See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279764230

MPPT Techniques for PV Systems

Conference Paper May 2013

CITATIONS READS

4 3,174

2 authors, including:

Abdelaziz Talha
University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene
71 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

commande dun systme multi-sources de production d'lectricit (photovoltaque/olien ) avec

stockage batteries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelaziz Talha on 06 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MPPT Techniques for PV Systems

Dalila BERIBER Abdelaziz TALHA

LINS Laboratory, Faculty of Electronics and Computer, LINS Laboratory, Faculty of Electronics and Computer,
University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene
Allergies, Algeria Allergies, Alegria
dberiber@yahoo.fr abtalha@gmail.com

AbstractThis paper propose a detailed comparative survey of

four maximum power tracking techniques: Perturb and Observe II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATOR
(P&O), Incremental Conductance (InC), fuzzy logic based The electrical equivalent-circuit of a solar cell is shown in
tracking technique and a, less known, method using only the figure1. It is composed of a light-generated current source,
photovoltaic current measurement. The drawback of the three diodes, series resistance, and parallel resistance [1].
studied methods; P&O, InC and one sensor algorithm, is that at
steady state the operating point oscillate around the maximum
power point, giving rise to the waste of the output panels
available energy. Simulation results show that the proposed fuzzy Rs I
logic controller (FLC) can provides faster and stable tracking Id Ish
maximum power as compared to the other studied methods.
Iph Vd Rsh V RLoad
Keywords- MPPT, Buck-Boost, Perturb and Observe, Fuzzy
logic controller, NPC-VSI, Grid.

I. INTRODUCTION Figure 1. Equivalent electrical circuit of a cell

Solar power is an alternative technology that will hopefully

lead us away from our petroleum dependent energy sources. Characteristic equation for the current and voltage of a
The major problem with solar panel technology is that the solar cell is given as fellows [1] [3]:
efficiencies for solar power systems are still poor and the costs
per kilo-watt-hour (kwh) are not competitive, in most cases, to q.(V R s .I ) V R s .I (1)
I I ph I sat .[exp( ) 1]
compete with petroleum energy sources. Solar panels nkT R sh
themselves are quite inefficient (approximately 30%) in their
ability to convert sunlight to energy. However, the charge
where I denotes a current of a solar array (A), V denotes an
controllers and other devices that make up the solar power
output voltage of a solar array(V), Iph denotes the light
system are also somewhat inefficient and costly. Our goal is to
generated current (A), Isat denotes a diode reverse saturation
design a Maximum Power Point Tracker (MPPT), a specific
current (A), q denotes the electronic charge =1,6.10-19C, n
kind of charge controller that will utilize the solar panel to its
denotes a dimensionless deviation factor from the ideal pn
maximum potential.
junction diode, k is Boltzmanns constant =1.3807.10-23 JK-1, T
The MPPT is a charge controller that compensates for the
denotes a cell temperature (K), Rs denotes a series resistance
changing Voltage Current characteristic of a solar cell. The
(), and Rsh denotes a shunt resistance ().
MPPT fools the panels into outputting a different voltage and
Figure2 gives the powervoltage (PV) characteristics of a
current allowing more power to go into the battery or batteries
PV module respectively for different values of solar radiation
by making the solar cell think the load is changing when you
and temperature.
really are unable to change the load [1]. The MPPT monitors
It is seen that the output characteristics of the solar array is
the output voltage and current from the solar panel and
nonlinear and vitally affected by the solar radiation,
determines the operating point that will deliver that maximum
temperature and load condition.
amount of power available to the batteries. If our version of the
In order to maximize the output power from a solar module,
MPPT can accurately track the always-changing operating
it has to be operated at a unique point with specified voltage
point where the power is at its maximum, then the efficiency of
and current values, or in other words, at a specified load
the solar cell will be increased.
resistance. This requires a separate power converter circuit for
Many algorithms have been developed for tracking
the MPPT. In our design, a boost type DCDC converter is
maximum power point of a PV generator. These algorithms
employed to match the load to the PV array to extract the
vary in effectiveness, complexity, convergence speed, sensors
maximum power.
required and cost [2]. Four MPPT methods are studied in this
paper; the P&O method, the Incremental Conductance method,
the fuzzy logic method and only current measurement method.
 120
IV. DIFFERENT ALGORITHM MPPT
E=1000 W/m As is well known, the maximum power point (MPP) of
E=800 W/m
100
E=600 W/m photovoltaic power generation system depends on array
E=400 W/m temperature and solar irradiation, so it is necessary to
80 E=200 W/m
constantly track MPP of solar array. For years, research has
focused on various MPP control algorithms to draw the
P (W )

60
maximum power of the solar array. In this section, the
40 effectiveness of these four different control algorithm are
thoroughly investigated via numerical simulation.
20
A. Perturb and Observe method
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Perturbation and Observation method has been widely used
V(V) due to its ease of implementation [6]. P&O algorithm will force
the PV system to approach to the maximum power point by
120
T= 0C increasing or decreasing the PV panel-output voltage. Figure4
100
T= 25C
T=50C
presents the control flow chart of the P&O algorithm.
T= 75C

80 Start
P (W )

60 MeasureV(k1)andI(k1)

40 P k I k V k
P P k P k 1

20
No
P 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V(V) Yes

No
Figure2. The effect of the irradiation and the temperature on PV generator V k V k 1 V k V k 1
Yes

III. BOOST TYPE DCDC CONVERTER Yes No

k 1 k D k 1 k D
In figure3 the schematic of the boost converter power stage
is given. It consists of the power switch K (MOSFET
transistor), boost inductor L, filter capacitor C2, output diode D k 1 k D k 1 k D

and load resistor RLoad [4].

Figure4. Flowchart of the P&O algorithm

Ii Ic1 L IL D Is Io In order to find the direction change for maximizing power,

Ic2 the P&O method perturbs the operating voltage of the PV
C1 K Vs C2 RLoad Vo panel; if power increases, then the operating voltage is further
Vi perturbed in the same direction, whereas if it decreases, then
the direction of perturbation is reversed. This process is
repeated periodically until the MPP is reached [6]. The system
Figure3. MPPT Boost converter then oscillated around the MPP. The duty cycle perturbation at
time (t+1) can be decided on the basis of the following
The converter steady state waveforms in the continuous relationship [7]:
conduction mode. When the switch K is in the on state, the
current in the boost inductor increases linearly, and at that d t 1 d t 2 Sign 1D (3)
time, the diode is in the off state. When the switch K is turned
off, the energy stored in the inductor is released through the Where Sign is given by:
diode to the output RLoadC2 circuit. The pulsating current
produced by the switching action is smoothed by the Sign P t P t 1 0 V t V t 1 0 (4)
capacitive filter and a DC voltage is provided to the load. The
boost converter transfer function is obtained by considering its
P(t) and V(t) are, respectively, power and voltage drawn
steady state operation [3] [5]. The DC voltage transfer
from the PV panel.
function is:
The oscillation around the MPP can be minimized by
reducing the perturbation step-size D. however dynamic
Vo (2) performance is hampered by smaller perturbation step-size
M ( )
Vi 1 (Figure5). This trade off requires careful tuning of the duty
cycle perturbation step-size.
 100 Start
Available maximum power
V(k-1) , I(k-1)
80
Step-Size = 0,008 V(k) , I(k)
Panel's Power [W]

60 No Yes
V 0
Yes Yes
40 I I I

V V
No
20 Yes
No I 0
Step-Size = 0,002
0 I I Yes
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 No
V V
Time [s]
No
Figure5. Perturbations Step-size effects on the performances of the P&O
algorithm k 1 k D k 1 k D

k 1 k D k 1 k D
B. Incremental Conductance method
Incremental conductance (IncCond) method is based on the
fact that the slope of PV panel power versus voltage curve is Figure6. The InC algorithm flowchart
zero at the MPP, positive on the left, and negative on the right
of the MPP [7]. The relationship between the instantaneous
conductance I V and the incremental conductance I V is
83.6

given by: Panel's Power [W]

83.58

83.56
I I
V V 0 at MPP
83.54

I I (5)
0 left of MPP 83.52
V V
I I
V V 0 right of MPP 18 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5
Time [s]
18.6 18.7 18.8
=0

Because of the noise, of measurements faults and the 83.58

quantification, the condition I V I V 0 is seldom

Available maximum power
83.578
Panel's Power [W]

83.576
satisfied, therefore in steady state, the system oscillate around
83.574
the MPP. To overcome this drawback we introduce a new
83.572
parameter , as:
83.57
83.568
I I
(6) 83.566

V V 83.564
20.39 20.4 20.41 20.42 20.43
Time [s]

The IncCond algorithm is shown in the flowchart figure6 = 0,01

[8]. Figure7. Stationary regime

The amplitude of the oscillations, around the MPP, is

controlled by the value of . It decreases with the increase of
(Figure7).
However, for a relatively great value of , the operating
point moves away from the true MPP. Hence, the parameter
value is to be chosen carefully for improved performance of
the MPPT system [9].
C. Current measurement method
The methods discussed so far require both current and
voltage measurement. Salas and al [10] proposed a new
algorithm for seeking maximum power point of a PV generator
needing only the PV current value. In this paper, the studied
system is formed by a PV panel and the output section by a
12V battery. A DC/DC boost converter is inserted between the
PV panel and the battery. The energy's conversion principle,
applied to the static converter, gives:

Pin V pv I pv Vbat I out (7)

 Where Pin is the available power at the output of the PV The tow inputs of the FLC are the error E and, also, the
panel and Vbat is the battery voltage, which is assumed associated change of error CE, which are shown in formula10.
constant. For boost converter, output current is given by:
Pk Pk 1
E k V k V k 1
I out
1 I (8) (11)

pv
CE k E k E k 1

Formula (6) becomes: Where P(k) and V(k) refers to the output power and voltage
of PV panel at the sampling instant k. gE and gCD are the
V pv I pv V bat
1 I (9) inputs scaling factors, and gdD is the Defuzzification gain.
pv
While dD denotes the output of the fuzzy process.
The fuzzy logic controller consists of three functional
So we define an objective function P* as: blocks: fuzzification, Fuzzy rules and inference engine, and
finally Defuzzification.

P*
1 I (10)
Fuzzification

pv
The fuzzy process requires that each variable used in
describing the control rules has to be expressed in terms of
It appears that the maxima of both Pin and its corresponding fuzzy set notations with linguistic labels [13]. Figure10 show
objective function P* will coincide. When P* is maximized the memberships functions of the input variables E(k) and
using the P&O algorithm, for example, it tracks the maximum CE(k) and the output variable dD(k). In which each
power closely and also respond to changes in atmospheric membership function is assigned with five fuzzy set, including
conditions efficiently (Figure8 and 9) [10] [11]. PB (Positive Big), PS (Positive Small), ZE (Zero Equivalent),
NS (Negative Small) and NB (Negative Big).
100
1
NG NP ZE PP PG

80 0.8
83.65
Degree of membership
Panel Power [W]

83.6 0.6

60
Panel Power [W]

83.55
0.4
83.5
40
83.45 0.2

83.4
20 0
83.35
22 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.8 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 -0,0025 0 0.0025 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Time [s] E
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time [s] (a)
Figure8. Algorithm performances in a constants atmospherics conditions 1
NG NP ZE PP PG

0.8

100
Degree of membership

0.6
1000W/m2
80
0.4
Panel's Power [W]

60 0.2

T = 25C 0

40
-200 -160 -80 0 80 160 200
CE

20 200W/m2 200W/m2 (b)

NG NP ZE PP PG
0 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [s]
0.8

Figure9. Algorithm performances in a variables atmospherics conditions

Degree of membership

0.6

D. Fuzzy logic controller method 0.4

Advances in microelectronic technology permitted to the 0.2

fuzzy logic control to become the most significant and fruitful 0

application for fuzzy logic theory. Fuzzy logic controllers, -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 -0.0025 0
D
0.0025 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02

based on fuzzy logic, provides a mathematical tool for

converting linguistic control rules in the form of (IF-THEN) (c)
statements into an automatic control strategy [12] [13] [14]. Figure10. Membership function
Fuzzy rules and inference engine 83.65

The kernel of fuzzy logic controller is the fuzzy inference Maximum available power = 83.577W
83.6
system. Fuzzy inference is the process of formulating the
mapping from a given input to an output using fuzzy logic. The 83.55

Panel Power [W]

mapping then provides a basis from which decisions can be
made. The proposed Mamdani-type inference system 83.5

endeavours to force the error function (E in formula 11) to 83.45 P&O algorithm
zero. Two cases are to consider [14]: InC algorithm
First case: E is positive; working point is on the left 83.4 Fuzzy algoritm

of the MPP. If the change of error CE is positive, then the Current Only algorithm
83.35
working point converges toward the MPP. If CE is negative, 47.7 47.8 47.9 48 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 48.5 48.6
the inverse that occurs. Time [s]

Second case: E is negative; working point is, Figure12. Comparing controllers performances in a constants atmospherics
therefore, on the right of the MPP. In this case if CE is positive, conditions-steady state
working point moves away of the MPP and vice versa if CE is
negative. 90

From that, we summarises, in table1, this process reasoning 80 1000W /m2

as a set of a fuzzy IF-THEN rules [14]. 70

60

Panel Power [W]

Table1. Inference Matrix 50 P&O algorithm
InC algorithm
CE 40
Fuzzy algoritm
NG NP ZE PP PG 30 Current Only algorithm
20
NG ZE ZE PG PG PG 200W /m2 200W /m2
10
NP ZE ZE PP PP PP
0
E ZE PP ZE ZE ZE NP 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time [s]
PP NP NP NP ZE ZE
Figure13. Comparing controllers performances in a variable atmospherics
PG NG NG NG ZE ZE conditions, T=25C

Defuzzification
-15C
The process of Defuzzification calculates the crisp output 100 -15C 1000W/m2
of the FLC. It describes the mapping from a space of fuzzy
logic statement, corresponding to the inferred output, into a 80
+45C
Panel's Power [W]

non-fuzzy control action. In this paper the centre of gravity 89.55

87.05

Defuzzifier, which is the most common one, is adopted. Panel's Power [W]
Panel's Power [W]

87
60
89.5

86.95
89.45
86.9

V. SIMULATION RESULTS 89.4 86.85

40 86.8

The four studied MPPT algorithms are compared in terms 34 34.05 34.1 34.15 34.2 34.25 34.3 34.35 34.4
Time [s]
P&O algorithm
108.9 108.95 109 109.05 109.1 109.15 109.2 109.25 109.3
Time [s]

of their tracking capability at steady state (Figure 11 and 12) 20 InC algorithm
and variable environmental conditions (Figure 13 and 14). Fuzzy algoritm
Current Only algorithm
0
0 50 100 150
90 Time [s]
Figure14. Comparing controllers performances in a variable atmospherics
80
Maximum available Power = 83.755W conditions, E=1000W/m2
70

60
At standard conditions figure11 shows the transient
Panel Power [W]

responses of the tracked power obtained from the four MPP

50 controllers. It can be observed that the FLC reaches MPP faster
40
P&O algorithm compared to the other controllers. Steady state behaviour of the
InC algorithm
PV system (Figure12) using FLC is more stable than the other
30 FLC algoritm
Current Only algorithm
MPPT methods. Powers waste is, here, considerably reduced.
20 Figure13 shows the performance of the PV system, using the
10
four MPPT methods, under constant temperature and a
changing irradiance, whereas, figure14 shows the performance
0 of the four controllers, under constant irradiance and variable
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time [s] temperature. In variable atmospheric conditions, the simulation
Figure11. Comparing controllers performances in a constants atmospherics results show that the performances of the four controllers are
conditions quite similar.
 VI. CONCLUSION
Perturb and observe controller is very simple and can be
carried out easily. A drawback of P&O algorithm is that, at
steady state, the systems operating point oscillates around the
MPP giving rise to the waste of the available power. The
choosing of the perturbation step-size is very critical; the step-
size determines how fast the MPP is reached, fast tracking can
be achieved with bigger step-size, but the oscillations around
the MPP will be raised. There is tradeoff between the dynamic
and steady performance. The InC method, witch is more
complex than the P&O, permits a slight reduction in the
oscillations amplitude, but the system might not operate at the
MPP. InC method suffers from the same problems associated
to P&O algorithm such as requirement of ad-hoc tuning
parameters, tradeoff between dynamics and steady state
performance. The major advantage of the single current sensor
technique is the fact that it uses the measurement of only one
variable: the photovoltaic current. The proposed FLC provides
faster and stable tracking of maximum power as compared to
the other MPPT methods studied in this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Gergaud O, Multon B, Ben Ahmed H. Analysis and experimental
validation of various photovoltaic system models. 7th International
ELECTRIMACS Congress, Montral, Canada, 2002, pp. 1-6.
[2] Esram T, Chapman P.L. Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum
power point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, 2007;
22: 439449.
[3] Tafticht T, Agbossou K, Doumbia ML, Chriti A. An improved
maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic systems.
Renewable Energy, 2008; 33: 15081516.
[4] Veerachary M, Senjyu T, Uezato K. Neural-network-based maximum-
power-point tracking of coupledinductor interleaved-boostconverter-
View publication stats
supplied PV system using fuzzy controller. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron,
2003; 50: 749758.
[5] Enrique JM, Durn E, Sidrach-de-Cardona M, Andjar JM. Theoretical
assessment of the maximum power point tracking efficiency of
photovoltaic facilities with different converter topologies. Solar
Energy,2007; 81: 31-38.
[6] Femia N, Petrone G, Spagnolo G, Vitelli M. Optimization of Perturb and
Observe Maximum Power Point Tracking Method. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., 2005; 20: 963973.
[7] Youngseok J, Junghun S, Gwonjong Y, Jaeho C. Improved Perturbation
and Observation Method (IP&O) of MPPT control for photovoltaic
power systems. The 31st Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Lake
Buena Vista, Florida, USA, 2005, pp. 17881791.
[8] Hussein KH, Mota I. Maximum photovoltaic power tracking: An
algorithm for rapidly changing atmospheric conditions. in IEE Proc.
Generation Transmiss. Distrib., 1995, pp. 5964.
[9] Kobayashi K, Takano I, Sawada Y. A study on a two stage maximum
power point tracking control of a photovoltaic system under partially
shaded insolation conditions. in IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meet.,
2003, pp. 26122617.
[10] Salas V, Olias E, Lazaro A, Barrado A. New algorithm using only one
variable measurement applied to maximum power point tracker. Solar
Energy Material and Solar Cells 87, 2005, pp. 675684.
[11] DSouza N S., Lopes LAC, Liu X. An intelligent maximum power point
tracker using peak current control. in Proc. 36th Annu. IEEE Power
Electron. Spec. Conf., 2005, pp. 172177.
[12] Hilloowala RM, Sharaf AM. A rule-based fuzzy logic controller for a
PWM inverter in photovoltaic energy conversion scheme. in Proc. IEEE
Ind. Appl. Soc. Annu. Meet., 1992, pp. 762769.
[13] Khaehintung N, Pramotung K, Tuvirat B, Sirisuk P.
RISCmicrocontroller built-in fuzzy logic controller of maximum power
point tracking for solar-powered light-flasher applications. in Proc. 30th
Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2004, pp. 26732678.
[14] Won CY, Kim DH, Kim SC, Kim WS, Kim H.-S. A new maximum
power point tracker of photovoltaic arrays using fuzzy controller. in
Proc. 25th Annu. IEEE Power Electron. Spec. Conf., 1994, pp. 396403.