Journal of ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, Vol. 42, No.

7, 2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11664-012-2460-4
Ó 2013 TMS

Investigation of Maximum Power Point Tracking

for Thermoelectric Generators

NAVNEESH PHILLIP,1,4 OTHMAN MAGANGA,1 KEITH J. BURNHAM,1

MARK A. ELLIS,2 SIMON ROBINSON,2 JULIAN DUNN,3
and CEDRIC ROUAUD3

1.—Control Theory and Applications Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry
University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK. 2.—Jaguar Land Rover, Banbury Road, Gay-
don, Warwick CV35 0RG, UK. 3.—Ricardo UK Ltd, Southam Road, Radford Semele, Leamington
Spa, Warwickshire CV31 1FQ, UK. 4.—e-mail: navneesh.phillip@coventry.ac.uk

In this paper, a thermoelectric generator (TEG) model is developed as a tool

for investigating optimized maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algo-
rithms for TEG systems within automotive exhaust heat energy recovery
applications. The model comprises three main subsystems that make up the
TEG system: the heat exchanger, thermoelectric material, and power condi-
tioning unit (PCU). In this study, two MPPT algorithms known as the perturb
and observe (P&O) algorithm and extremum seeking control (ESC) are
investigated. A synchronous buck–boost converter is implemented as the
preferred DC–DC converter topology, and together with the MPPT algorithm
completes the PCU architecture. The process of developing the subsystems is
discussed, and the advantage of using the MPPT controller is demonstrated.
The simulation results demonstrate that the ESC algorithm implemented in
combination with a synchronous buck–boost converter achieves favorable
power outputs for TEG systems. The appropriateness is by virtue of greater
responsiveness to changes in the system’s thermal conditions and hence the
electrical potential difference generated in comparison with the P&O algo-
rithm. The MATLAB/Simulink environment is used for simulation of the TEG
system and comparison of the investigated control strategies.

Key words: Thermoelectric generator, heat energy recovery, modeling,

maximum power point tracking, extremum seeking control

INTRODUCTION (PCU) design.8,9 Models have been created using

various tools such as Engineering Equation Solver
Continued interest in thermoelectric generators
(EES),2,4 1-D thermal modeling,3 Modelica,10
(TEGs) for waste heat energy recovery has led to
PSPICE,11 and MATLAB/Simulink.1,12 Whilst
extensive investigation into the application of TEGs
many models developed as steady-state and quasi-
within the automotive industry. To investigate the
steady-state models are essential for TEG design
potential of TEG systems, a design via simulation
optimization, transient models are needed to
approach is the commonly adopted methodology.
investigate system performance, especially when
This is evident from the extensive work that has
integrated to a vehicle model.12 Additionally it is
been carried out in the development of models for
also important to integrate the thermal as well as
simulation of thermoelectric modules,1 TEG system
the power conditioning functionality found in TEGs
performance investigation,2–4 heat exchanger (HX)
for investigating system performance.
design optimization,5–7 and power conditioning unit
The aim of the paper is to investigate the problem
of maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for
(Received July 8, 2012; accepted December 28, 2012; TEGs, and a comparison is made between the well-
published online January 31, 2013) known perturb and observe (P&O) algorithm and an

1900
Investigation of Maximum Power Point Tracking for Thermoelectric Generators
extremum seeking control (ESC) algorithm;
although it is known that other MPPT algorithms
exist, ESC is considered to be an appropriate choice
for the TEG application. For this reason the authors
describe the development of a simplified transient
TEG model consisting of three subsystems, namely
the HX, thermoelectric module/material (TEM), and
PCU, which collectively serve as a surrogate of the
real plant/system. The ESC algorithm has previ-
ously been used in photovoltaic applications,13,14
where it has shown good tracking capability supe-
rior to the P&O algorithm.15 Here the authors apply
the ESC algorithm to a simulated model of TEGs to
investigate if similar tracking performance can be
achieved.
TEG MODEL INTEGRATION
As aforementioned, the TEG system has been
modeled as an integration of three subsystems.
Figure 1 shows the input/output relations between
the individual subsystems, where the inputs for the
TEG model are exhaust and coolant inlet tempera-
tures, Ta (K) and Tw (K), and corresponding mass
_ a (kg/s) and m
flow rates, m _ w (kg/s). The gas-to-liquid
HX takes these four inputs to simulate the hot- and
cold-side temperatures, Th (K) and Tc (K), for the
TEM. Given the hot- and cold-side temperatures,
the TEM is able to simulate the open-circuit voltage,
Voc (V), and TEM internal resistance, Rm ðXÞ, using
the thermoelectric (TE) equations as follows:
Voc ¼ ncouple  ðan þ ap Þ  DT; (1)
ncouple  ðqn þ qp Þ  L
Rm ¼ ; (2)
A
where a denotes the Seebeck coefficient (V/K),
q denotes the electrical resistivity ðXmÞ, A denotes
the cross-sectional area (m2), ncouple is the number of
couples, L denotes the leg length (m), and the sub-
scripts ‘‘n’’ and ‘‘p’’ refer to n-type and p-type legs.
Voc and Rm are inputs to the PCU, where the voltage
and current is computed. The resulting power out to
the load is regulated at 14.4 V by a DC–DC con-
verter. The load in this case is considered to be a
12-V car battery. In addition, the transient TEG
model is suitably developed such that it can be
Fig. 1. TEG model integration of subsystems.
1901
integrated within a full vehicle model for perfor-
mance analysis over drive cycle profiles.
TEG MODEL DESCRIPTION
The HX subsystem has been modeled as a stack of
several thermal layers as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
interactions between individual thermal layers are
described using convection and conduction thermo-
dynamic energy balance equations. When formu-
lating the energy balance equations it is assumed
that the temperature distribution within the layers
is homogeneous,16 thereby simplifying the overall
computation whilst retaining the main dynamic
features. Further detailed description of the model
together with governing equations can be found in
Ref. 17, where 1-D heat transfer is considered. The
HX is divided into several control volumes along
the flow of the exhaust gas stream. Heat flow from
the exhaust layer to the coolant layer, i.e., from hot
to cold, is assumed to be uniform, a function of the
mean temperature of the individual layer, and a
function of time. At this level of study, heat losses to
adjacent control volumes and heat losses to ambient
are neglected given the uncertainty of environ-
mental effects within the system.
Considering Eqs. 1 and 2, it is apparent that the
TEM is modeled using material data for n-type and
p-type legs of ncouple number of couples. A bismuth
telluride (Bi2Te3) TEM has been validated in order
to provide confidence in the modeling methodology.
The validated TEM model achieves an output with
94.6% accuracy at steady state. The model has been
developed such that the user can investigate a
variety of TEMs given the availability of their
material properties.
The transient nature of TEG operation, especially
for start–stop functionality auxiliary power units,
causes the power output of the TEG to vary con-
tinuously. For this reason it is essential to integrate
a PCU to regulate the output voltage. Depending on
the choice and configuration of the TEMs, it is
highly probable that the TEG voltage prior to con-
ditioning fluctuates higher and lower than the
14.4 V required to charge the battery. It is for this
reason that a step-up step-down buck–boost DC–DC
converter has been implemented within the PCU.
Advantages of a buck–boost converter over a similar
step-up step-down single-ended primary inductor
1902
capacitor (SEPIC) converter can be seen in Ref. 17,
where the authors observe that the SEPIC con-
verter is not as efficient as the buck–boost converter
due to the utilization of two inductors rather than
the single inductor in the buck–boost topology.
An advancement made in this paper is to intro-
duce a synchronous buck–boost converter. When
compared with a standard buck–boost converter, a
synchronous buck–boost converter is capable of
converting voltage without reversing the terminals
(inverting) across the load. In addition, a synchro-
nous DC–DC buck–boost converter provides higher
efficiency as compared with a standard DC–DC
buck–boost converter due to the fact that the diode
utilized in a standard buck–boost is bypassed
(replaced) by a more efficient metal–oxide–semi-
conductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET). A basic
schematic diagram of a synchronous buck–boost
converter is illustrated in Fig. 3. The converter
comprises four MOSFETs, of which Q1 and Q4 must
be ON while the others, Q2 and Q3 , are in the OFF
state. The converter provides a controllable and/or
constant output DC voltage despite variation of the
input voltage. It also operates in two different
modes, namely continuous conduction mode (CCM)
and discontinuous conduction mode (DCM). In
CCM, the inductor current flows continuously for
the entire period and never falls to zero, whereas in
DCM, the inductor current reduces to zero and
remains at zero level for the remainder of the period
before it begins to rise again.
In this paper a synchronous buck–boost converter
is considered to be operating in CCM mode. Figure 4
Fig. 2. TEG HX/TEM configuration.
Fig. 3. Noninverting synchronous buck–boost converter.
Phillip, Maganga, Burnham, Ellis, Robinson, Dunn, and Rouaud
illustrates the waveform of current across the
inductor under CCM mode.
The DC inductor current ILB at the CCM/DCM
boundary is given as
Vo
ILB ¼ ð1  dmin Þ; (3)
2fs Lmin
where fs denotes the switching frequency, dmin
denotes the minimum duty cycle, and Lmin denotes
the minimum inductance. For an ideal condition the
output voltage of a synchronous buck–boost con-
verter is given as
d
Vo ¼ Vin ; (4)
ð1  d Þ
where Vo denotes the output voltage, d denotes the
duty cycle, and Vin denotes the input voltage. Since
the output is connected to a battery (constant volt-
age), any change of d and Vin will not affect Vo .
However, changes in d will cause changes in the
output current Io .
The output current is expressed as
d
Io ¼ Iin : (5)
ð1  dÞ
MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING
MPPT is an iterative approach which varies the
electrical output of a TEG to deliver the maximum
available power. Some of the commonly used MPPT
algorithms that have been used for photovoltaic
cells include P&O, constant voltage control (CVC),
constant current control (CCC), sophisticated ana-
log circuits, incremental conductance, and ESC.
Due to its perceived advantages, an ESC algo-
rithm is considered here for MPPT control applied
to a TEG. The performance of the ESC algorithm is
compared with the well-known P&O algorithm,
which serves as a benchmark. Maximum power is
essentially achieved by matching the internal
resistances of the TEG and the DC–DC converter.
PERTURB AND OBSERVE
This method perturbs the operating point of the
TEG system and observes the output power to
Investigation of Maximum Power Point Tracking for Thermoelectric Generators 1903

Fig. 4. Inductor waveform in CCM mode for a synchronous buck–boost converter.

Fig. 5. Flowchart for the P&O algorithm.

determine the direction of change for maximizing
the output power. Figure 5 illustrates a flowchart of
the P&O algorithm. Whilst the P&O approach
serves as a useful benchmark, it does have some
drawbacks as listed here:
 It is unable to adapt, hence any rapid variation of
the TEG temperature difference may give rise to
lack of tracking.
 The output power of the TEG oscillates around its
maximum value; hence, even in the case of a
steady-state temperature difference, the output
power may not converge to its maximum value.
1904 Phillip, Maganga, Burnham, Ellis, Robinson, Dunn, and Rouaud

Fig. 6. ESC block diagram.

order to separate the frequencies corresponding to

Table I. Optimum duty cycle at corresponding the perturbation signal and the inner loop dynam-
temperatures ics.
Temperature (K) Vmp (V) Duty Cycle (%) VBat (V)

600 10.93 56.85 14.4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF MPP WITH ESC

700 15.27 48.53 Numerical analysis of the MPP with ESC is
800 19.68 42.25 demonstrated for the case of a sine wave perturba-
900 24.11 37.39
tion. The nonlinear static map for a TEG is pre-
sented as
EXTREMUM SEEKING CONTROL P00
P ¼ f ðVÞ ¼ Pmax þ ðd  d m Þ2 ; (6)
ESC is an approach which seeks the extremum for 2
steady-state online optimization without knowing
where d is the duty cycle and the unknown opti-
the plant model and/or cost function in a closed-loop
mal duty cycle is denoted dm . The objective is to
fashion. However, it is assumed that measurements
minimize the quantity ðd  dm Þ so that the output
of the plant input and output signals are available.
function, denoted f ðVÞ, approaches its maximum
This method is also well known and has been used
value at Pmax . The estimated value of the
earlier, during the 1940s to 1960s. Nevertheless, it
unknown dm is denoted dest . The perturbation
gained renewed interest after Ariyur and Krstic18
signal b sin wt is the input to the plant, which is
and references therein proved local stability for a
used for measuring the gradient information of
single-input single-output (SISO) system in 2000.
the function f ðVÞ. The estimated duty cycle error,
ESC is suitable for situations where the nonlinear-
denoted de , is the difference between dm and dest , i.e.,
ity in the system has a local minimum or local
maximum.8 This controller finds a set point which de ¼ dm  dest : (7)
keeps the output power of the TEG at the maximum
power point (MPP). The performance of the ESC is The quantity dest is modulated by a signal b sin wt in
affected by the choice of a dither signal, so dither order to obtain the duty cycle d. The difference
‘‘shapes’’ should be considered as an important between d and dm can be presented as
design parameter.19 Figure 6 illustrates a block
diagram of the ESC algorithm. Based on averaging d  dm ¼ b sin wt  de : (8)
analysis, the frequency of the perturbation signal,
denoted w, should be large with respect to the per- When Eq. 8 is substituted into Eq. 6, the function of
turbation gain, denoted k. However, too large a power f ðVÞ for a TEG becomes
value for w may trigger unmodeled dynamics and P00
cause oscillations in the system output. The value of P ¼ f ðV Þ ¼ Pmax þ ðde  b sin wtÞ2 : (9)
w should be greater than the high-pass filter (HPF) 2
frequency, denoted wh , whilst w should have a Expanding Eq. 9 and replacing sin2 wt with
smaller cutoff frequency than the input dynamics in ð1=2Þð1  cos 2wtÞ gives
Investigation of Maximum Power Point Tracking for Thermoelectric Generators 1905

Table II. TEG results with different MPPT algorithms

Pmatch Fixed P&O ESC

Temperature (K) P(W) P(W) g% P(W) g% P(W) g%

600 47.61 40.80 85.70 46.50 98.19 47.40 99.56

700 90.00 87.40 97.11 88.37 98.18 89.00 98.87
800 144.72 132.60 91.63 141.00 97.43 142.50 98.47
900 210.50 177.60 84.37 204.40 97.10 206.60 98.15

The square of the estimated duty cycle error d2e is

very small and is neglected. The simplified equation
becomes

bP00 bP00 b2 P00 2

n¼ de þ de cos wt þ b ðsin 3wt  sin wtÞ:
2 2 8
(14)
The last two terms in Eq. 14 are high-frequency sig-
nals, and when passed through an integrator these
become attenuated. Consequently, Eq. 14 reduces to
 
k bP00
dest ¼  de : (15)
s 2
So the derivative is
 
Fig. 7. Simulation results for theoretical power (Pmatch), output kbP00
power with ESC, P&O, and fixed duty cycle.
d_ est ¼  de : (16)
2
Since dm is constant in Eq. 7, its derivative can be
P00 P00 P00 written as
P ¼ Pmax þ b2 þ d2e  bP00 de sin wt  b2 cos 2wt:
2 2 4 d_ e ¼ d_ est : (17)
(10)
Substituting Eq. 16 into Eq. 17 gives
A HPF will remove the slow DC components of the  
power P ¼ f ðVÞ, where s denotes the Laplace vari- kbP00
d_ e ¼ de : (18)
able 2
s P00 2 P00 Since ðkbP00 =2Þ > 0; the system is stable and it can be
½P  de  bP00 de sin wt  b2 cos 2wt:
s þ wh 2 4 concluded that as de ! 0 and dest converges to within
(11) a small region of dm which corresponds to the MPP.

This signal is demodulated by multiplying by a ESC TUNING PARAMETERS

dither signal sin wt, thus
The choice of the control system parameters
P00 2 P00 affects the system performance. The tuning
n¼ de sin wt  bP00 de sin2 wt  b2 cos 2wt sin wt: parameters for the ESC are based on the dynamics
2 4
of the components, and these are divided into three
(12)
groups: fast, medium, and slow. Fast, medium, and
Replacing cos 2wt sin wt term by (sin 3wt  sin wt), slow dynamics correspond to the periodic pertur-
the demodulated signal becomes bation, the HPF, and the TEG, respectively. The
tuning parameters for the ESC with a sine wave
bP00 bP00 dither signal are
n¼ de þ de cos wt
2 2
 High-pass filter frequency wh = 1.5 Hz,
b2 P00 2 P00  Perturbation frequency f = 25 Hz,
þ b ðsin 3wt  sin wtÞ þ d2e sin wt:
8 2  Integral gain k = 100,
(13)  Perturbation amplitude b = 50.
1906 Phillip, Maganga, Burnham, Ellis, Robinson, Dunn, and Rouaud
SIMULATION RESULTS
For the simulation results presented, the hot-side
temperature is varied from 600 K to 900 K and the
cold-side temperature is maintained at 363 K.
When the DC–DC converter is driven at fixed duty
cycle (without MPPT) the simulation results show
that it is only efficient for a specific temperature
range (Table II). This is considered to be due to the
inability of the controller to overcome the mismatch
of the internal resistance values between the TEG
and the DC–DC converter over a wide range of
temperatures. For the results presented, the fixed
duty cycle has been set to 48.53% for optimal per-
formance at 700 K. At the user’s discretion the duty
cycle can be changed for high efficiency at different
temperature ranges. Duty cycle values can be cal-
culated using Eq. 4 if the DC–DC converter input
voltage at matched load is known. Table I presents
a range of fixed duty cycle values for various tem-
peratures as well as corresponding input voltage
values at matched load for the specific system con-
figuration.
Table II presents the output power of the TEG,
comparing the utilization of a fixed duty cycle, P&O,
and ESC as well as the efficiencies of the two MPPT
methods when compared with the results of an ideal
matched load condition, denoted Pmatch. The
results demonstrate that both the P&O and ESC
controllers converge to a similar output power.
However, when compared with the P&O controller,
the output power of the ESC controller converges
much faster, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
CONCLUSIONS
A TEG model developed as a tool to investigate
the potential of MPPT algorithms has been pre-
sented. This model can also be used as an aid for the
design and development of TEG systems. The
results show that an ESC MPPT algorithm in com-
bination with a buck–boost DC–DC converter is able
to condition the output power of a TEG device
effectively. This finding reinforces the case for uti-
lizing the ESC approach as a candidate for an effi-
cient MPPT algorithm for use in PCUs for TEGs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Low Carbon Vehicle Technology Project
(LCVTP) is a collaborative research project between
leading automotive companies and research part-
ners, revolutionizing the way vehicles are powered
and manufactured. The project partners include
Jaguar Land Rover, Tata Motors European Tech-
nical Centre, Ricardo, MIRA LTD., Zytek, WMG,
and Coventry University. The project was partially
funded by Advantage West Midlands (AWM) and
the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
REFERENCES
1. H. Tsai and J. Lin, J. Electron. Mater. 39, 2105 (2010).
2. N. Espinosa, M. Lazard, L. Aixala, and H. Scherrer,
J. Electron. Mater. 39, 1446 (2010).
3. Q.E. Hussain, D.R. Brigham, and C.W. Maranville, SAE
J-Automot. Eng. 1132 (2009).
4. E.W. Miller, T.J. Hendricks, H. Wang, R.B. Peterson, and
P.I. Mech, Eng. A-J. Pow. 225, 33 (2011).
5. D.T. Crane and G.S. Jackson, Energy Convers. Manag. 45,
1565 (2004).
6. J. Esarte, G. Min, and D.M. Rowe, J. Power Sources 93, 72
(2000).
7. J. Yu and H. Zhao, J. Power Sources 172, 428 (2007).
8. H. Nagayoshi and T. Kajikawa, 25th International Confer-
ence on Thermoelectrics (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2006),
p. 210.
9. C. Yu and K.T. Chau, Energy Convers. Manag. 50, 1506
(2009).
10. T. Braig and J. Ungethum, 7th International Modelica
Conference (Como: Italy, 2009), p. 708.
11. Chen, I. Bach, L.A. Rosendahl, T. Condra, and J. K.
Pedersen, 26th International Conference on Thermoelectrics
(Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2007), p. 300.
12. D.T. Crane, J. Electron. Mater. 40, 561 (2011).
13. P. Lei, Y. Li, Q. Chen, and J.E. Seem, American Control
Conference (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2010), p. 3536.
14. R. Leyva, C. Alonso, I. Queinnec, A. Cid-Pastor, D. Lagrange,
and L. Martinez-Salamero, IEEE Trans. Aero. Electron. Sys.
42, 249 (2006).
15. S. Brunton, C.W. Rowley, S.R. Kulkarni, and C. Clarkson,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 25, 2531 (2010).
16. C.P. Underwood, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 21, 53
(2000).
17. N. Phillip, O. Maganga, K.J. Burnham, J. Dunn, C. Rouaud,
M.A. Ellis, and S. Robinson, 2nd International Symposium
on Environment Friendly Energies and Applications (Pis-
cataway, NJ: IEEE, 2012), p. 94.
18. K.B. Ariyur and M. Krstic, Real-Time Optimization by
Extremum-Seeking Control (New York: Wiley, 2003).
19. Y. Tan, D. Nesic, and I. Mareels, Automatica 44, 1446
(2008).