Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Conventional and modified MPPT techniques with direct control and dual MARK
scaled adaptive step-size
⁎
Aamir Amira, Asim Amira, Jeyraj Selvaraja, Nasrudin A. Rahima,b, , Abdullah M. Abusorrahb
a
UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre (UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R & D, University of Malaya, Jalan Pantai Baharu, 59990 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Renewable Energy Research Group, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Conventionally, for adaptive MPPT change in power over change of voltage (dPPV/dVPV), change in power over
Buck converter change of current (dPPV/dIPV) or change in power over change of duty (dPPV/dD) had been utilized for variable
Maximum Power Point (MPP) Tracking (MPPT) stepping. However, this paper presents dual scaled adaptive step sizing, depending on change of power (dPPV).
Modified Incremental Conductance method This technique reduces complexity, improves transient and dynamic response to sudden irradiance changes. As,
(mIncCond)
PV characteristic curve has two different slopes, one at the left and the other at the right of MPP. Nevertheless, a
Photovoltaic (PV) array modelling
constant fine-tuned scaling factor for operation at left of MPP may cause overshoot or undershoot at right side of
Adaptive step-size
MPP. Similarly, constant scaling factor offering good performance at right slope of the MPP may give slow
voltage response when the system operates at left of MPP. Therefore, dual scale adaptive technique dependent on
change of power (dPPV) has been proposed to attain credible performance at both sides of the slope. This
technique has been employed on conventional and modified MPPT schemes with direct control, explicitly on
modified Incremental Conductance (IncCond) method. Further, the aim is to establish the fact that even with
direct implementation, IncCond remains a specific implementation of P & O, by comparatively analyzing the
performance of each method. Simulation and experimental results authenticate the validity of the proposed
scheme.

1. Introduction
Amongst the many available renewable energy sources, solar energy
remains the most promising choice because it is abundant, clean, reli-
able, emission free, and does not require rotating parts which make its
installation easy in remote areas (Ascione, 2017; Kuhn, 2017; Huld,
2017; Michael and Selvarasan, 2017; Ando et al., 2017). However, solar
energy generated from PV arrays confronts issues of weather de-
pendency, low efficiency, a very high initial cost and the well-known
nonlinear I–V characteristics (Hirata and Aihara, 2017; Xu et al., 2017;
Al-Obaidi et al., 2017; Nofuentes et al., 2017; Alik and Jusoh, 2017;
Hosseinnezhad et al., 2017). To address these shortcomings, most of the
research on PV system has been on harnessing maximum output from
the PV arrays. In addition, the point on the PV curve where output
power is optimum is the known as the MPP. It exists at the knee of PV
curve. Many MPPT techniques have been employed by researchers, a
wide range of MPPT techniques with digital and analog classification
has been presented in Amir et al. (2016). Although many MPPT tech-
niques have been proposed, the conventional MPPT techniques such as
hill climbing (Tan et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2016), perturb and observe
(P & O) Alik and Jusoh, 2017 and incremental conductance (IncCond)
Tey and Mekhilef, 2014 methods offer the simplest implementation and
are widely employed. Previously, IncCond method was considered to
have better performance than the P & O method, in terms of reduced
steady-state oscillations and correct response under sudden irradiance
changes (Hussein et al., 1995). Nevertheless, (Sera et al., 2013) has
demonstrated that these conventional techniques are actually almost
similar, mathematically equivalent and offer identical efficiencies
under both static and dynamic conditions. However, conventional
techniques with direct control method (Safari and Mekhilef, 2011;
Ahmed and Shoyama, 2010) have not been compared. Hence, in this
paper an attempt has been made to discuss the working principle of the
various conventional MPPT schemes with direct implementation and to
compare their performances in terms of tracking speed, exact MPP
tracking ability, implementation complexity, cost, efficiency and sta-
bility of the system. The primary issue of all the conventional MPPT
methods is the choice of the duty cycle step-size, which appears as a
trade-off between the magnitude of the steady-state oscillation and the

⁎
Corresponding author at: UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre (UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R & D, University of Malaya, Jalan Pantai Baharu, 59990 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: aamir.a@siswa.um.edu.my (A. Amir), asim20588@gmail.com (A. Amir), jeyraj@um.edu.my (J. Selvaraj), nasrudin@um.edu.my (N.A. Rahim),
aabusorrah@kau.edu.sa (A.M. Abusorrah).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.09.004
Received 24 April 2017; Received in revised form 31 August 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017
0038-092X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Nomenclature I0 reverse saturation current corresponding to the diode

k boltzmann constant
dPPV change in power a ideality factor
dVPV change of voltage q electron charge
dIPV change of current Δ change
dD change in duty ration ηmppt MPPT efficiency
dPPV/dVPV change in power over change of voltage Pdc (VO) output power delivered
dPPV/dIPV change in power over change of current Pdc (Vmp) theoretical power at the mpp voltage
dPPV/dD change in power over change in duty ratio Rs series resistance
IncCond incremental conductance R sh shunt resistance
mIncCond modified incremental conductance VT thermal voltage of diode
P&O perturb and observe T temperature
MPPT maximum power point tracking STC standard test conditions
Ipv current produced by photons e tolerance error
Impp current at mpp Dmax predefined maximum limit for the duty cycle
Ish short circuit current
Voc open circuit voltage

dynamic response. As a solution, researchers had proposed the utili-
zation of the adaptive step size (Pandey et al., 2006), offering fast
convergence and reduced steady-state error. A scaling factor is needed
to regulate the adaptive terms utilized to attain the optimum MPPT
performance. Most commonly observed methods for implementing the
adaptive stepping are by utilizing the change in power over change in
voltage (dPPV/dVPV) Liu et al., 2008, change in power over change in
duty ratio (dPPV/dD) Tan et al., 2015 or change in power over change in
current (dPPV/dIpv) Mei et al., 2011. Even though the conventional
adaptive step-size approach offers a quicker response at the transient
stage, it confronts issues under both steady and irradiance changing
conditions (Zakzouk et al., 2013). In addition, considering problems of
overshooting and slow response time due to system inefficiencies and
the constant scaling factor, this paper presents an adaptive term being
dPPV with a dual scaling factor applied on a Modified IncCond MPPT.
This modified approach offers an easy implementation, with low
computation, faster response, fewer overshoots and simple mathema-
tical term reducing the divisional complexities. The scaling factors have
been chosen as per the requirements of the hardware, by trial and error
method.
By analysing the performances of various conventional MPPT
methods, a Modified IncCond MPPT with direct control and dual scaled
adaptive step has been proposed which offers stability, efficiency,
simplified implementation, fast and exact MPP tracking. The objectives
of this paper are as follows:
1. A Modified INC technique is presented.
2. The Modified INC technique uses direct control and dual scaled
adaptive step size.
3. The improved performance of the modified technique is proved.
4. The Modified dual scaled technique is compared with conventional
approaches.

Practical PV device
Ideal PV cell IO L
ID RS Q
IPV RP VO Vg Do Co Ro

(a) PV cell model (b) Buck Converter with resistive load

5.5 T=25 °C
T=25 °C
5 1000 W/m2 80
1000 W/m2
4.5 70
4 800 W/m2
60 800 W/m2
3.5
50
P (W)

3
I (A)

600 W/m2 600 W/m2

2.5 40

2 30
400 W/m2 400 W/m2
1.5
20
1
200 W/m2 200 W/m2
10
0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
V (V) V (V)
(c) P-V curves under irradiance change. (d) I-V curves under irradiance change.
Fig. 1. PV cell model with its Characteristic curves for KC85T Module and Converter under consideration.

1018
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Table 1 Short circuit current equation:

System Parameters of the Buck Converter utilized.
I R I R
Isc = Ipv−I0 ⎡exp ⎛ sc s ⎞−1⎤− sc s
⎜ ⎟
Parameters Buck (resistive load) ⎢ ⎝ aV ⎠ ⎥ Rsh (2)
⎣ T ⎦
Switching frequency 10 kHz Open circuit voltage equation:
Sampling time 0.1 s
Input capacitor 2200 μF V V
Input inductor 560 μH 0 = Ipv−I0 ⎡exp ⎛ oc ⎞−1⎤− oc
⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎝ aV ⎥
⎠ ⎦ R (3)
Switch IGBT ⎣ T sh
Filter capacitor 220 μF
Load 1Ω
MPP circuit equation:
Vmp + Imp Rs ⎞ ⎤ Vmp + Imp Rs
Imp = Ipv−I0 ⎡exp ⎛ ⎜ ⎟ −1 −
⎢ ⎝ aVT ⎠ ⎥ Rsh (4)
Table 2 ⎣ ⎦
Electrical performance of KC85T Module.
Power at MPP circuit equation:
Parameters Value
Imp I0 ⎛ Imp ⎞ ⎡ Vmp + Imp Rs ⎞ ⎤ 1 ⎛ Imp ⎞
− =− ⎜1− Rs ⎟ exp ⎛ ⎜ − ⎜1−
⎟ Rs ⎟
Maximum PV Power 87 W Vmp aVT ⎝ Vmp ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ aVT ⎠⎥⎦ Rsh ⎝ Vmp ⎠ (5)
Voltage at MPP 17.4 V
Current at MPP 5.02 A Efficiency equation:
Open circuit voltage, VOC 21.7 V
Short circuit current, ISC 5.34 A Pdc (VO )
ηmppt =
Series cells 36 Pdc (Vmp) (6)

Note: Under standard test conditions (STC): Irradiance 1000 W/m 2 where Pdc (VO ) represents the output power delivered and Pdc (Vmp)
and module temperature 25 °C the theoretical power at the MPP voltage.

5. dPPV, dPPV/dVPV and dPPV/dIPV are compared for adaptive stepping. 2.1.2. PV module utilized
6. A guide for future works on MPPT is provided. Without losing generality, KC85T module from Kyocera has been
utilized in this paper to prove the performance of the MPPT algorithms.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the models A Buck converter has been utilized to check the performance of the
of a PV module and BUCK converter, which are essential in under- techniques under discussion. Fig. 1(b) presents the schematic diagram
standing and analysing the various MPPT methods on the particular DC- of the Buck converter utilized and Table 1 presents the system para-
DC converter. Subsequently, section 3 investigates the conventional meters of the Buck converter utilized for simulation and experimental
MPPT techniques and proposes a modified INC with direct control and results. Moreover, Table 2 presents an electrical performance of KC85T
dual scaled adaptive scheme for MPPT. Here, dual scaled adaptive step- Module and Fig. 1(c) & (d) display the power versus voltage (P-V) and
size technique has been utilized as it offers protection from an over- current versus voltage (I-V) curves of the KC85T module.
shoot or an undershoot and compensates the slow voltage responses. To
confirm the theoretical analysis, simulation and experimental results 2.2. Issues of implementing conventional MPPT methods with direct control
for aforementioned MPPT techniques are shown in Section 4. Section 5 on Dc-Dc Buck converters
provides a discussion to further validate the results obtained. Finally,
Section 6 presents the conclusion of this work. The design of the buck converter as presented in Fig. 1 (b), can be
mathematically modelled as (Tan et al., 2015; Hart, 2011):
2. Methodology For effective input resistance:
Vpv R
2.1. PV array modelling Rpv = =
Ipv D2 (7)
A Photovoltaic panel is simply a current source that consists of Vpv response at high D region:
numerous solar cells connected in series or parallel fashion in order to K
produce electrical energy in presence of sunlight. Simply, a solar cell is Vpv =
D2 (8)
a kind of a semiconductor, which generates electricity when in contact
with sunlight. In order to understand the characteristic operation of a where, K = R ∗ ISC, D is Duty and ΔD is the step size.
solar cell, mathematical models have been developed. Ideal PV cell And:
single diode model has been presented in Fig. 1(a). ΔVpv 2K
=−
ΔD D3 (9)
2.1.1. Mathematical modelling RIpv
Vpv response at low D region: Vpv =
Considering Fig. 1(a). the current versus voltage (I–V) characteristic D2
And:
of a PV module can be represented by a basic mathematical equation
(Villalva et al., 2009): ΔVpv ΔIpv R 2Vpv
= −
ΔD D 2ΔD D (10)
qV
I = Ipv−I0 ⎡exp ⎛ ⎞−1⎤
Vpv response near MPP region:
⎢
⎣ ⎝ akT ⎠ ⎥⎦ (1)
ΔPpv ΔIpv Vpv Ipv ΔVpv
where Ipv represents current produced by photons, I0 represents the = −
ΔD ΔD ΔD (11)
leakage current, k the Boltzmann constant, a the ideality factor and q
the electron charge (Villalva et al., 2009). Applying boundary condi- The aforementioned mathematical model portrays the behaviour of
tions to Eq. (1), short circuit current equation, open circuit voltage a Buck converter with direct control (converter dependent upon a fixed
equation, MPP circuit equation, power at MPP circuit equation and step size ΔD). However, such a step-size does not guarantee a fixed
efficiency equation can be obtained (Cubas et al., 2014). voltage change, as presented by Eqs. 9, 10 and 11 for Vpv response at

1019
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Start

Start Measure
IPV (k), VPV (k)

Measure
IPV (k), VPV (k)
Calculate
PPV (k) > IPV (k)VPV (k)

Calculate
PPV (k) > IPV (k)VPV (k)
|¨I| < e
NO YES

dD = N1*(¨P) dD = N2*(¨P)
PPV (k)>PPV (k-1)
NO YES

PPV (k)>PPV (k-1)

VPV (k)>VPV (k-1) VPV (k)>VPV (k-1) NO YES

VPV (k)>VPV (k-1) VPV (k)>VPV (k-1)

NO YES NO YES

D(k) = D(k-1) - dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) - dD NO YES NO YES

D(k) = D(k-1) - dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) - dD

Update
VPV (k-1) = VPV (k) Update
VPV (k-1) = VPV (k)
PPV (k-1) = PPV (k)
PPV (k-1) = PPV (k)

Return Return

(a) Flowchart for direct control P&O method (b) Flowchart for direct control P&O method with dual adaptive
stepping

Start
Start
Measure
IPV (k), VPV (k)
Measure
IPV (k), VPV (k) Calculate
PPV (k) = IPV (k) * VPV (k)
¨V = VPV (k) - VPV (k-1)
¨I = IPV (k) - IPV (k-1)
Calculate ¨P = PPV (k) - PPV (k-1)
¨V = VPV (k) - VPV (k-1)
¨I = IPV (k) - IPV (k-1) |¨I| < e
NO YES

dD = N1*(¨P) dD = N2*(¨P)

¨V = 0
NO YES
¨V = 0
NO YES
YES ¨I/¨V = -I/V ¨I = 0 YES
YES V(¨I)+I(¨V) = 0 ¨I = 0 YES

No Change NO NO No Change No Change NO NO No Change

¨I/¨V > -I/V ¨I > 0 ¨I > 0

V(¨I)+I(¨V) > 0

YES NO NO YES

D(k) = D(k-1) - dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) + dD D(k) = D(k-1) - dD ¨V > 0 ¨V > 0

YES NO YES NO NO YES

D(k) = D(k-1)-dD D(k) = D(k-1)+dD D(k) = D(k-1)+dD D(k) = D(k-1)-dD D(k) = D(k-1)+dD D(k) = D(k-1)-dD
Update
VPV (k-1) = VPV (k)
IPV (k-1) = IPV (k) Update
VPV (k-1) = VPV (k)
IPV (k-1) = IPV (k)
PPV (k-1) = PPV (k)
Return
Return

(c) Flowchart for direct control IncCond method

(d) Flowchart for direct control IncCond method with dual adaptive
stepping
Fig. 2. Flow chart of the P & O direct method and modified IncCond direct method.

high, low and near MPP region, respectively. Moreover, constant
stepping offers lower voltage step at the points of operation that are far
from the MPP. By contrast, constant stepping offers higher voltage step
at the points of operation that are nearer to the MPP.
3. Conventional MPPT techniques
3.1. P & O with direct control method
In this method, change in power is considered the agent for MPPT.
Here, on the increase in power, the succeeding perturbation in the duty
would be in the same direction to attain the MPP and on the decrease in
power, the succeeding perturbation would be in the opposite direction.
As it is a direct control method, the duty is directly utilized without
using the PI controller. Flowchart presented in Fig. 2(a) shows the
operation of the conventional P & O method with direct control (Ahmed
and Shoyama, 2010). In addition, Fig. 2(b) shows the flowchart for Dual
scale adaptive P & O. Constant scale adaptive P & O can be realized by
removing the N2 scaling factor in Fig. 2(b) and treating N1 as the small
or large constant stepping factor. Where, N2 represents large scaling
factor and N1 represents a small scaling factor. For Buck Converter, it
needs to be noted that constant stepping offers lower voltage step at the
points of operation that are far from the MPP. By contrast, constant
stepping offers higher voltage step at the points of operation that are
nearer to the MPP.

1020
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

0.6 0.6

DUTY
DUTY

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

20 20
Vpv

Vpv
10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
5.5 5.5
5 5

Ipv
Ipv

4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
100 100

Ppv
Ppv

50 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (b) Representation of exact MPP (Brown
Power for P&O method indicator) against measured MPP
90 90

85 85
Ppv

Ppv

80 80

75 75

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time(s) Time(s)

(c) PV Power (d) Representation of exact MPP (Brown

indicator) against measured MPP
Fig. 3. Duty, Voltage, Current and Power plots for P & O method on Buck converter.

3.2. IncCond with direct control method ΔI I

=− MPP
ΔV V (15)
In this technique, the PI controller is not utilized and the duty cycle ΔI I
is directly adjusted (Safari and Mekhilef, 2011). IncCond attains the >− Left of MPP
ΔV V (16)
MPP by considering the following conditions:
ΔI I
ΔP <− Right of MPP
= 0 MPP ΔV V (17)
ΔV (12)
As observed, the conditions utilized by the IncCond method with
ΔP direct control, employ the division of change of current over the change
> 0 Left of MPP
ΔV (13) in voltage, which results in higher complexity and requires a controller
with division capabilities, resulting in higher cost of the system.
ΔP
< 0 Right of MPP Flowchart presented in Fig. 2(c) shows the operation of the conven-
ΔV (14)
tional IncCond method with direct control.
As,
3.3. Modified IncCond with direct control method
ΔP Δ(IV ) ΔI ΔI
= =I+V ≅I+V
ΔV ΔV ΔV ΔV
Fig. 2(d) presents the flowchart for the direct control modified In-
So, cCond (mIncCond) method with dual scale adaptive stepping. This

1021
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

0.8
0.6 0.6
DUTY

DUTY
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2 0
-0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

20 20
Vpv

Vpv
10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

4
4
Ipv

Ipv
2
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

100 100
Ppv

Ppv
50 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (b) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV
Power for small-scale adaptive P&O Power for large-scale adaptive P&O method
method
90 90
0.6
80
DUTY

80 80
Ppv (N1)

0.4
70
70 70
0.2
60
0 60 60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 50
50
50
20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 1.2 2 2.2 2.4
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
Vpv

10 90 90
80
80 80
Ppv (N2)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 60
70 70
40
5 60
60
4 20
Ipv

50
3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1 1.2 1.4 2 2.2
2 Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 90 90
Ppv (Dual Scale)

90

100 80 80
80
70
70 70
Ppv

50 60
60 60
50

0 50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.2 0.4 1 1.2 2 2.2 2.4
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
(c) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (d) PV Power for small, large and dual scale
Power for dual scale adaptive P&O method adaptive P&O at different irradiance levels
Fig. 4. Duty, Voltage, Current and Power plots for small, large and dual scale adaptive P & O method on Buck converter.

1022
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Table 3
Performance evaluation of adaptive P & O from 0 s to 1 s (STC constant irradiance 1000 W/m2).

Scaling Undershoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (0.5 s) Efficiency

Constant step 12 W Oscillating 87 W 85.2 W 97.93%

Constant small scaling (N1) 44 W 0.5 s 87 W 86.5 W 99.42%
Constant large scaling (N2) 68 W 0.5 s 87 W 86.5 W 99.42%
Dual scaling 43 W 0.4 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Undershoot: variation from exact MPP in the transient stage. Oscillating: depending on the step-size.

Table 4
Performance evaluation of adaptive P & O from 1 s to 2 s (irradiance change from 1000 W/m2 to 700 W/m2 at 1 s).

Scaling Overshoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (1.5 s) Efficiency

Constant small scaling (N1) 1W 0.05 s 58 W 57.65 W 99.39%

Constant large scaling (N2) 0W 0s 58 W 57.65 W 99.39%
Dual scaling 1W 0.1 s 58 W 57.7 W 99.48%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Overshoot: variation from exact MPP in the transient stage.

Table 5
Performance evaluation of adaptive P & O from 2 s to 3 s (irradiance change from 700 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 at 2 s).

Scaling Undershoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (2.5 s) Efficiency

Constant small scaling (N1) 31 W 0.4 s 87 W 86.5 W 99.42%

Constant large scaling (N2) 32 W 0.2 s 87 W 86.5 W 99.42%
Dual scaling 31 W 0.3 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Undershoot: variation from exact MPP in the transient stage.

modification has been utilized in order to remove the division com- mIncCond algorithm which overcomes the divisional complexities of
plexity. The modified form of direct control IncCond method considers the conventional IncCond method. Second, the adaptive step of change
the following equations (Zakzouk et al., 2013): in power, which is simple and offers better performance in comparison
to conventional adaptive stepping. Lastly, the dual scaling to compen-
V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV )
= 0 MPP sate the slow response of a small scaling factor (N1) and the overshoot
V ΔV (18)
or undershoot of the large scaling factor (N2).
V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV )
> 0 Left side of the MPP
V ΔV (19) 3.4. Criteria for tuning the scaling factors

V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) Trial and error method has been utilized for tuning of coefficients
< 0 Right side of the MPP
V ΔV (20)
N1 and N2, which can be slow and time consuming. However, to speed
Rearranging Eqs. 1214 we get, up the process initial coefficient values for N1 and N2 can found out by
At MPP: utilizing Eq. (25) Pandey et al., 2008.

V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) = 0 ΔP
m⩽ (Dmax )
ΔV (25)
Left of the MPP:
where Dmax is the predefined maximum limit for the duty cycle.
(V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) > 0)& &(ΔV > 0) (21) After the initial values have been attained, continuous tracking of ΔP is
Right of the MPP: required. In case of undershoot or overshoot the coefficient values have
to be modified accordingly. After successive iterations the required
(V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) > 0)& &(ΔV < 0) (22) coefficients can be attained.
Right of the MPP:
3.5. Criteria for attaining a region of constant current source
(V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) < 0)& &(ΔV > 0) (23)

Left of the MPP:
(V (ΔI ) + I (ΔV ) < 0)& &(ΔV < 0)
This paper offers a mIncCond approach along with a dual scaled
adaptive stepping considering a single parameter of change in power.
Simple consideration of change in power instead of complex and fluc-
tuating conventional approaches of adaptive stepping, along with a
simplified mIncCond offers high efficiency, eliminates the division
complexity, reduces steady state error, offers faster tracking and nearly
eliminates oscillations at MPP. Similarly, constant scale adaptive
mIncCond can be realized by removing the N2 scaling factor in Fig. 2(d)
and treating N1 as the small or large constant stepping factor. Here,
improvement can be observed due to three factors. First, due to the
In the region of constant current source, change in current is in-
significant as ΔI is small enough. So, the point of operation can be
(24) presumed in the region of constant current source. Moreover, such a
situation is attained when ΔI is slightly lesser than a predefined toler-
ance error (e ), as shown in Eq. (26).
ΔI < e (26)
The perturbed step size at Maximum operating point is the least.
Therefore, ΔI near MPP is also the least. Choice for the predefined
tolerance error (e ) is to be lesser than current changes due to the least
perturbation step at MPP and greater than zero, as presented by Eq.
(27).
0 < e < ΔI (27)

1023
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

0.6 0.6

DUTY
DUTY

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

20 20

Vpv
Vpv

10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
5.5 5.5
5 5

Ipv
Ipv

4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
100 100

Ppv
Ppv

50 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s) Time(s)

(a) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (b) Representation of exact MPP (Brown
Power for IncCond method indicator) against measured MPP
90 90

85
85
Ppv
Ppv

80
80

75
75
70
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time(s) Time(s)

(c) PV Power (d) Representation of exact MPP (Brown

indicator) against measured MPP
Fig. 5. Duty, Voltage, Current and Power plots for IncCond method on Buck converter.

4. Results
4.1. Simulation results
Matlab/Simulink software was utilized for attaining simulation re-
sults and to compare the performances of different MPPT techniques
discussed in the preceding section. The parameters used for the simu-
lations are as detailed in Tables 1 and 2, with the simulation step size
being 0.05 and the MPPT frequency being 0.1 s.
4.1.1. Simulation results for P & O
Fig. 3 presents simulation results for P & O method under STC.
4.1.2. Simulation results for single scaled (small – N1 & large – N2) and
dual scaled P & O
Simulation results have been obtained under STC from 0 s to 1 s. At
time 1 s, the irradiance changes from 1000 W/m2 to 700 W/m2. Finally,
at time 2 s, the irradiance changes from 700 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2. The
changes in PV voltage, current, and power, as well as the duty cycle of
the BUCK converter for different scaling factors, have been presented in
Fig. 4. Tables 3–5 evaluate the performance of the conventional and
modified P & O methods under sudden irradiance changes.
4.1.3. Simulation results for IncCond
Fig. 5 presents simulation results for IncCond method under STC.
4.1.4. Simulation results for single (small – N1 & large – N2) and dual
scaled IncCond
Similar irradiance changes have been considered for simulation
results of IncCond method. The changes in PV voltage, current, and
power, as well as the duty cycle of the BUCK converter for different
scaling factors, have been presented in Fig. 6. Tables 6, 7 & 8 evaluate
the performance of the conventional and modified IncCond methods
under sudden irradiance changes.

1024
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

0.6 0.8
0.6

DUTY
DUTY

0.4 0.4
0.2
0.2 0
-0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

20 20

Vpv
Vpv

10 10

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

5
4
4

Ipv
Ipv

3 2

2
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

100 100

Ppv
Ppv

50 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (b) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV
Power for small-scale adaptive IncCond Power for large-scale adaptive IncCond
method
90 90
0.6
DUTY

80
0.4 80 80
Ppv (N1)

70
0.2 70 70
60
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 60
50 60

20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 1.5 2 2.2 2.4

Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
Vpv

10 90
90
80
80 80
Ppv (N2)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 60
70 70
5 40
60 60
4
Ipv

20
3 50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 1.2 2 2.2
2
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 90
Ppv (Dual Scale)

90
100 80
80 80
Ppv

50 70 70
60

60 60
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 40
0 0.2 0.4 1 1.2 2 2.2 2.4
Time(s)
Time(s) Time(s) Time(s)
(c) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV (d) PV Power for small, large and dual scale
Power for dual scale adaptive P&O method adaptive IncCond at different irradiance levels.
Fig. 6. Duty, Voltage, Current and Power plots for small, large and dual scale adaptive IncCond method on Buck converter.

1025
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

Table 6
Performance evaluation of adaptive IncCond From 0 s to 1 s (constant irradiance 1000 W/m2).

Scaling Undershoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (0.5 s) Efficiency

Constant step 11.5 W Oscillating 87 W 85.25 W 97.98%

Constant small scaling (N1) 43 W 0.6 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%
Constant large scaling (N2) 69 W 0.5 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%
Dual scaling 42 W 0.4 s 87 W 86.6 W 99.54%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Undershoot: variation from exact MPP in the transient stage. Oscillating: depending on the step-size.

Table 7
Performance evaluation of adaptive IncCond from 1 s to 2 s (irradiance change from 1000 W/m2 to 700 W/m2 at 1 s).

Scaling Overshoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (1.5 s) Efficiency

Constant small scaling (N1) 1W 0.2 s 58 W 57.6 W 99.31%

Constant large scaling (N2) 1W 0.05 s 58 W 57.6 W 99.31%
Dual scaling 0W 0s 58 W 57.7 W 99.48%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Overshoot, variation from exact MPP in the transient stage.

Table 8
Performance evaluation of adaptive IncCond from 2 s to 3 s (irradiance change from 700 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2 at 2 s).

Scaling Undershoot Settling time Exact MPP Actual MPP (2.5 s) Efficiency

Constant small scaling (N1) 26 W 0.2 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%

Constant large scaling (N2) 32 W 0.2 s 87 W 86.55 W 99.48%
Dual scaling 25 W 0.3 s 87 W 86.6 W 99.54%

Note: Settling time: time to reach the exact MPP (error band 2 to 5%). Undershoot: variation from exact MPP in the transient stage.

1 0.6
0.4
DUTY

DUTY

0.5 0.2
0
0
-0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

20 20
Vpv

Vpv

10 10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

6 6

4 4
Ipv

Ipv

2 2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

100 100
Ppv

Ppv

50 50

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time(s) Time(s)

(a) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power (b) Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power
for mIncCond method with dPPV/dVPV for mIncCond method with dPPV/dIPV
Fig. 7. Duty, Voltage, Current and Power plots for adaptive mIncCond method.

4.1.5. Utilizing dPPV instead of dPPV/dVPV OR dPPV/dIPV performance of adaptive-steps based on dPPV/dVPV OR dPPV/dIPV. Fig. 7.
Simulation results have been presented in this section for comparing Presents Duty, PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power plots for the
the effectiveness of the mIncCond technique and the improved perfor- mIncCond method with dPPV/dVPV and dPPV/dIPV. Here, the operation is
mance of the dual scaled adaptive-step based on dPPV with the at STC from 0 s to 1 s, and a sudden irradiance change from 1000 W/m2

1026
A. Amir et al.
TDS 2014B | 62150H-40 | 14-04-17 | 13:15
Constant step P&O
(a)
TDS 2014B | 62150H-40 | 14-04-17 | 13:17
Constant step IncCond
Fig. 8. Experimental results for the methods under discussion for MPPT Efficiency, PV Power, PV Current and PV Voltage.
to 700 W/m2 is witnessed from 1 s to 2 s. As observed, the conventional
adaptive step-size approach based on dPPV/dVPV offers a quicker re-
sponse at the transient stage, but confronts issues at the steady state
stage under both static and dynamic conditions. Moreover, the con-
ventional adaptive step-size approach based on dPPV/dIPV offers a
credible response at the steady state stage, but offers slower initial re-
sponse.
4.2. Experimental results
4.2.1. Experimental results of Ppv, Ipv and Vpv to show optimum
performance of mIncCond
Experiments were carried out to obtain results for MPPT Tracking
Efficiency, PV Voltage and PV Current plots for constant step and dual
scale adaptive methods on Buck converter utilizing the TMS320F28335
DSP, TDS 2014B Oscilloscope and Chroma 62000H Solar Array
Simulator. By using the MPPT Tracking function in Chroma 62150H-
40 software, the MPPT efficiency for the studied MPPT techniques was
obtained. Fig. 8 shows the MPPT efficiencies, PV Voltage and PV Cur-
rent plots obtained for the conventional and dual scale modified MPPT
1027
Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031
TDS 2014B | 62150H-40 | 14-04-17 | 11:39
Dual scale adaptive P&O
(b)
TDS 2014B | 62150H-40 | 14-04-17 | 12:06
Dual scale adaptive IncCond
techniques after an operation of 10 s per each method.
4.2.2. Experimental results to show optimum performance of dual scaled
adaptive stepping with P & O
The power, current and voltage plots have been obtained for small-
scale, large-scale and dual-scaled adaptive step-size, as shown in Fig. 9.
The total time of operation for each method is 50 s. Sudden irradiance
changes can be observed at time 20 s from 1000 W/m2 to 700 W/m2. At
35 s from 700 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2. Fig.9(d) shows PV voltage of all
the three-scaled methods after plotting the results in MATLAB for
comparative analysis. It displays that small-scaling requires 14 s, 7 s
and 13 s to attain the MPP after every irradiance change. Moreover,
large-scaling offers heavy under and over-shoots, but provides faster
response. Dual-scaling compensates both the slower response of the
small-scaling and the shoots of the large-scaling.
4.2.3. Experimental results to show optimum performance of dual scaled
adaptive stepping with mIncCond
Similar irradiance changes have been considered for simulation
results of mIncCond method. Where, the total time of operation for each
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

(a) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power (b) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for dual-
for small-scale adaptive P&O scaled adaptive P&O
small - N1 - Vpv 20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
large - N2 - Vpv

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

20
Dual - Vpv

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (s )

(c) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power (d) PV Voltage for small-scale, large-scale and dual-
for large-scale adaptive P&O scaled adaptive P&O
Fig. 9. PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for different scaling for adaptive P & O.

method is 50 s. Sudden irradiance changes can be observed at time 20 s
from 1000 W/m2 to 700 W/m2. At 35 s from 700 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2.
The power, current and voltage plots have been obtained for small-
scale, large-scale and dual-scaled adaptive step-size, as shown in
Fig. 10. Fig. 10(d) shows PV voltage of all the three scaled methods
after plotting the results in MATLAB for comparative analysis. It dis-
plays that small-scaling requires 13 s, 5 s and 7 s to attain the MPP after
every irradiance change. Moreover, large-scaling offers heavy under
and over-shoots, but provides faster response. Dual-scaling compen-
sates both the slower response of the small-scaling and the shoots of the
large-scaling.
4.2.4. Utilizing dPPV instead of dPPV/dVPV OR dPPV/dIPV
Figs. 11 and 12 compare the performances with different adaptive-
steps based on dPPV/dVPV OR dPPV/dIPV. Where, Fig. 12 simply offers a
clear view of the voltage plots in MATLAB for comparative analysis.
Here, an irradiance change is observed at 12 s from 1000 W/m2 to
700 W/m2 out of a total time of 25 s. As observed, the conventional
adaptive step-size approach based on dPPV/dVPV offers a quicker re-
sponse at the transient stage, but confronts issues at the steady state
stage under both static and dynamic conditions. Moreover, the con-
ventional adaptive step-size approach based on dPPV/dIPV offers a
credible response at the steady state stage, but offers slower initial re-
sponse.
5. Discussion
As observed, P & O and IncCond with direct control offer a similar
response for tracking the MPP. Moreover, modified IncCond method
with direct control and dual scaled adaptive size offers a commendable
performance amongst all the techniques under consideration. As pre-
sented in Figs. 9(b) and 10(b) the performance of dual scaled modified
P & O and IncCond methods offer faster-tracking speed, exact MPP de-
tection, stability, minimum fluctuations and increased efficiency.
Table 9 presents the overall evaluation of the practical performance of
all the techniques under consideration.
Here the analysed parameters are:
5.1. Speed
Simulation and experimental results presented establish the fact
that dual scaling for both P & O and IncCond method offers a fast re-
sponse in comparison with conventional or constant scaled methods.
Moreover, the adaptive step of change in power offers a commendable

1028
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

(a) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power (b) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for dual-
for small-scale adaptive mIncCond scaled adaptive mIncCond

small - N1 - Vpv
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
large - N2 - Vpv

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

20
Dual - Vpv

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)

(c) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power (d) PV Voltage for small-scale, large-scale and dual-
for large-scale adaptive P&O scaled adaptive mIncCond
Fig. 10. PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for different scaling for adaptive mIncCond.

performance when compared with the conventional adaptive techni- 5.4. Efficiency
ques.
The proposed Dual scaled methods present the highest efficiency,
greater than 99%, amongst the methods discussed. The least efficient
5.2. Exact MPP remain the conventional P & O and INCCond MPPT methods.

The conventional techniques oscillate at the MPP, which remains an

issue in tracking the exact MPP. Adaptive scaling has been utilized to
address this issue. The adaptive step of change in power offers a cred-
ible performance at both the transient and steady state stage. However,
the conventional adaptive stepping techniques lack optimum perfor-
mance at either the transient or the steady state stage of operation.
5.5. Overshoot/Undershoot
As observed from the results displayed the overshoot and under-
shoot due to sudden irradiance changes have been minimised by dual
scaling the adaptive step, where a combination of N1 and N2 scaling
factors has been utilized to improve the MPP tracking response.

5.3. Complexity
The divisional complexity of the conventional IncCond method has
been addressed by the modified IncCond approach, which makes the
algorithm simple enough as P & O. In addition, the adaptive step divi-
sional complexity has also been addressed by considering only the
change in power. This simplifies the hardware implementation by re-
ducing the cost of the processor utilized.
5.6. Settling time
The settling time has been considerably reduced as dual scaling
offers a balance between larger and smaller steps, which results in
smaller settling time. With both experimental and simulation results,
the dual scaled approach for both P & O and mIncCond methods re-
mains decent in comparison with the other techniques discussed.

1029
A. Amir et al. Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031

(a) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for (b) PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for
mIncCond with dPPV/dIPV mIncCond with dPPV/dVPV
Fig. 11. PV Voltage, PV Current and PV Power for mIncCond with different adaptive steps.

PD/ID
improvements can be observed in tracking speed, exact MPP detection,
PD/VD reduction of the steady state oscillation and simplified implementation.
20
The results clearly display an almost similar performance of both the
IncCond and P & O methods with direct control for tracking the MPP.
Therefore, IncCond even with direct control must be treated as a spe-
15 cific implementation of P & O.

Acknowledgement
Vpv

10
The authors would like to thank the financial and technical assis-
tance provided by the University of Malaya, UM Power Energy
Dedicated Advanced Centre (UMPEDAC), Mohe HiCoe - the High
5 Impact Research Grant -(H-16001-00-D000032), Fundamental
Research Grant Scheme FP065-2014A and Postgraduate Research Fund
(PPP) Project Number: PG029-2015B.

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 References
Time(s)
Ahmed, E.M, Shoyama, M., 2010. Modified adaptive variable step-size MPPT based-on
Fig. 12. PV Voltage plots for mIncCond with different adaptive steps. single current sensor. In: TENCON 2010–2010 IEEE Region 10 Conference, pp.
1235–1240.
Alik, R., Jusoh, A., 2017. Modified Perturb and Observe (P & O) with checking algorithm
Table 9 under various solar irradiation. Sol. Energy 148, 128–139.
Practical Performance of the Conventional and Modified MPPT methods. Al-Obaidi, K.M., Munaaim, M.A.C., Ismail, M.A., Rahman, A.M.A., 2017. Designing an
integrated daylighting system for deep-plan spaces in Malaysian low-rise buildings.
MPPT technique Speed Exact MPP Complexity Sol. Energy 149, 85–101.
Amir, A., Amir, A., Selvaraj, J., Rahim, N.A., 2016. Study of the MPP tracking algorithms:
P&O M O S focusing the numerical method techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62,
Constant small-scaled (N1) P & O F E M 350–371 9.
Constant large-scaled (N2) P & O F E M Ando, Y., Oku, T., Yasuda, M., Shirahata, Y., Ushijima, K., Murozono, M., 2017. A com-
Dual scaled P & O VF E M pact SiC photovoltaic inverter with maximum power point tracking function. Sol.
INC F O Com Energy 141, 228–235.
Ascione, F., 2017. Energy conservation and renewable technologies for buildings to face
Constant small-scaled (N1) INC F E M
the impact of the climate change and minimize the use of cooling. Sol. Energy.
Constant Large-scaled (N2) P & O F E M
Cubas, J., Pindado, S., Victoria, M., 2014. On the analytical approach for modeling
Dual scaled INC VF E M photovoltaic systems behavior. J. Power Sources 247, 467–474.
Hart, D.W., 2011. Power Electronics Handbook. McGrow-Hill, New Yurok.
Note: M – Medium, F – Fast, VF – Very Fast, O – Oscillating: depending on the step-size, E Hirata, Y., Aihara, K., 2017. Improving time series prediction of solar irradiance after
– Exact MPP, S – Simple, Com – Complex. sunrise: comparison among three methods for time series prediction. Sol. Energy 149,
294–301.
Hosseinnezhad, M., Saeb, M.R., Garshasbi, S., Mohammadi, Y., 2017. Realization of
6. Conclusion manufacturing dye-sensitized solar cells with possible maximum power conversion
efficiency and durability. Sol. Energy 149, 314–322.
The above results clearly prove the validity of the proposed method. Huld, T., 2017. PVMAPS: software tools and data for the estimation of solar radiation and
photovoltaic module performance over large geographical areas. Sol. Energy 142,
Modified IncCond algorithm with direct control and dual scaled adap- 171–181.
tive step-size method offers better performance in comparison to the K. Hussein, I. Muta, T. Hoshino, M. Osakada, Maximum photovoltaic power tracking: an
conventional IncCond method and the constant scaling factor step-size algorithm for rapidly changing atmospheric conditions, in: IEE Proceedings-
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, vol. 142, 1995, pp. 59–64.
approach. With the simplified dual scaled adaptive method,

1030
A. Amir et al.
Kuhn, T.E., 2017. State of the art of advanced solar control devices for buildings. Sol.
Energy.
Liu, F., Duan, S., Liu, F., Liu, B., Kang, Y., 2008. A variable step size INC MPPT method for
PV systems. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron. 55, 2622–2628.
Mei, Q., Shan, M., Liu, L., Guerrero, J.M., 2011. A novel improved variable step-size
incremental-resistance MPPT method for PV systems. IEEE Trans. Industr. Electron.
58, 2427–2434.
Michael, J.J., Selvarasan, I., 2017. Economic analysis and environmental impact of flat
plate roof mounted solar energy systems. Sol. Energy 142, 159–170.
Nofuentes, G., Gueymard, C., Aguilera, J., Pérez-Godoy, M., Charte, F., 2017. Is the
average photon energy a unique characteristic of the spectral distribution of global
irradiance? Sol. Energy 149, 32–43.
Pandey, A., Dasgupta, N., Mukerjee, A.K, 2006. Design issues in implementing MPPT for
improved tracking and dynamic performance. In: IECON 2006–32nd Annual
Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics, pp. 4387–4391.
Pandey, A., Dasgupta, N., Mukerjee, A.K., 2008. High-performance algorithms for drift
avoidance and fast tracking in solar MPPT system. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 23,
681–689.
Safari, A., Mekhilef, S., 2011. Simulation and hardware implementation of incremental
conductance MPPT with direct control method using cuk converter. IEEE Trans.
Industr. Electron. 58, 1154–1161.
1031
Solar Energy 157 (2017) 1017–1031
Sera, D., Mathe, L., Kerekes, T., Spataru, S.V., Teodorescu, R., 2013. On the perturb-and-
observe and incremental conductance MPPT methods for PV systems. IEEE J.
Photovolt. 3, 1070–1078.
Tan, C.Y., Rahim, N.A., Selvaraj, J., 2015. Employing dual scaling mode for adaptive hill
climbing method on buck converter. IET Renew. Power Gener. 9, 1010–1018.
Tey, K.S., Mekhilef, S., 2014. Modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm to
mitigate inaccurate responses under fast-changing solar irradiation level. Sol. Energy
101, 333–342.
Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Ruppert Filho, E., 2009. Comprehensive approach to mod-
eling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24,
1198–1208.
Xiao, X., Huang, X., Kang, Q., 2016. A hill-climbing-method-based maximum-power-
point-tracking strategy for direct-drive wave energy converters. IEEE Trans. Industr.
Electron. 63, 257–267.
Xu, S., Shuai, Y., Zhang, J., Huang, X., Tan, H.-P., 2017. Performance optimization
analysis of solar thermophotovoltaic energy conversion systems. Sol. Energy 149,
44–53.
Zakzouk, N., Abdelsalam, A., Helal, A., Williams, B., 2013. Modified variable-step in-
cremental conductance maximum power point tracking technique for photovoltaic
systems. In: Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2013–39th Annual Conference of
the IEEE, pp. 1741–1748.