Recapitulation and comparative study for

Photovoltaic Maximum Power Point Tracking

techniques
in particular sensor quality
Prof. Dr. Hala Jarallah El Khozondar Lee Jun yong Prof. Dr.-Ing. Alexander W. Koch
Electrical Engineering Department Institute for Measurement Systems and Institute for Measurement Systems and
Islamic University of Gaza Sensor Technology Sensor Technology
P.O.Box 108 German Institute for Science and Technische Universitaet Muenchen TUM,
Gaza,Plestine Technology, GIST-TUM ASIA Theresienstrasse 90/ N5, D-80333
hkhozondar@iugaza.edu Singapore,Singapore Muenchen, Germany
1600022@sit.singaporetech.edu.sg a.w.koch@tum.de

Abstract—In this study, a review on several maximum power for the right requirement of the user to obtain the desired
point tracking (MPPT) algorithms is given. MPPT algorithms matching load power depending on locations and application
have three major categories: Conventional methods, Advanced of PV array. In addition to special attention to the type and
Soft Computing methods and Hybrid algorithms. MPPT number of sensors which are used in each technique..
algorithms are significant to operate the photovoltaic energy
conversion systems as close as possible to the MPP resulting in
photovoltaic (PV) arrays with high efficiency. In this review, the II. OVERVIEW
MPPT algorithms implementation complexity, the complete
procedure and its effects in the PV output were given with special A. PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE CHARACTERISTIC
attention to the sensors used in the system in the first portion. A solar cell (PV) is a semiconductor diode. Fig. 1
Further, different MPPT algorithms for PV systems are resembles the PV equivalent circuit. In Fig. 1, R is the
highlighted with examples, it’s parameters like complexity, and effective load of the cell, RS and RP are the series resistance
sensors used are described. In the end, the MPPT algorithms for and parallel resistance, respectively.
PV systems were compared, reviewed and reported. The
ultimatum of this work is to provide a survey reference for users
of PV based power generation and valued information for
researchers of this particular field.
Keywords— sensor quality, MPPT, maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) algorithms, comparison, photovoltaic (PV).

I. INTRODUCTION
In a world, which constantly demands astronomical
amounts of energy, there is a need to manoeuvre from the
conventional “dirty” energy sources, like Fossil Fuel. They
contributes in global warming emissions and pollute air and
water. This instigated more floods and air pollution, which in
turn causes death and destruction.
Thus, there is a critical need to approach cleaner options
like Solar and Wind Energy and optimally convert the them
into electrical energy efficiently. Currently, solar power
contributes only 34 TW h/Year of energy production. This
value is expected to rise dramatically by 2050. Therefore,
there is a need to efficiently convert solar energy to usable
electrical energy using MPPT algorithms [1].
Solar energy can be extracted using solar thermal plants,
and PV systems [2]. Converting solar energy to electricity
using photovoltaic cells have serval benefits. However,
challenges such as high efficiency solar cells, module costs
and energy fluctuation are needed to accomplish energy
conversion [3–5].
This work main objective is to produce a guidance for the
reader to avoid the complicated and technical knowledge
needed to sort and select the appropriate selection of MPPT
Figure 1. Equivalent model of a PV cell
where q is electron charge, T is the temperature in Kelvin, kb
is the Boltzmann. The cell terminal current and voltage are
related as in (1):
(1)
where I and V are the output current and voltage of the
PV, respectively, Io is the reverse saturation current, a is the
ideal factor [6], Vth is thermal voltage, and Iph is the
generated photocurrent which varies as photocell’s
temperature and radiation change as follows,
(2)
where STC stands for Standard Test Conditions, G (W/m2)
is the irradiation on the cell, ISC_STC is the short-circuit current
at (STC), TSTC (25°C), GSTC (1000 W/m2), and Ki is the
coefficient of short circuit current. Equation (3) presents the
realtion between Io and T [8],

‹,(((

(3)
where VOC_STC and Kv denote for voltage and voltage
coefficient at open circuit condition.
Fig. 2a displays the nonlinear behavior of current–voltage
(I–V) curve and the power–voltage (P–V) relation for PV
module. The P–V curve exhibits the maximum power (Pmax)
that the module can deliver. Pmax enables the Photovoltaic to
get the optimal maximum output power. The value of Pmax
changes with respect to varying changes in solar irradiance at
STC (25 °C) (Figs. 2b). Therefore, a specific condition is
needed to function at the MPP.
Fig. 2a. The I-V curve (red) and P-V curve (blue) shown here with the
Maximum Power found at the intersection of Pmpp and Vmpp.
Fig. 2b. I-V and P-V curve of 200 W at different Irradiance and at T= 25°C
B. Review of MPPT
A common MPPT system is utilized to get the maximum
benefit from input solar energy by using Conventional MPPT
algorithms such as Perturb and Observe (P&O), Incremental
Conductance (IC), Hill-climbing method, Fractional Short
Circuit (FSC) and Fractional Open Circuit (FOC) method.
However, these conventional methods such as P&O and
IC have their imperfection. They can only track Pmax subject
to uniform irradiation and fail to detect the optimum power
subject to fast varying atmospheric circumstances like partial
shading.
Several MPPT codes are used to replace conventional
techniques in solar energy research. MPPT algorithms have
several benefits specially their ability to manage non-
linearity [7].
The unify efforts from researchers all over the world, a
wide range of Soft Computing MPPT algorithms are
available. Several algorithms are summarized in [7] such as
Ant Colony Optimization, Genetic Algorithm (GA), Fireflies
Algorithms and Random Search methods, Differential
Evaluation, Cuckoo Search and Non-linear control, Fuzzy
Logic Control (FLC) [8–10], Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) [11], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [12-14],
chaotic approach [15], Bee Colony Search algorithm [16].
In this work, inventive techniques of diverse algorithms
with their pros and cons are presented. The algorithms have
be chosen depending on their hardware performance, fast
convergences to maximum points, determinant parameters,
finding out global maxima, total efficiency and practicability
of the system, and costs.
C. Maximum Power Point Tracking System
Fig. 3 shows an overview of a PV system controlled by a
MPPT Controller to ensure Maximum Power (MP) output.
The aim is to guarantee that at different environmental
condition which affects PV modules, the MP is delivered to
the DC load. This can be obtained by ensuring that the
MPPT algorithm matches the resistance at the load to the
PV source resistance at the MPP. The value Rmpp can be
found using (4) [17].
(4)
where Rmpp, Vmpp and Impp are the PV resistance, voltage and
current at MPP respectively. Without MPPT, there is a great
loss of efficiency at the load; thus, there is a need for a DC –
DC power converter between the PV source and the load
[18]. As the operational conditions constantly changes, it
becomes practically tougher to extract MP from PV module.
Fig. 3. MPPT Controller for Photovoltaic System
D. Sensors Quality
The sensors are the bridge linking from the PV array to
the controller, which are responsible to convey information
from the PV array to the MPPT controller that a particular
MPPT method requires; in order to calculate the absolute
MPP. Their performance is largely affected by the precision
of the sensors used for measuring different kinds of input
required such as Voc, Isc, T and G.
Having multiple sensors in a MPPT system is a liability
as the cost of the system increases. Thus, simple algorithm
like P&O and FSCC is a low-cost solution which requires
few sensors but has a trade-off of limited accuracy.
The current sensors usually are more expensive and
bulkier than voltage sensors. Therefore, it is simpler to
measure voltage than current. More specialize sensors to
detect irradiance or temperature are very expensive and
uncommonly used so MPPT methods that require them tend
to be more expensive overall [19].
 III. TYPES OF MPPT METHOD
There are many varying aspects between MPPT
algorithms whether they fall under the Conventional or Soft
Computing category, which helps the users to choose the
appropriate system for their needs. Some of the aspects are;
hardware implementation (e. g. number of the sensors),
complexity, convergence speed, detection of local maximum
and cost to implement the algorithm. Thus, there is a need to
balance between the parameters yet achieve faster and
accurate tracking performance.
Algorithms can classified according to the types of the
control variable they use (Voltage, current, or duty cycle)
[20]. Despite the array of multiple algorithms, more focus
has been on P&O algorithm and hill climbing (HC)
algorithm [21] for their generally good efficiency and their
low complexity. The next section talks about some of the
more commonly seen MPPT algorithms available.
A. Conventional Methods
Perturbation and Observation Method (P&O)
The P&O is simple method where the P&O controller
controls the voltage across the PV source using a DC-DC
boost converter and measure the output power. The
principle behind the P&O algorithm is described in Figure 4.
Pulse wave modulation (PWM) signal is altered to vary the
PV voltage and takes a second power measurement [22]. If
the power increases, it shows that the MP is not yet reached
so a new control signal is chosen by varying the PWM duty
cycle in some direction. Therefore, we need to adjust the
voltage in the positive direction until the power stops
increasing as.
Fig. 4. Principle behind Perturb &Observe MPPT algorithm
B. Soft Computing Methods
Artificial Neural Networks Method (ANN)
An ANN is an information processing system consist of a
network of electrical neurons depending on several
topologies. These neurons are joint by a huge number of
weighted links allows signals to pass. Each neuron receives
many signals, and produces a single output response. One of
the uses for an ANN consist of identification and modelling
the system using highly complex and nonlinear functions.
Accurate MPPT ccontrollers must be used to enhance PV
system efficiencies The emerging ANN controllers are
considered to be suitable for achieving max power for their
ability to solve complex problems which conventional
algorithm unable to achieve [23].
Fuzzy Logic Method (FL)
A FL system have the merit of being quick, robust and
easy to design, as they do not require the knowledge of the
exact model but instead requires the complete knowledge of
how the operation of the PV system is designed [24]. The FL
applies the fuzzy logic control in three steps: fuzzification,
decision-making and defuzzification [9-10].
C. Hybrid MPPT Methods
The hybrid MPPT methods are an emerging solution,
which are efficiently detect MPP. In these methods, there are
2-3 parts of the control signal related with the algorithm.
Every part is produced by a separate algorithmic loop [25].
Hybrid MPPT method is vision to be superior as that the use
of hybrid MPPT algorithms is expected to overcome the
weaknesses of individual MPPT algorithms. Example the
hybrid system consists of power increment with P&O
method is highly advisable for places under partial shading
conditions. This is because the capability of the power
increment method to differentiate between the global and the
local maximum points defeating one weaknesses of the P&O
algorithm [26].
D. Comparison between MPPT algorithm: Sensors types
and quantity:
To demonstrate the impact of different MPPT and
sensors used in the system on efficiency, we made a
comparison between available MPPT systems based on
levels of complexity and types of sensor. The comparison
will help to determine which algorithm the users would
decide to use. It is advisable to choose the MPPT algorithm
which has higher efficiency with minimum number of
sensors and least complexity.
The parameters from Table I represent important technical
parameters which are studied by numerous scholars as a
ranking system to determine a photovoltaic MPPT dynamic
performance and efficiency. These parameters are estimated
as “high,” “medium,” and “low” to represent its strength in
that area. All these parameters affect a user’s choice by being
non- PV dependency which eliminates the prior training need
which in turn decreased the implementation complexity of
intelligent implementation complexity, true MPP efficiency
& ultimately the cost.
(i)PV array dependency
(iii) Circuitry types
Ideally, an MPPT should be array independent; whether a The methods can be classified according to type of the
MPPT algorithm can a PV array specific or it’s not will operating circuit e.g. analog circuit, digital circuit or a
result in additional training & cost requirement.; PV array combination of both.
dependency can range from the size of the PV to the type of
PV system depending on the manufacturer. (iv) Periodic Tuning
(ii) True MPPT The ability to resolve oscillation around MPP and
requires tuning management
True MPPT is the ability of the algorithm to track the
Global MPP and not get trapped at the local MPP instead (v) Convergence speed
which results in huge losses in power. The cost of any
Convergence speed defines as the fast ability of the
tracking scheme is the Tracking efficiency η, which can be
tracker to find MPP.
defined as the tracking accuracy of the tracker which is
obtained by (5) where Pmpp is the Maximum Power from (vi) Complexity
using a particular MPPT and Pout is the effective output.
The level of difficulty to design and implement the
MPPT, like ANN algorithm is more complex then P&O
(5) algorithm
(vii) Sensor
The controller parameter required the algorithm to
calculate the MPP. There could be 4 different kinds of input
required such as V, I, T, G or a combination of them. As a
side note, the size of the PV system is an important
consideration as well and can be categories as below:
(I)Small size system up to 1kW – low cost MPPT etc.
Constant voltage method is preferred as there is little
returns compared to the cost of implementing a high cost
MPPT
(II)Medium size system from 1KW to 1MW – Low
complexity yet good power return preferred such as P&O
and INC
(III)Large enterprise system from 1MW onward – High
accuracy, true MPPT and fast convergence speed
preferred as it has high impact on the power returns.
E. Comparison between individual MPPT algorithms
Table II gives a recapitulation of most individual
conventional methods and intelligent soft computing
methods and compare them using the parameters from Table
I. Those MPPT research articles proposed algorithm
surveyed and next, a comprehensive study analysing the
challenges in MPPT techniques can be found. Soft
computing usually are slower than the conventional methods
in terms of convergence speed. This is due to the complexity
of soft computing methods, which may require multiple
instance of iteration before it can converge towards the
desirable values.
This work is established by studying the most commonly
used MPPT algorithm in the recent studies that are
benchmarked in real world applications. Commercially used
techniques like P&O or IC MPPT algorithm are commonly
used for their simple implementation, yet being PV
independent and has a good performance.
F. Comparison between hybrid MPPT algorithms
Table III offers a recapitulation comparison of a group of
Hybrid MPPT method that are found in literature which
demonstrated the strength and weakness of the hybrid
algorithm that works together to complement the weakness
faced by each individual MPPT algorithm. The hybrid
methods generally have greater advantages compared to
single MPPT at the trade-off for higher complexity [28]
It is worth to clarify the different hybrid MPPT algorithms
have their advantages and disadvantages that wasn’t shown
here; e.g. cost of implementation, reliability under partial
shading conditions, accuracy and reliability under fast
changing environment, so the table by no means contain the
only parameters that is used to gauge on the quality of the
MPPT algorithm.
The hybrid system normally consists of that the first part of
the hybrid system which focus on estimating the MPP that
speeds up the process. Thus, MPPT with fast convergence
speed is preferred. The second part focus on fine-tuning and
operating of PV array at MPP, which shows that there is a
need for high accuracy for the later portion.
It is important to note that not all combination of hybrid
system has been thoroughly investigated yet as there can be
2x amount of 2 MPPT combinations possible where x is the
number of individual MPPT. It will be exponentially
increase as more algorithm are fitted in a hybrid MPPT
system.
The comparison between Table II and Table III shown there
is better results for hybrid MPPT compared to conventional
MPPT at the cost of increased complexity; e.g Hybrid P&O
plus Incremental Conductance has better convergence speed
compared to just P&O.
 IV. CONCLUSION
Photovoltaic technology is a major step towards clean
energy where a steady flow of innovative algorithms for
MPPT that have been proposed, evaluated, improved and
implemented. This work review discuss about the core of
the PV characteristic, provides a summary of MPPT
techniques that exist and organize them by their
characteristics.
The comparison made on Table III, shows a trending
improvement for fusing two individual MPPT into an
intelligent hybrid MPPT give better performance with
increased complexity compared with its’ individual
counterpart.
In conclusion, it does not exist a perfect individual
conventional soft computing or Hybrid MPPT method. The
choice of suitable MPPT technique depends on different
parameters such as requirement and complexity of the
system and PV configuration. MPPT systems have varied
strength and weakness which gives them a purpose for
practical application in the real world.
REFERENCES
[1] “World Energy Scenarios: Composing energy futures to 2050”
[2] Jean-B. Lesourd “Solar photovoltaic systems: the economics of a
renewable energy resource,” Environmental Modelling & Software
vol. 16, Issue 2, pp. 147-156, March 2001.
[3] D. Furkan. “The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status,
potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy,” Renew
Sustain Energy Rev vol. 15(1), pp. 713–20, 2011.
[4] Parida Bhubaneswari, S Iniyan Ranko Goic. “A review of solar
photovoltaic technologies,” Renew Sustain Energy Rev vol. 15(3), pp.
1625–36, 2011.
[5] S. S. Chetan, “Solar photovoltaics: fundamentals, technologies and
applications,” New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt Ltd., 2011.
[6] H. J. El-Khozondar, R. J. El-Khozondar, K. H. Matter, “Simulation and
Implementation of Incremental Conductance Maximum Power Point
Tracking Algorithm for Photovoltaic System,” Journal of Mechatronics
vol. 3, Number 2, , pp. 174-178, June 2015.
[7] J. Prasanth Ram, T. Sudhakar Babu, N. Rajasekar. “A comprehensive
review on solar PV maximum power point tracking techniques,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews vol. 67, pp. 826-847,
January 2017.
[8] N. Asim, K. Sopian, S. Ahmadi, K. Saeedfar, M. A. Alghoul, O.
Saadatian, S. H. Zaidi “A review on the role of materials science in
solar cells,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev vol. 16(8), pp. 5834–
47, 2012.
[9] C.-S. Chiu, “T-S Fuzzy maximum power point tracking control of solar
power generation systems.”, IEEE Trans Energy Convers vol. 25(4),
pp.1123–32, 2010
[10] A. Chaouachi, R. M. Kamel, K. Nagasaka. “A novel multi-model
neuro-fuzzy-based MPPT for three-phase grid-connected photovoltaic
system,” Sol Energy vol. 84, pp. 2219–29, 2010.
[11] A. K. Rai, N. D. Kaushika, B. Singh, N. Agarwal “Simulation model of
ANN based maximum power point tracking controller for solar PV
system,” Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells vol. 95, pp. 773–8, 2011.
[12] R. Eberhart, J. Kennedy J “A new optimizer using particle swarm
theory,” MHS'95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on Micro Machine and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan, 1995.
[13] I. Kashif, S. Zainal “An improved Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO)–based MPPT for PV with reduced steady-state oscillation,”
IEEE Trans Power Electron vol. 27(8), pp. 3627–38, 2013.
[14] I. Kashif, S. Zainal “A deterministic particle swarm optimization
maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic system under partial
shading condition,” IEEE Trans Ind Electron vol. 60, pp. 3195–206,
2013.
[15] Z. Lin, C. Yan, G. Ke, J. Fangcheng “New approach for MPPT control
of photovoltaic system with mutative-scale dual-carrier chaotic
search,” IEEE Trans Power Electron vol. 26(4), pp.1038–48, 2011.
[16] B. Abou soufyane, C. Aissa, K. Kamel, S. Santiago, S. O. Ait
“Artificial bee colony based algorithm for maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded
conditions,” Appl Soft Comput vol. 32, pp. 38–48, 2015.
[17] “mppt: a maximum power point tracking photovoltaic system”
http://bryanwbuckley.com/projects/mppt.html
[18] “A Hybrid Maximum Power Point Tracking Approach for Photovoltaic
Systems under Partial Shading Conditions Using a Modified Genetic
Algorithm and the Firefly Algorithm”
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7598653
[19] R. Faranda, S. Leva “Energy comparison of MPPT techniques for PV
Systems, ” Wseas Transactions On Power Systems Vol. 3, pp. 446-
455, June 2008.
[20] S. K. Kollimalla, M. K. Mishra “Variable Perturbation Size Adaptive
P&O MPPT Algorithm for Sudden Changes in Irradiance,” IEE Trans
Sust Energy vol. 5(3), pp. 718-728, July 2014 .
B. Bendiba, H. Belmilia, F. Krim “A survey of the most used MPPT
methods: Conventional and advanced algorithms applied for
photovoltaic systems,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
vol. 45, pp. 637-648, May 2015.
[21] “Design and realization of an autonomous solar system” ; A Gaga et al
2017 IOP Conf. “Ser.: Mater. “Sci. “Eng. “186 012031
[22] S. Messalti, A. Harrag, A. Loukriz “A new variable step size neural
networks MPPT controller: Review, simulation and hardware
implementation,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews vol. 68,
pp. 221-233, February 2017,
[23] M. S. A. Cheikh , C. Larbes , G. F. T. Kebir and A. Zerguerras
“Maximum power point tracking using a fuzzy logic control scheme,”
Revue des Energies Renouvelables vol. 10(3), pp. 387 – 395, 2007.
[24] M. F. Ansari , S. Chatterji & A. Iqbal “A fuzzy logic control scheme
for a solar photovoltaic system for a maximum power point tracker,”
International Journal of Sustainable Energy vol. 29(4), pp. 245-255,
2010
[25] “Comparing effectiveness of hybrid mppt algorithms under partial
shading conditions”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/POWERCON.2016.7754024
[26] “Hybrid maximum power point tracking techniques: A comparative
survey, suggested classification and uninvestigated combinations”
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.045
[27] IEEE