal to the PV current divided by D). So that, especially when stepping down

Mmin <Mk < Mmax Voffk < Ionk <I

In the following, a set of PV operating voltages [Vpan1, .., VpanN] will be called feasible if it fulfills all constraints 1.a-i. Moreover, the term DMPPT efficiency will refer to the ratio DMPPT between the PV power which can be extracted by adopting DMPPT and the maximum available power; while the term FMPPT efficiency will refer to the ratio FMPPT between the PV power which can be extracted by adopting FMPPT and the maximum available power. In order to show that, depending on the environmental conditions and system parameters, the equality DMPPT=1 is not always achievable, some useful maps are reported in Figs. 3-8. They refer for simplicity to a string of 2 SCPVMs adopting Sunmodule SW225 PV modules (Voc=36.8 V, Isc=8.17 A, VMPP=29.5 V, IMPP=7.63 A, NOCT=46 C). In the maps of Figs. 3-8 the x and y axis represent the operating voltages Vpan2 and Vpan1 of the two PV modules. S1 (S2) is the irradiance level of PV module 1 (2). The colored region is the locus of all the feasible operating voltages; the colors are used to identify the levels of the total PV power associated to each feasible operating point, as indicated by the right vertical bar. The remaining part of the plane (Vpan2, Vpan1) is of course composed by non feasible operating points. Different symbols are adopted to identify, for each non feasible operating point, the not-fulfilled constraint as indicated by Legend 1 for the boost converter and Legend 2 for the buckboost converter.

The absolute MPP is the point with coordinates (VMPP2,VMPP1); instead the feasible MPP is the point belonging to the feasibility region and characterized by the maximum value of the PV power. In the case shown in Fig. 3 (boost converter, S1= S2=1000 W/m2, Vds

605

max=50V, Vbulk=80 V) it is DMPPT= FMPPT =1 since the absolute MPP and the feasible MPP coincide. Instead, in the case shown in Fig. 4 (boost converter, S1=1000 W/m2, S2=400 W/m2, Vds max =50V, Vbulk=80 V), it is DMPPT=0.74, FMPPT =0.72, since the absolute MPP does not belong to the feasibility region. This is a simple example of situation in which DMPPT<1. By adopting the buckboost converter and the same device voltage rating, not only in the mismatched case of Fig. 6 (S1=1000 W/m2, S2=400 W/m2, Vds max=50V, Vbulk=80 V, DMPPT=0.3, FMPPT =0.72) but also in the uniform case of Fig. 5 (S1= S2=1000 W/m2, Vds max=50V, Vbulk=80 V, DMPPT= 0.36, FMPPT =1) we get that DMPPT is not able to allow the working of each module in its MPP, due to the limited voltage rating (50 V) which has been considered. In order to get larger feasibility regions with the buckboost converter it is necessary to adopt devices with higher voltage ratings as shown in Figs. 7 ( DMPPT= 1, FMPPT =1). Figures 5-7 have been obtained with Idsmax . The effect of constraint 1.i can be easily understood by comparing Figs. 7 and 8 both referring to the buckboost converter, under the same operating conditions. Fig. 7 has been obtained by considering Ids max while Fig. 8 has been obtained by considering Ids max=16 A. The above results are useful in order to stress two fundamental aspects. First of all, in DMPPT PV applications, it is necessary to adopt suitable additional protection circuitries able to avoid that voltages or current constraints, related to the finite ratings of switching devices adopted in SCPVMs, are violated. In absence of such protection circuitries, when the absolute MPP does not belong to the feasibility region, the MPPT circuitries would force an operating point nearly coincident with the absolute MPP rather than with the feasible MPP, thus leading to the possible damage of one or more SCPVMs. Moreover, many inverter manufacturers state that DMPPT is beneficial since it allows to have a fixed voltage at the inverter input because the tracking of the MPP is performed on each PV module, independently from the other ones, so that the inverter is allowed to operate at the input voltage value where the inverter exhibits its peak efficiency. In order to be really effective instead, the MPPT function must be performed not only by each SCPVM but also by the inverter on its own input voltage. This aspect is clarified by Fig. 9 where the power obtainable with DMPPT, as a function of the adopted inverter input voltage, is shown (buckboost converter, S1=1000 W/m2, S2=1000 W/m2, Vds max =80V, Ids max=16 A). It is clear that DMPPT=1 only in the range Vbulk=[54, 102] V. Instead, if Vbulk < 54 V, DMPPT decreases due to constraint (1.i), while if Vbulk > 102 V, DMPPT decreases due to constraint (1.h).

each PV module in its own MPP in all the possible operating conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research activity discussed in this paper has been partially supported by PRIST 2009 funds of the Second University of Naples.

REFERENCES [1]
Velasco-Quesada, G.; Guinjoan-Gispert, F.; Pique-Lopez, R.; Roman-Lumbreras, M.; Conesa-Roca, A.; , "Electrical PV Array Reconfiguration Strategy for Energy Extraction Improvement in Grid-Connected PV Systems," Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on , vol.56, no.11, pp.4319-4331, Nov. 2009 D. Nguyen and B. Lehman An Adaptive Solar Photovoltaic Array Using Model-Based Reconfiguration Algorithm. IEEE Tran. On Ind. Elec., Vol. 55, No. 7, July 2008. N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method, IEEE Trans. on Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 963973, Jul. 2005. G. R. Walker and P. C. Sernia, Cascaded DCDC converter connection of photovoltaic modules, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 11301139, Jul. 2004. E. Roman, R. Alonso, P. Ibanez, S. Elorduizapatarietxe, and D. Goitia, Intelligent PV module for grid-connected PV systems, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1066 1073, Aug. 2006. G. Adinolfi, N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, M. Vitelli: OPTIMIZED DESIGN OF DC/DC CONVERTERS FOR DMPPT PV Energy Engineering, APPLICATIONS, Journal of Solar http://journaltool.asme.org,. N.Femia, G.Lisi, G.Petrone, G.Spagnuolo, M.Vitelli: Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking of Photovoltaic Arrays: novel approach and system analysis, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 55, No. 7, July 2008. E. Roman, V. Martinez, J.C. Jimeno, R. Alonso, P. Ibanez, S. Elorduizapatarietxe Experimental results of controlled PV module for building integrated PV systems, Solar Energy, Vol. 82, 2008, Elsevier, pp. 471-480. R.W. Erikson, D. Maksimovic: Fundamentals of Power Electronics Second Edition, Kluwer academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-7270-0.

[2] [3]

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

The main factors limiting the efficiency of DMPPT have been discussed in this paper. It has been shown that, in a PV system adopting DMPPT, due to the finite ratings of the adopted devices and/or a non optimal value of the string voltage, it is not possible to obtain the working of

Figure 1: Grid-connected PV system with FMPPT

606

Fig. 2: practical implementation of the switch Figure 5: (boost ) S1=1000 W/m2; S2=400 W/m2 ; Vbulk =80 V; =50V;

Vds max

Figure 3: Grid-connected PV system with DMPPT

Figure 6: (buckboost) S1= S2=1000 W/m2; Vbulk =80 V;

Vds max =50V;

Ids max

Figure 4: (boost ) S1= S2=1000 W/m2; Vbulk =80 V;

Vds max =50V;

Figure 7: (buckboost) S1=1000 W/m2; S2=400 W/m2 ; Vbulk =80 V; ; max =50V; Ids max

Vds

607

Figure 8: (buckboost ) S1= S2=1000 W/m2; Vbulk =80 V;

Vds max =80V;

Ids max

Figure 9: (buckboost) S1= S2=1000 W/m2; Vbulk =50 V; Ids max= 16 A

Vds max =80 V;

Figure 10: (buckboost) S1= S2=1000 W/m2; Vbulk =50 V; V; Ids max= 16;

Vds max =80

608