See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279764230
Conference Paper · May 2013
CITATIONS 
READS 

4 
3,174 

2 
authors, including: 
71 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
commande d’un système multisources de production d'électricité (photovoltaïque/éolien ) 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.
Dalila BERIBER
LINS Laboratory, Faculty of Electronics and Computer, University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene Allergies, Algeria dberiber@yahoo.fr
Abdelaziz TALHA
LINS Laboratory, Faculty of Electronics and Computer, University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene Allergies, Alegria abtalha@gmail.com
Abstract—This paper propose a detailed comparative survey of four maximum power tracking techniques: Perturb and Observe (P&O), Incremental Conductance (InC), fuzzy logic based tracking technique and a, less known, method using only the photovoltaic current measurement. The drawback of the three 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 panel’s available energy. Simulation results show that the proposed fuzzy logic controller (FLC) can provides faster and stable tracking maximum power as compared to the other studied methods.
Keywords MPPT, BuckBoost, Perturb and Observe, Fuzzy logic controller, NPCVSI, Grid.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Solar power is an alternative technology that will hopefully lead us away from our petroleum dependent energy sources. The major problem with solar panel technology is that the efficiencies for solar power systems are still poor and the costs per kilowatthour (kwh) are not competitive, in most cases, to compete with petroleum energy sources. Solar panels themselves are quite inefficient (approximately 30%) in their ability to convert sunlight to energy. However, the charge controllers and other devices that make up the solar power system are also somewhat inefficient and costly. Our goal is to design a Maximum Power Point Tracker (MPPT), a specific kind of charge controller that will utilize the solar panel to its maximum potential. The MPPT is a charge controller that compensates for the changing Voltage Current characteristic of a solar cell. The MPPT fools the panels into outputting a different voltage and current allowing more power to go into the battery or batteries by making the solar cell think the load is changing when you really are unable to change the load [1]. The MPPT monitors the output voltage and current from the solar panel and determines the operating point that will deliver that maximum amount of power available to the batteries. If our version of the MPPT can accurately track the alwayschanging operating point where the power is at its maximum, then the efficiency of the solar cell will be increased. Many algorithms have been developed for tracking maximum power point of a PV generator. These algorithms vary in effectiveness, complexity, convergence speed, sensors 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.
II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATOR
Figure 1. Equivalent electrical circuit of a cell
Characteristic equation for the current and voltage of a solar cell is given as fellows [1] [3]:
I
I
ph
I
sat
.[exp(
q
.(
V
R
s
.
I
)
nkT
)
1]
V
R
s
.
I
R
sh
(1)
where I denotes a current of a solar array (A), V denotes an output voltage of a solar array(V), I _{p}_{h} denotes the light generated current (A), I _{s}_{a}_{t} denotes a diode reverse saturation current (A), q denotes the electronic charge =1,6.10 ^{}^{1}^{9} C, n denotes a dimensionless deviation factor from the ideal p–n junction diode, k is Boltzmann’s constant =1.3807.10 ^{}^{2}^{3} JK ^{}^{1} , T denotes a cell temperature (K), R _{s} denotes a series resistance (Ω), and R _{s}_{h} denotes a shunt resistance (Ω). Figure2 gives the power–voltage (P–V) characteristics of a PV module respectively for different values of solar radiation and temperature. It is seen that the output characteristics of the solar array is nonlinear and vitally affected by the solar radiation, temperature and load condition. In order to maximize the output power from a solar module, it has to be operated at a unique point with specified voltage and current values, or in other words, at a specified load resistance. This requires a separate power converter circuit for the MPPT. In our design, a boost type DC–DC converter is employed to match the load to the PV array to extract the maximum power.
V ( V )
V ( V )
Figure2. The effect of the irradiation and the temperature on PV generator
III.
BOOST TYPE DC–DC CONVERTER
Figure3. MPPT Boost converter
The converter steady state waveforms in the continuous conduction mode. When the switch K is in the on state, the current in the boost inductor increases linearly, and at that 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 diode to the output R _{L}_{o}_{a}_{d} C _{2} circuit. The pulsating current produced by the switching action is smoothed by the capacitive filter and a DC voltage is provided to the load. The boost converter transfer function is obtained by considering its steady state operation [3] [5]. The DC voltage transfer function is:
(
)
M
V
o
V
i
1
(2)
IV.
DIFFERENT ALGORITHM MPPT
As is well known, the maximum power point (MPP) of
photovoltaic power generation system depends on array
temperature and solar irradiation, so it is necessary to
constantly track MPP of solar array. For years, research has
focused on various MPP control algorithms to draw the
maximum power of the solar array. In this section, the
effectiveness of these four different control algorithm are thoroughly investigated via numerical simulation.
A. Perturb and Observe method
Perturbation and Observation method has been widely used
due to its ease of implementation [6]. P&O algorithm will force
the PV system to approach to the maximum power point by
increasing or decreasing the PV paneloutput voltage. Figure4
presents the control flow chart of the P&O algorithm.
Figure4. Flowchart of the P&O algorithm
In order to find the direction change for maximizing power,
the P&O method perturbs the operating voltage of the PV
panel; if power increases, then the operating voltage is further
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 then oscillated around the MPP. The duty cycle perturbation at time (t+1) can be decided on the basis of the following relationship [7]:
d t 1 d t 2 Sign 1D 
(3) 
Where Sign is given by: 

Sign P t P t 1 0 V t V t 1 0 
(4) 
P(t) and V(t) are, respectively, power and voltage drawn from the PV panel. The oscillation around the MPP can be minimized by reducing the perturbation stepsize D. however dynamic
performance is hampered by smaller perturbation stepsize
(Figure5). This trade off requires careful tuning of the duty
cycle perturbation stepsize.
Time [s]
Figure5. Perturbations Stepsize effects on the performances of the P&O algorithm
B. Incremental Conductance method
Incremental conductance (IncCond) method is based on the fact that the slope of PV panel power versus voltage curve is 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
given by:

I 
0 
at MPP 

V 


I 
0 
left of 
MPP 
(5) 

V 


I 
0 
right of 
MPP 

V 
Because of the noise, of measurement’s faults and the quantification, the condition I V I V 0 is seldom
satisfied, therefore in steady state, the system oscillate around the MPP. To overcome this drawback we introduce a new parameter ε, as:
(6)
The IncCond algorithm is shown in the flowchart figure6
[8].
The amplitude of the oscillations, around the MPP, is controlled by the value of ε. It decreases with the increase of ε
(Figure7).
However, for a relatively great value of ε, the operating point moves away from the true MPP. Hence, the parameter ε value is to be chosen carefully for improved performance of the MPPT system [9].
Figure6. The InC algorithm flowchart
ε = 0,01 Figure7. Stationary regime
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:
P
in
V
pv
I
pv
V
bat
I
out
(7)
Degree of membership
Degree of membership
Degree of membership
Where P _{i}_{n} is the available power at the output of the PV
panel and
V
bat
is
the battery voltage, which
is assumed
constant. For boost converter, output current is given by:
I
out
1
I
pv
Formula (6) becomes:
V
pv
I
pv
V
bat
1
I
pv
(8)
(9)
So we define an objective function P ^{*} as:
P
*
1
I
pv
(10)
It appears that the maxima of both P _{i}_{n} and its corresponding
objective function P ^{*} will coincide. When P ^{*} is maximized
using the P&O algorithm, for example, it tracks the maximum
power closely and also respond to changes in atmospheric conditions efficiently (Figure8 and 9) [10] [11].
Time [s]
Figure8. Algorithm performances in a constants atmospherics conditions
Time [s]
Figure9. Algorithm performances in a variables atmospherics conditions
D. Fuzzy logic controller method
Advances in microelectronic technology permitted to the fuzzy logic control to become the most significant and fruitful application for fuzzy logic theory. Fuzzy logic controllers, based on fuzzy logic, provides a mathematical tool for converting linguistic control rules in the form of (IFTHEN) statements into an automatic control strategy [12] [13] [14].
The tow inputs of the FLC are the error E and, also, the
associated change of error CE, which are shown in formula10.
E k
P k
P k
1
V
k
V
k
1
CE k
E k
E k
1
(11)
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
inputs scaling factors, and gdD is the Defuzzification gain.
While dD denotes the output of the fuzzy process. The fuzzy logic controller consists of three functional blocks: fuzzification, Fuzzy rules and inference engine, and finally Defuzzification.
Fuzzification
The fuzzy process requires that each variable used in describing the control rules has to be expressed in terms of fuzzy set notations with linguistic labels [13]. Figure10 show the memberships functions of the input variables E(k) and CE(k) and the output variable dD(k). In which each membership function is assigned with five fuzzy set, including PB (Positive Big), PS (Positive Small), ZE (Zero Equivalent), NS (Negative Small) and NB (Negative Big).
1 
NG
NP
ZE
PP
PG


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0.02 
0.015 
0.01 
0.005 0,0025 
0 
0.0025 
0.005 
0.01 
0.015 
0.02 

E 

(a) 

1 
NG
NP
ZE
PP
PG


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

200 160 
80 
0 
80 
160 
200 

CE 

(b) 

1 
NG
NP
ZE
PP
PG


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0.02 
0.015 
0.01 
0.005 0.0025 
0 
0.0025 
0.005 
0.01 
0.015 
0.02 

D 

(c) 
Figure10. Membership function
Fuzzy rules and inference engine
The kernel of fuzzy logic controller is the fuzzy inference system. Fuzzy inference is the process of formulating the mapping from a given input to an output using fuzzy logic. The mapping then provides a basis from which decisions can be made. The proposed Mamdanitype inference system endeavours to force the error function (E in formula 11) to zero. Two cases are to consider [14]:
First case: E is positive; working point is on the left
of the MPP. If the change of error CE is positive, then the working point converges toward the MPP. If CE is negative, the inverse that occurs.
Second
case:
E
is
negative; working point is,
therefore, on the right of the MPP. In this case if CE is positive, working point moves away of the MPP and vice versa if CE is negative. From that, we summarises, in table1, this process reasoning as a set of a fuzzy IFTHEN rules [14].
Table1. Inference Matrix
CE 

NG 
NP 
ZE 
PP 
PG 

NG 
ZE 
ZE 
PG 
PG 
PG 

NP 
ZE 
ZE 
PP 
PP 
PP 

E 
ZE 
PP 
ZE 
ZE 
ZE 
NP 
PP 
NP 
NP 
NP 
ZE 
ZE 

PG 
NG 
NG 
NG 
ZE 
ZE 
Defuzzification
The process of Defuzzification calculates the crisp output of the FLC. It describes the mapping from a space of fuzzy logic statement, corresponding to the inferred output, into a nonfuzzy control action. In this paper the centre of gravity Defuzzifier, which is the most common one, is adopted.
V. SIMULATION _{R}_{E}_{S}_{U}_{L}_{T}_{S}
The four studied MPPT algorithms are compared in terms of their tracking capability at steady state (Figure 11 and 12) and variable environmental conditions (Figure 13 and 14).
Time [s]
Figure11. Comparing controllers performances in a constants atmospherics conditions
Time [s]
Figure12. Comparing controllers performances in a constants atmospherics conditionssteady state
Time [s]
Figure13. Comparing controllers performances in a variable atmospherics conditions, T=25°C
Time [s]
Figure14. Comparing controllers performances in a variable atmospherics
conditions, E=1000W/m2
At standard conditions figure11 shows the transient
responses of the tracked power obtained from the four MPP
controllers. It can be observed that the FLC reaches MPP faster
compared to the other controllers. Steady state behaviour of the
PV system (Figure12) using FLC is more stable than the other
MPPT methods. Power’s waste is, here, considerably reduced.
Figure13 shows the performance of the PV system, using the
four MPPT methods, under constant temperature and a
changing irradiance, whereas, figure14 shows the performance
of the four controllers, under constant irradiance and variable temperature. In variable atmospheric conditions, the simulation results show that the performances of the four controllers are 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 system’s operating point oscillates around the MPP giving rise to the waste of the available power. The choosing of the perturbation stepsize is very critical; the step size determines how fast the MPP is reached, fast tracking can be achieved with bigger stepsize, 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 oscillation’s 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 adhoc 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. 7 ^{t}^{h} International ELECTRIMACS Congress, Montréal, Canada, 2002, pp. 16. 
[2] 
Esram T, Chapman P.L. Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans. Energy Conversion, 2007; 22: 439–449. 
[3] 
Tafticht T, Agbossou K, Doumbia ML, Chériti A. An improved maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic systems. Renewable Energy, 2008; 33: 1508–1516. 
[4] 
Veerachary M, Senjyu T, Uezato K. Neuralnetworkbased maximum powerpoint tracking of coupledinductor interleavedboostconverter 
supplied PV system using fuzzy controller. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron, 2003; 50: 749–758.
[5] 
Enrique JM, Duràn E, SidrachdeCardona M, Andùjar JM. Theoretical assessment of the maximum power point tracking efficiency of photovoltaic facilities with different converter topologies. Solar Energy,2007; 81: 3138. 
[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: 963–973. 
[7] 
Youngseok J, Junghun S, Gwonjong Y, Jaeho C. Improved Perturbation and Observation Method (IP&O) of MPPT control for photovoltaic power systems. The 3 ^{1}^{s}^{t} Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, 2005, pp. 1788–1791. 
[8] 
Hussein KH, Mota I. Maximum photovoltaic power tracking: An algorithm for rapidly changing atmospheric conditions. in IEE Proc. Generation Transmiss. Distrib., 1995, pp. 59–64. 
[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. 2612–2617. 
[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. 675–684.
[11] D’Souza 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. 172–177.
[12] Hilloowala RM, Sharaf AM. A rulebased fuzzy logic controller for a PWM inverter in photovoltaic energy conversion scheme. in Proc. IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc. Annu. Meet., 1992, pp. 762–769.
[13] Khaehintung
N,
Pramotung
K,
Tuvirat
B,
Sirisuk
P.
RISCmicrocontroller builtin fuzzy logic controller of maximum power point tracking for solarpowered lightflasher applications. in Proc. 30th Annu. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., 2004, pp. 2673–2678.
[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. 396–403.