A Comaprison between Sepic and BuckBoost Converters Used in

Maximum Power Point Trackers

Toma Patarau, Stefan R. Daraban, Dorin Petreus, and Radu Etz

Applied Electronics Department, Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications
and Information Technology, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania
toma.patarau@ael.utcluj.ro

Abstract: This paper presents a comparison between an analog compensated Sepic converter and a
step down step up converter (Buck-Boost) in a novel maximum power point tracking (MPPT) system.
Both converters have advantages and disadvantages that will be pointed in this article. The algorithm
that is used to provide the MPP for solar panels is Perturb and Observe (P&O) with three point
weightings. Both simulations and practical results are analyzed and compared, afterwards
conclusions are drawn.

By far, the most popular algorithm is P&O because

1. INTRODUCTION
In todays solar photovoltaic installations high
power matched solar panels are connected in series
strings, afterwards, placed in parallel together with
other series strings to obtain the desired open circuit
voltage, VOC, and the short circuit current, ISC. The
characteristic of the entire system presents multiple
maximum power points which results in power loss. A
solution to this problem is to have an integrated circuit
for each panel to track the maximum power
individually.
One of the most promising sources for renewable
energy is the solar power. Average commercial solar
panels have efficiency close to 20% [1]. Because the
power harvested by the solar panel has low power
conversion ratio, the maximum power tracker must
have a good algorithm to find the MPP in a short time
and most important have high efficiency.
Most MPPT controllers have at most one closed
loop for the input voltage and the tracking algorithm.
An analog version of a maximum power point
tracking system for a Boost converter is treated in [2].
Many tracking algorithms have been researched over
the last few years, and are summarized in [3-5]. The
most complex algorithms, fuzzy logic and neural
networks, are said to give the best performances [6-9].
of its good performance and ease of implementation.
This algorithm received a lot of improvements along
the way, described in [10-12].
There have been breakthrough developments on
the hardware which includes the control and command
of the system. The first method that was used implies
using only the MPPT algorithm that acts like a power
loop which forces the derivative of the power-voltage
curve (P-V) to zero (dP/dV).
The next improvement was to maintain the input
voltage constant when a step of irradiance occurs. In
this way the hardware helps the MPPT algorithm to
reach the maximum power point in a shorter time.
Most power plants that use solar panel as a
renewable energy source have for storage elements,
batteries. Batteries need a special algorithm like
constant current-constant voltage (CC-CV). In [11-
12], the charging algorithm with current source is
implemented, in a novel configuration, in the
hardware of the MPPT system, by adding an
additional current loop with average control on the
input current.
The present paper will focus on applying the above
novel configuration in two MPPT systems, having as
main converters a Sepic and a Buck-Boost converter
with wide input voltages and offer a better harvesting
of energy when mounted on each panel.

978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE 397 34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology
 This article has six main sections. Firstly the
MPPT architecture and algorithm will be discussed,
the next two sections examines and compares the
power topologies. An important section, proving the
increased performances provided by the two MPPT
systems, describes the simulation and experimental
results. The final section presents the conclusions.
2. MPPT ARCHITECTURE AND ALGORITHM
For the last twenty years, engineers have been
focusing their attention on developing complex
algorithms for tracking the maximum power point, to
assure better solar energy harvesting. A more
appropriate approach is to have additional hardware
loops (voltage and current) to help the MPPT
algorithm to reach its objective in a much shorter
time.
A visual representation of the concept presented
above, is illustrated in Fig. 1. On the first P-V
characteristic the MPP is in A. When a luminosity
variation occurs, the operating point moves to B for
the system with a power loop implemented (MPPT
algorithm) and to C for the system with the voltage
loop implemented. Both systems use P&O as the
MPPT algorithm. As it can be seen, the voltage loop
helps the operating point C to move closer to the
new MPP, D.
Fig. 1. Change of current operating point when the
irradiance changes for different MPPT systems.
The most popular algorithm that is found in many
of the MPPT controllers on the market is the P&O
algorithm.
The algorithm perturbs the voltage of the solar
panel with a small step, thus obtaining a measurable
variation in the input power, P. If P>0, it means
that the operating point was moved closer to the MPP
978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE
and the perturbation direction is maintained. If the
opposite situation occurs, P<0, then the current
operation point was moved further apart from the
maximum power point and the direction is changed.
3. SEPIC MPPT CONVERTER
A non inverting topology that is simultaneously a
step down or a step up converter is the Sepic
configuration. The schematic of the proposed MPPT
converter is presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Schematic of the Sepic converter.
Sepic converter has a complicated transfer function
which includes simple and complex right half plane
(RHP) zeros. These zeros are a result of converters
that respond, at first, to an increase of duty cycle with
a decrease of the output voltage [13].
The compensation of the Sepic is simplified by
adding an inner current loop. The outer voltage loop
on the input voltage gives the reference for setting the
average current trough the inductor L1. The reason to
control the average current through MOS1 is that the
solar panel current and average current through
inductor L1 are all equal [14].
A first step in compensating the current loop is to
ensure subharmonic stability, by providing slope
matching under worst conditions. The slope of the
sawtooth oscillator must exceed the off time slope of
the current amplifier.
Oscillator ramp slope is given in (1) and the off
time current amplifier output slope is in (2).
dV S
= VS f S (1)
dt
398 34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology
 dVca I IN max RS 2 G D 2 (2) Ipanel
=
dt R5 C3
rd Cin R7 ve(s)
R10
where, VS represents the amplitude of the sawtooth PANEL R9
signal, fS is the switching frequency IINmax is the + ve(s)
R8
- +
maximum input current, RS2 is the current sense R11 R6
-
R12
resistance, GD2=(R3/R1) and R5, C3 are the C4
compensation network for the current loop. Resistance
R5 is set and C3 is obtained from (3) by equating (1) Fig. 4. Small signal of the voltage loop.
and (2). ve ' (s) Vdiv GD1 rd 1 (1 + sC4R6 )
H(s) = = (4)
I IN max RS 2 GD 2 ve (s) RS2 GD2 1 + sCin rd sC4R6
C3 = (3)
VS f S R5 where, GD1=(R12/R11).
If the crossover frequency of the voltage loop, is
The closed loop transfer function of the current
the same with the zero introduced by the PI controller,
loop is presented in Fig. 3. At light load the power
than the stability of the system is guaranteed. This
stage acts like an origin pole, after the resonance
condition occurs when (5) is satisfied. Resistance R6 is
frequency between the inductors and coupling
set and C4 is obtained from (6).
capacitor Cp. A type two compensator is used to
stabilize the current loop, boosting the phase margin rd Vdiv G D1 rd C in (5)
=
at the crossover frequency. The geometrical mean of RS 2 G D2 R6 C 4
the pole and the zero introduced by the compensator
R G D 2 C in (6)
are equal with the crossover frequency. C4 = S 2
R6 Vdiv G D1

The closed loop transfer function is presented in

Fig. 5. As one can see in the amplitude characteristic
the 0dB point is crossed with a slope of 20dB/dec thus
ensuring stability. This compensation method is
independent of the panel.

Fig. 3. Bode characteristics of the current closed loop.

The converter can now be modeled like a current

source and the small signal schematic is represented in
Fig. 4. The small signal model of the solar panel is
represented by a dynamic resistance rd. The closed
loop transfer function of the system is represented in
(4).
The system has two poles and a zero: a pole in the
origin, a pole introduced by the dynamic resistance of
the solar panel and the input capacitor and a zero
introduced by the PI compensator.
Fig. 5. Bode characteristics of the voltage closed loop.
The Sepic converter is easy to control because only
a PWM signal is needed for the transistor and the
command is not floating. A drawback of this converter
is that is has poor efficiency, around 85% and needs
two inductors. If the inductors are coupled, than the
inductors are smaller and the current ripple will be
reduced at half its value compared to the case when
two uncoupled inductors are used.

978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE 399 34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology
4. BUCKBOOST MPPT CONVERTER
The schematic of the Buck-Boost converter is
presented in Fig. 6. The step up - step down converter
has three different operating regions depending of the
input, output ratio.
switching frequency, Vout(m) and Vout(M) represent the
minimum and maximum value of the battery voltage,
Iout(M) represents the maximum output current.
5. SIMULATION RESULTS
The simulation results for the Sepic and Buck-
Boost converter with MPPT are represented in Fig. 7
and in Fig. 8. Both systems are stable and find the
maximum power point in the exact amount of time but
the efficiency of the Buck-Boost converter is higher
and can reach a peak of 98%.
The simulations with the MPPT algorithm for both
converters were implemented in PSIM, because the
program includes a DLL block with code written in C
which simulates the microcontroller.

Fig. 6. Schematic of the Buck-Boost converter.

Controlling the transistors in this topology is more
complicated than the Sepic converter. It needs four
transistors and two of them need a bootstrap
connection.
For implementation of the novel topology an
operational amplifier, U1, was added to provide the
reference voltage from the microcontroller. This
voltage is simulated by a voltage source, V5.
The solar panel is simulated in LTSpice, for the
Buck-Boost converter, with a current source in Fig. 7 Sepic converter with MPPT.
parallel with diodes. Peak current mode control is
employed in this topology with the sum of currents
from both low side transistors.
The inductor value that is necessary for the
converter to operate in continuous conduction mode,
for a certain ripple, is calculated with (7) or (8). The
largest value from the above formulas is chosen. The
inductor ripple is defined as a percentage of the input
current for the Boost converter and as a percentage of
the output current for the Buck converter.
V2 (Vout ( M ) Vin(m) ) 100 (7)
in(m)
Lboost =
f sw I out ( M ) Ripple[%] V 2
out ( M )

Fig. 8. Buck-Boost converter with MPPT.

Vout (m) (Vin( M ) V out (m)) 100
Lbuck =
f sw I out ( M ) Ripple[%] Vin( M )
where, Vin(m) and Vin(M) represent the minimum and
maximum value of the input voltage, fsw is the
(8)
The response to a step luminosity is presented in
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 for both converter. The input
voltage remains constant and the input current
changes according to the irradiance.

978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE 400 34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology
 The efficiency obtained with the Sepic converter
was 86% and the Buck-Boost had a peak efficiency of
95%.

Fig. 9. Step luminosity for the Sepic converter.

Fig. 11. Step luminosity for the Sepic converter.

Fig. 10. Step luminosity for the Buck-Boost converter.

6. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The solar panel was replaced for the experimental Fig. 12. Step luminosity for the Buck-Boost converter.
results with a current source in parallel with diodes,
like in Fig. 6, allowing repetitive test under the same
conditions for the luminosity step.
The experimental results for the Sepic converter
when a luminosity step occurs are presented in Fig. 11
and for the Buck-Boost converter are presented in Fig.
12. The short circuit current is varied from 1A to 3A.
The current is measured with a current probe that has
a gain set to 0.01. The voltage is changed when the
control signal from the microcontroller is varied. A
step, for the Sepic converter, in the voltage reference
is presented in Fig. 13 and results for the Buck-Boost
converter are presented in Fig. 14.

Fig. 13. Step in voltage reference.

978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE 401 34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology

Fig. 14. Step in voltage reference.
7. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a Buck-Boost and a Sepic converter
was simulated and implemented. Both converters were
used in a novel configuration where the MPPT
controller can incorporate the battery charging
algorithm. The simulations ease the design of the
compensation for the Buck-Boost by avoiding the
hazardous behavior when the control loop coefficients
are not selected properly. An original method for
compensating the voltage loop is proposed for the
Sepic converter.
The results suggest that both converters can be
used in solar panel applications, but a much better
performance can be obtained with the Buck-Boost
converter because of its high efficiency and small
layout.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was supported by the project "Doctoral
studies in engineering sciences for developing the
knowledge based society-SIDOC contract no.
POSDRU/88/1.5/S/60078, project co-funded from
European Social Fund through Sectorial Operational
Program Human Resources 2007-2013.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Markvart, L.Castaner, Practical Handbook of
Photovoltaics: Fundamentals and Applications,
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2003, pp. 72-455.
978-1457721120/2011/$ 26.00 2011 IEEE 402
[2] J.M. Enrique, J.M. Andujar, and M.A. Bohorquez, A
reliable, fast and low cost maximum power point
tracker for photovoltaic applications, Solar Energy
vol. 84, pp. 79-89, November 2009.
[3] D.P. Hohman, and M.E. Ropp, Comparative study if
maximum power point tracking algorithms, Progress
in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications vol. 11,
pp. 47-62, November 2002.
[4] T. Esram and P.L. Chapman, Comparison of
photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking
techniques, IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion
vol. 22, pp. 439-449, June 2007.
[5] V. Salas, E. Olias, A. Barrado, and A. Lazaro, Review
of the maximum power point tracking algorithms for
stand-alone photovoltaic systems, Solar Energy
Materials & Solar Cells vol. 90, pp. 1555-1578,
January 2006.
[6] T. Hiyama, S. Kouzuma, T. Imakubo, and T.H.
Ortmeyer, Evaluation of neuronal network based real
time maximum power tracking controller for PV
system, IEEE Transaction on Energy Conversion vol.
10, pp. 543-548, September 1995.
[7] L. Zhang, and Y.F. Bai, On-line neural network
training for maximum power point tracking of PV
power plant, Transaction of the Institute of
Measurement and Control vol. 30, pp. 77-96, March
2008.
[8] C.Y. Won, D.H. Kim, S.C. Kim, W.S. Kim, and H.S.
Kim, A new maximum power point tracker of
photovoltaic arrays using fuzzy controller, Power
Electronics Specialists Conference vol. 1, pp. 396-403,
June 1994.
[9] Y. H. Chang and C. Y. Chang, A maximum power
point tracking of PV system by scaling fuzzy control,
International MultiConference of Engineers and
Computer Scientists, vol. 2, pp. 1212-1216, March
2010.
[10] Y. T. Hsiao, and C. H. Chen, Maximum power
racking for photovoltaic power systems, Industry
Applications Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1035-1040,
December 2002.
[11] D. Petreus, D. Moga, A. Rusu, T. Patarau, and .
Drban, A maximum power point tracker for a
photovoltaic system under changing luminosity
conditions, International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics, pp. 556-561, July 2010.
[12] D. Petreus, T. Patarau, S. Daraban, Cristina Morel and
Brian Morley, A novel maximum power point tracker
based on analog and digital control loops, Solar
Energy, vol. 85, pp. 588-600, March 2011.
[13] Ray Ridley, Analyzing the Sepic Converter, Power
Systems Design Europe, November 2006.
[14] Lloyd Dixon, Control Loop Design Sepic
Preregulator Example, SEM 900, 1993.
34th Int. Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology