ISSN 0003-701X, Applied Solar Energy, 2017, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 173–184. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2017.

HELIOTECHNICAL MATERIALS SCIENCE

Implementation of Modified Incremental Conductance and Fuzzy

Logic MPPT Techniques Using MCUK Converter under Various
Environmental Conditions1
Adedayo M. Farayola, Ali N. Hasan*, and Ahmed Ali
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
*e-mail: alinabeal99@gmail.com
Received April 17, 2017

Abstract⎯Incremental Conductance (IC) technique is a cheap, and easy algorithm to implement for Maxi-
mum Power Point Tracking (MPPT). However, the IC technique usually takes time and suffers some delay
to approach the MPP if the voltage is not near to the MPP or when subjected to rapid change in irradiance.
In this paper, IC technique was implemented and compared to the modified Incremental Conductance tech-
nique (MIC) under various environmental conditions such as standard test conditions (STC) and partial
shading conditions. Also the MIC method was compared to a Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) MPPT tech-
nique in order to evaluate the best and the accurate controller for the MPPT for different weather conditions.
Results show that using FLC and MIC techniques are efficient for MPPT and may increase the PV system
stability.

DOI: 10.3103/S0003701X17020050

1. INTRODUCTION KTc
Vt = , (1)
Photovoltaic (PV) solar system is a form of renew- q
able energy that is used to generate electricity when N s AKTc
light (irradiance) from the sun falls on the PV panel (s) a= = N S AV t, (2)
q
or modules. This form of solar energy is currently
being widely used as an alternative energy source to the I pv = I ph − I d − I sh , (3)
fossil fuel energy. PV energy is considered inexhaust- V + IRs ⎞ ⎤
ible, less pollutant, has a low running cost, and can be I d = I 0 ⎡exp ⎛⎜ ⎟ −1 , (4)
⎢⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦⎥
scaled into desired output for specific purposes (rated
power) [1]. Applications of solar cells includes tele- V + IRs
I sh = , (5)
communications, water pumping, street lighting, mil- Rp
itary space, home power supplies, and hydrogen pro-
V + IRs ⎞ ⎤ V + IRs
duction. However, solar panel when connected with- I pv = I ph − I 0 ⎡exp ⎛⎜ ⎟ −1 − , (6)
out maximum power point tracking (MPPT) ⎢⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ⎦⎥ Rp
controller supplies a fluctuating voltage and current to
the load, thereby putting the connected load and bat- I ph = G [I ph(ref ) + K i (Tc − Tref )] , (7)
tery at risk [2]. This also leads to waste in PV power as G ref
the PV system is unable to extract maximum power 3
⎡T ⎤ ⎡⎛ qE ⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎤
from the PV module. Hence, the need for MPPT con- I 0 = I 0(ref ) ⎢ c ⎥ exp ⎢⎜ g ⎟ ⎜ 1 − 1 ⎟⎥ , (8)
troller is deemed necessary. The PV system used in this ⎣Tref ⎦ ⎣⎝ AK ⎠ ⎝Tref Tc ⎠⎦
work comprises of Soltech 1STH-215-P PV panel, ⎡I − I pv + I 0 ⎤
MPPT charge controller, non-isolated modified V pv = −I pv Rs + k log ⎢ ph ⎥, (9)
CUK DC-DC converter, and a 20 Ω load. Figure 1 ⎣ I0 ⎦
shows the equivalent circuit of a 1-diode PV cell and where Vt = terminal voltage in volts, k = Boltzmann’s
Eqs. (1)–(9) are the mathematical modelling equa- constant, q = charge on an electron, Tc = actual cell
tions of a 1-diode PV cell [3–5]. temperature in Kelvin, Tref = reference temperature,
A = ideality factor, a = modified ideality factor, Ns =
1The article is published in the original.
number of cells in series, Np = number of cells in par-

173
174 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.

Rs panels, series-connected system (PV array) tested

under uniform irradiance and partial shading condi-
+ tions. The layout of this paper is ordered as follows,
+ I
Section 2 will present a synopsis of the used MPPT
Iph Id Vpv techniques. In Section 3, a description of the experi-
Rsh
– ments setup and method is provided. Section 4 will
– present the results, and Section 5 will include the con-
clusions.
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit diagram of a PV solar cell.
2. MPPT TECHNIQUE
allel, Iph = photo current (A), Id = diode current (A), The MPPT machine learning techniques used in
Ish = current leak in parallel resistor, Rp (A), Ipv = PV this work are briefly discussed below:
current (A), I0 = reverse saturation current or leakage
current (A), Rs = series resistance (Ω), Rsh = shunt 2.1. Incremental Conductance (IC) Technique
resistance (Ω), Vpv = PV voltage (V), Gref = reference
insolation at STC = 1000 W/m2, Ki = coefficient of IC technique is an online technique that uses per-
short circuit temperature. turbation process in locating the maximum power
point (MPP) [13]. IC tracks MPPT rapidly even under
Modified CUK is an improved model of CUK instable irradiance conditions. IC technique uses the
DC-DC converter with an inverting output polarity slope of P–V curve of the PV panel(s) to obtain MPP,
and can be used for step-up and step-down voltage
applications. MCUK is like CUK converter but with that is, when dP is zero [14]. At this point, the duty
the addition of a diode and a capacitor. The extra com- dV
ponents were introduced to overcome the issue of sta- cycle (D) is fixed and oscillation stops until changes in
bilization (steep voltage step-down or step-up) experi- the slope is experienced and this in real life is hardly
enced with CUK converters [6]. feasible due to the truncation error in the numerical
differentiation [15]. Mathematically, IC can be
Partial shading is another problem that PV system designed by using Eqs. (10)–(14) [16].
experiences and can be described as a condition that
occurs when the light falls on PV cells have different Power (Ppv) = current × voltage = IpvVpv. (10)
irradiances. On the other hand, Uniform irradiance in dPpv d(I pv * V pv )
PV system is a condition where the light falls on PV At MPP, =
cells or modules is fixed and is rarely obtainable in dV pv dV pv
(11)
nature [7]. Partial shading is caused by trees, dust par- dV dI
ticles, nearby buildings, or shadows of moving clouds = I pv pv + V pv pv = 0.
[8]. Most MPPT techniques perform poorly due to dV pv dV pv
their inability to locate the global maxima power point Rearranging the equation,
(GMPP) when operated under partial shading condi-
dI pv I (12)
tions [9]. Partial shading leads to a loss in the harvested = − pv = −G pv = dG pv .
PV power as many MPPT algorithms can only find the dV pv V pv
local maxima power point (LMPP) [10].
dI pv I dPpv
Recent research uses Incremental Conductance Left of MPP, > − pv or > 0. (13)
(IC) MPPT technique as it is considered cheap and dV pv V pv dV pv
easy to implement. The main advantage of IC tech-
nique is that IC exhibits a low drift in power (oscillation dI pv I dPpv
Right of MPP, < − pv or < 0. (14)
around MPP) problem compared to other MPPT tech- dV pv V pv dV pv
niques such as Perturb&Observe which usually experi-
ences a higher oscillation issues [11]. However, the IC
technique has some weaknesses as the maximum power 2.2. Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) Technique
is unstable, and the efficiency is lowered [12]. FLC is an offline machine learning technique that
The main objectives of this paper is to examine the is often categorized under artificial intelligence (AI)
performance of the MIC and FLC methods by using technique due to its robustness, easy computation,
two different configurations and under different envi- faults acceptance, good propagation, and appropriate-
ronmental conditions. Another aim is to validate the ness for non-linear system control [17]. Basically, FLC
importance of MPPT charge controllers in PV system design has five stages: Fuzzification, use of the logical
and the accuracy of MIC over the conventional IC operator (AND or OR) in the precursor, consequence
technique. The two experimental configurations con- from the precursor to the resultant, combination of the
sidered in this paper are: one-panel system tested consequents across the rules, and Defuzzification.
under varied environmental conditions and a three- Fuzzification is the process of coding or converting vari-

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

 IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE 175

Table 1. PV & modified CUK specificatons

Solar panel specifications MCUK specifications

PV model at STC 1Soltech STH-215-P L1 4 mH

Standard test condition 1000 W/m2, 25°C L2 4 mH
Maximum voltage (Vmp) 29.0 V C1 100 μF
Maximum current (Imp) 7.35 A C2 100 μF
Maximum power (Pmp) 213.15 W R0 20 Ω
Ns – number of cell in series 60 C0 270 μF
Isc – short circuit current 7.84 A
Voc – open circuit voltage 36.30 V
Temp. coefficient of Isc –0.36099%/°C
Temp. coefficient of Voc 0.102%/°C
A – diode ideality factor 0.98117
Rs – series resistance 0.39383 Ω
Rsh – shunt resistance 313.3991 Ω

ables into membership functions (fuzzy inputs). The next
two steps (use of logical operator and consequence from
the precursor) are referred to as the inference stage [18,
19]. Defuzzification is the process of converting the fuzzy
output into variables. FLC MPPT can be designed by
using several input variable such using the PV current Ipv
and PV voltage (Vpv) to be the inputs, and outputs the
duty cycle (D) or power (P). However, the inputs (E(k)
and CE(k)) error method is the most famous FLC
MPPT technique and can be implemented by using
Eqs. (15)–(17) [20].

change in PV power Ppv (k ) − Ppv (k − 1) Δ P

Input1, E ( k ) = error in s ample K = = = , (15)
change in PV voltage V pv (k ) − V pv (k − 1) Δ V

CE(k) = E(k) – E(k – 1), (16) 3. SIMULATION MODEL

where
Ppv(k) = Ipv(k)Vpv(k).
2.3. Modified Incremental Conductance (MIC)
Technique
This technique was introduced with the aim of
overcoming the issue of oscillation that is usually
experienced with the incremental conductance tech-
nique [21, 22]. Also, when the irradiance level changes
e.g. low to high irradiance level (e.g. 200 to 950 W/m2)
or high to low irradiance (e.g. 950 to 200 W/m2), the
conventional IC algorithm responds erroneously at
the first perturbation (step change) in the duty cycle of
the DC-DC converter [12, 23, 24]. Figure 2 shows the
flow chart of the used MIC algorithm.
Three experiments were conducted in this paper. In
(17) the first experiment, the (MIC) were compared with
the (IC) results, and with the PV system without a
MPPT controller under Standard Test Condition
(STC). In the second experiment, 1STH-215-P PV
module was simulated using MIC technique and
Fuzzy Logic technique under varied environmental
conditions and their results were compared. For the
third experiment, PV array system were simulated
using MIC technique and FLC technique under uni-
form irradiance and partial shading conditions and
their result were compared. The PV efficiencies,
MCUK load efficiencies, and the MCUK losses for
the three conducted experiments were calculated by
using Eqs. (18), (19). Table 1 shows the PV module
and the Modified CUK specifications.

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

176 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.

Table 2. Fuzzy rules used for inputs E(k) and CE(k) MCUK load efficiency at
E t

CE NB NS ZO PS PB MPPT =
∫P 0
pv(max)t.dt
,
(19)
t

NB ZO ZO NB NB NB ∫ PV
0
pv(mppt)t.dt

NS ZO ZO NS NS NS Losses = input power – output power, (20)

ZO NS ZO ZO ZO PS
where Ppv(max) is the input power in watts, Ppv(mppt) is the
PS PS PS PS ZO ZO
reference power of Soltech 1STH-215-P = 213.15 W for
PB PB PB PB ZO ZO one panel (EXP 1 and EXP 2). Note that for EXP 3,
Ppv(mppt) was assumed to be 3 × 213.15 W = 639.45 W.
t For the first experiment (EXP1), the IC and the

PV efficiency at MPPT =
∫ 0
Ppv(max)t.dt
, (18)
MIC techniques were connected as shown in Fig. 3.
The IC and the MIC MPPT controller has two sensors
t
∫ 0
PV pv(mppt)t.dt for measuring the PV current (Ipv) and PV voltage (Vpv)
as the controller inputs and outputs the duty cycle sig-

Start

Measure Vpv and Ipv

k = current iteration
k – 1 = previous iteration

P(k) = V(k) × I(k),

G = I/V, dG = dI/dV
dV = V(k) – V(k – 1),
dI = I(k) – I(k – 1),
dP = P(k) – P(k – 1)

No Yes
dV = 0

Yes Yes
D(k) = D(k – 1) dG = –G dI = 0 D(k) = D(k – 1)

No No
D(k) = D(k – 1) Yes Yes D(k) = D(k – 1)
dG > –G dI > 0
– pertubation + pertubation
No No
D(k) = D(k – 1) D(k) = D(k – 1)
– pertubation – pertubation

Update V(k) = V(k – 1), I(k) = I(k –1)

Where D(k) = current duty cycle

Return

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the used modified incremental conductance (MIC) technique.

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

 IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE 177

Load current (I0)

Irradiance (G) + MCUK DC-DC +
1STH-215-P PV
Temperature (T) Converter Load voltage (V0) Load
Module –
Mosfet
–
Load power (P0)
MPPT Controller Duty cycle (D)
Ipv (IC or MIC or FLC)
For EXP 1 and EXP 2
Vpv

Fig. 3. Implemented PV system with MPPT controller.

Irradiance (G) Ipv + Load current (I0)

+
1STH-215-P PV MCUK DC-DC
Converter Load
Temperature (T) Module Vpv – Load voltage (V0) –
Mosfet
Load power (P0)

Fig. 4. Implemented PV system without MPPT controller.

nal which is used to activate the Mosfet of the MCUK
DC-DC converter.
Figure 4 illustrates the setup for experiment two
(EXP 2) owhere the PV system was implemented with-
out the existence of the MPPT controller.
The two systems shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 were
tested under four different enviromental conditions of
(800 W/m2, 20°C), Nominal Operating Condition
Test (NOCT) (800 W/m2, 47.4°C), PVUsa Test Con-
dition (PTC) (1000 W/m2, 20°C), and Standard Test
Condition (STC) (1000 W/m2, 25°C). Figure 5 pres-
ents the flowchart of the used FLC technique. The
simulation was carried out using time t = 0.5 s and a
discrete sampled period Ts = 1.00e-6 s.
Table 2 shows the used Mamdani fuzzy rules. It is a
system that contains five membership functions at the
two inputs (E(k) and CE(k)) and at the output D,
where NB signifies Negative Big, NS—Negative
Small, ZO—Zero, PS—Positive Small, and PB— Pos-
itive Big respectively.
For the third experiment (EXP 3), three 1STH-
215-P PV panels under partial and uniform irradiance
levels (G1, G2, G3), same temperature (T1 = T2 = T3 =
25°C), and with a rated power of 213.15 W each were

Outputs End
Start duty cycle Ts = 1e–06 s
(Mosfet gate)

Measure V(k), I(k) Defuzzification

P(k) = V(k) × I(k)

Inference Rules
dP = P(k) – P(k –1)

dV = V(k) – V(k – 1) Fuzzification

E(k) = dP/dV × gain (y)

Where y = 0.0005 Input 1 Input 2

CE (k) = [E(k) –
E(k –1)] gain(z),
where z = 3

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the used FLC technique.

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

178 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.

G1 +
PV 1
T1 –
1STH-215-P

G2 + Ipv + I0
MCK DC-DC
T2 PV 2 Vpv V0 Load (20 Ω)
– Converter
1STH-215-P –
Mosfet

G3 Pulse signal P
+
PV 3 MPPT Duty cycle PWM
T3 Ipv
1STH-215-P (MIC or FLC) 50 kHz
– Vpv

Fig. 6. Block diagram of the PV array system under uniform irradiance and partial shading conditions.

200 MIC
Power, W

150 Without MPPT

100 IC
50

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Fig. 7. Comparison of PV system with modified Incremental Conductance (IC) MPPT, conventional IC, without MPPT.

connected in series to form an array. The PV array cur-
rent and voltage (IPV and VPV) were sensed and used as
the MPPT controller (MIC or FLC) inputs and out-
puts duty cycle (D) as shown in Fig. 6. The duty cycle
signal is then passed through a pulse width modulator
(PWM) operating at 50 kHz frequency and outputs a
pulse signal (P) which is used to activate the Mosfet
gate of the MCUK DC-DC converter. The simulation
time used is t = 0.2 s and a sample period Ts = 1e-6 s.
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Figure 7 shows the graphical results of the PV
power of the (MIC) MPPT, the (IC) MPPT, and
1STH-215-P PV system with the MPPT under STC
condition of (1000 W/m2, 25°C). It can be seen from
the graph that the PV system obtained a power of
approximately 213.15 W. The power was extracted
from the PV when using the MIC technique and the
IC technique after 0.5 s. Also, the power keeps fluctu-
ating from t = 0 to t = 0.15 s in the conventional IC for
MPP tracking.
It can also be seen from Fig. 7 that when MPPT
does not exist the power obtained by the PV system
reached only 60 W. Table 3 represents the measured
results for the modified IC and the Fuzzy Logic Con-
troller under different enviromental conditions. From
the results, the efficiency of the PV panel when using
modified IC is slightly higher than the FLC.
Table 4 represents the results for the time taken to
reach peak levels at STC condition. From the results,
Modified IC was faster than the FLC. Figures 8–11
are the graphical results of the 1Soltech 1STH-215-P
input power and the output power at the 20 Ω load of
the non-isolated DC-DC MCUK converter at condi-
tions (G = 800 W/m2, T = 20°C), NOCT, PTC, and
STC when using MIC and FLC techniques respec-
tively. At PTC (G = 1000 W/m2, T = 20°C), the power
measured was 218.5 W for MIC technique and 218.3 W
for FLC technique. The power exceeded the rated PV
power at MPP. This may be due to voltage being
higher at lower temperature as MPPT shows better
performance at lower temperature.
Table 5 shows the MIC and the FLC experimental
results under partial and uniform shading conditions.
Figures 12–15 illustrate the graphical results of the
MIC and FLC input power and output power under
uniform irradiance condition (case 1) and partial
shading conditions (case 2–4). From the results, the
MIC technique over performed the FLC technique
except for case 2 condition where MIC PV efficiency
was 48.917% and the FLC was 50.340%. It can also be
seen that the MIC technique output power over per-
formed the FLC technique except for case 1 where the
losses in the DC-DC converter was higher (35.20 W)

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

 IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE 179

Table 3. Results at different irradiation and tempratures

Environmental conditions Measurement Modified IC algorithm FLC algorithm
G = 800 W/m2, T = 20°C Ipv (A) 6.17 A 6.169 A
Vpv (V) 26.43 V 26.37 V
I0 (A) –2.728 A –2.737 A
V0 (V) –54.56 V –54.75 V
Power in (W) 170.9 W 170.6 W
Power out (W) 148.8 W 149.9 W
Losses (W) 22.10 W 20.70 W
PV efficiency (%) 80.178% 80.038%
Load efficiency (%) 69.810% 69.857%
G = 800 W/m2, T = 47.4°C Ipv (A) 6.148 A 6.148 A
(NOCT) Vpv (V) 25.22 V 25.22 V
I0 (A) –2.718 A –2.718 A
V0 (V) –54.37 V –54.37 V
Power in (W) 156.2 W 156.2 W
Power out (W) 147.8 W 147.8 W
Losses (W) 8.40 W 8.40 W
PV efficiency (%) 73.282% 73.282%
Load efficiency (%) 69.341% 69.341%
G = 1000 W/m2, T = 20°C Ipv (A) 7.435 A 7.313 A
(PTC) Vpv (V) 29.25 V 29.79 V
I0 (A) –3.229 A –3.234 A
V0 (V) –64.58 W –64.67 V
Power in (W) 218.5 W 218.3 W
Power out (W) 208.5 W 209.1 W
Losses (W) 10.00 W 9.20 W
PV efficiency (%) 102.51% 102.416%
Load efficiency (%) 97.818% 98.10%
G = 1000 W/m2, T = 25°C Ipv (A) 7.408 A 7.234 A
(STC) Vpv (V) 28.82 V 29.45 V
I0 (A) –3.2 A –3.199 A
V0 (V) –64 V –63.98 V
Power in (W) 213.12 W 213.04 W
Power out (W) 204.8 W 204.7 W
Losses (W) 8.32 W 8.97 W
PV efficiency (%) 99.986% 99.948%
Load efficiency (%) 96.083% 96.036%

Table 4. Peak points at maximum poer point (STC)

Peak levels at STC, Modified IC peak Modified IC time FLC peak FLC time
(1 kW/m2), 25°C power (W) at that level power (W) at that level
Peak 1 213.12 0.064 s 213.04 0.068 s
Peak 2 213.12 0.061 s 213.04 0.071 s
Peak 3 213.12 0.061 s 213.04 0.065 s

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

180 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.

200 200

150 150

Power out, W
Power in, W

100 100
FLC FLC
MIC MIC
50 50

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 8. Graph of 1STH-215-P input power (left) and output power (right) at (G = 800W/m2, T = 20°C).

200 200

150 150
Power out, W
Power in, W

100 100

FLC FLC
MIC MIC
50 50

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 9. Graph of 1STH-215-P input power (left) and output power (right) at NOCT (G = 800 W/m2, T = 47.4°C).

200 200
Power out, W
Power in, W

150 150
FLC FLC
100 MIC 100 MIC

50 50

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 10. Graph of 1STH-215-P input power (left) and output power (right) at PTC (G = 1000 W/m2, T = 20°C).

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

 IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE 181

Table 5. Experimental result of PV modules

Conditions Measurement MIC FLC
G1 = 1000 W/m 2 Input current (Ipv) 7.555 A 7.149 A
T1 = 25°C Input voltage (Vpv) 85.40 V 88.66 V
G2 = 1000 W/m 2 Output current (A) –5.523 A –5.574 A
T2 = 25°C Output voltage (V0) (V) –110.50 V –111.50 V
G3 = 1000 W/m2 Panel 1 P1 (W) 210.38 W 212.29 W
T3 = 25°C Panel 2 P2 (W) 210.38 W 212.29 W
Case 1 Panel 3 P3 (W) 210.38 W 212.29 W
(uniform insolation) Input power (P1 + P2 + P3) 645.20 W 633.80 W
Output power (P0) (W) 610 W 621.40 W
Losses 35.20 W 12.40 W
PV efficiency (%) 100.899% 99.116%
MCUK efficiency load (%) 95.394% 97.177%
2 Input current (Ipv) 6.218 A 6.225 A
G1 = 1000 W/m
T1 = 25°C Input voltage (Vpv) 80.81 V 77.71 V
G2 = 800 W/m 2 Output current (A) –4.951 A –4.854 A
T2 = 25°C Output voltage (V0) (V) –99.01 V –97.09 V
G3 = 1000 W/m2 Panel 1 P1 (W) 195.81 W 196.00 W
T3 = 25°C Panel 2 P2 (W) 110.82 W 91.53 W
Case 2 Panel 3 P3 (W) 195.81 W 196.00 W
(Partial shading) Input power (P1 + P2 + P3) 502.50 W 483.70 W
Output power (P0) (W) 490.20 W 471.30 W
Losses 12.30 W 12.40 W
PV efficiency (%) 78.583% 73.704%
MCUK efficiency load (%) 76.660% 73.704%
G1 = 800 W/m 2 Input current (Ipv) 4.900 A 5.071 A
T1 = 25°C Input voltage (Vpv) 63.83 V 63.49 V
G2= 1000 W/m 2 Output current (A) –3.901 A –3.954 A
T2 = 25°C Output voltage (Vo) (V) –78.02 V –79.08 V
G3 = 600 W/m2 Panel 1 P1 (W) 155.68 W 159.71 W
T3 = 25°C Panel 2 P2 (W) 161.42 W 166.26 W
Case 3 Panel 3 P3 (W) –3.77 W –3.77 W
(Partial shading) Input power (P1 + P2 + P3) 312.80 W 321.90 W
Output power (P0) (W) 304.40 W 312.70 W
Losses 8.40 W 9.20 W
PV efficiency (%) 48.917% 50.340%
MCUK efficiency load (%) 47.603% 48.901%
G1 = 400 W/m 2 Input current (Ipv) 3.124 A 3.125 A
T1 = 25°C Input voltage (Vpv) 41.16 V 39.56 V
G2 = 1000 W/m 2 Output current (A) –2.487 A -2.437 A
T2 = 25°C Outputvoltage (V0) (V) –49.74 V –48.73 V
G3 = 200 W/m2 Panel 1 P1 (W) 23.55 W 18.55 W
T3 = 25°C Panel 2 P2 (W) –1.26 W –1.26 W
Case 4 Panel 3 P3 (W) 107.37 W 107.43 W
(Partial shading) Input power (P1 + P2 + P3) 128.60 W 123.60 W
Output power (P0) (W) 123.70 W 118.80 W
Losses 4.90 W 4.80 W
PV efficiency (%) 20.111% 19.329%
MCUK efficiency load (%) 19.345% 18.578%

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

182 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.

200 200

150 150

Power out, W
Power in, W

100 FLC 100 FLC

MIC MIC
50 50

0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fig. 11. Graph of 1STH-215-P input power (left) and output power (right) at STC (G = 1000 W/m2, T = 25°C).

700 700
600 600
500 500
Power out, W
Power in, W

400 400
FLC FLC
300 300
MIC MIC
200 200
100 100
0 0
0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20

Fig. 12. Graph of MIC and FLC MPPT technique under uniform irradiance condition (case 1).

600 600

500 500

400 400
Power in, W

Power out, W

300 300
FLC FLC
200 MIC 200 MIC

100 100

0 0
0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20

Fig. 13. Graph of MIC and FLC MPPT technique under partial shading condition (case 2).

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

 IMPLEMENTATION OF MODIFIED INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE 183

450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300

Power out, W
Power in, W

250 250
200 200
FLC FLC
150 MIC 150 MIC
100 100
50 50
0 0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Fig. 14. Graph of MIC and FLC MPPT technique under partial shading condition (case 3).

200 200

150 150
Power out, W
Power in, W

100 FLC 100 FLC

MIC MIC
50 50

0 0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Fig. 15. Graph of MIC and FLC MPPT technique under partial shading condition (case 4).

when using MIC whereas it was 12.40 W losses when REFERENCES

using FLC and case 4 too.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a comparison between differ-
ent MPPT implementations under various environ-
mental conditions using Modified Incremental Con-
ductance (MIC) technique. Obtained results dis-
played that the MIC technique achieved an overall
better performance under uniform irradiance and par-
tial shading conditions when compared to the Fuzzy
logic controller (FLC) technique, and the conven-
tional IC technique. It was also shown that the MIC
technique could track the local maxima and the global
maximum power point (GMPP) effectively during
uniform irradiance and partial shading conditions.
Experiments also revealed that the PV system when
connected directly without a MPPT charge controller
will produce low power.
1. Rokeya, J.M. and Ariful, I., Modeling and perfor-
mance analysis of PV module with maximum power
point tracking in Matlab/Simulink, Appl. Sol. Energy,
2015, vol. 51, no. 4. pp. 245–252.
2. Farayola, A.M., Ali, N.H., and Ahmed, A., Compari-
son of modified incremental conductance and Fuzzy
Logic MPPT algorithm using modified CUK Con-
verter, 8th IEEE International Renewable Energy Con-
gress (IREC), Amman, Jordan, 2017.
3. Ben, H.M. and Sbita, L., A maximum power tracking
algorithm based on photovoltaic current control for
matching loads to a photovoltaic generator, Appl. Sol.
Energy, 2012, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 238–244.
4. Mohammed, S.S., Devaraj, D., and Imthias Ahamed, T.P.,
Modeling, simulation and analysis of photovoltaic
modules under partially shaded conditions, Indian J.
Sci. Technol., 2016, vol. 9, no. 16.
5. Sumedha, S., Maximum power point tracking algo-
rithm for photovoltaic system: A review, Int. Rev. Appl.
Eng. Res., 2014, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 147–154.

APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017

184 ADEDAYO M. FARAYOLA et al.
6. Chandani, S. and Anamika, J., Comparative studies of
DC-DC converters for solar panel MPPT, AKGEC Int.
J. Technol., 2014, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 29–34.
7. Farayola, A.M., Ali, N.H, Ali, A., and Twala, B., Dis-
tributive MPPT approach using ANFIS and perturb
and observe techniques under uniform and partial
shading conditions, International Conference on Artifi-
cial Intelligence and Evolutionary Computations in Engi-
neering Systems (ICAIECES-2017) & Power, Circuit and
Information Technologies (ICPCIT-2017), India, 2017.
8. Smita, P. and Ratina, D., Series-connected shaded
modules to address partial shading conditions in SPV
systems, AIP Conf. Proc., 2016, vol. 1715, no. 1.
9. Kok, S.T. and Mekhilef, S., Modified incremental con-
ductance algorithm for photovoltaic system under par-
tial shading conditions and load variation, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., 2014, vol. 61, no 10.
10. Seyedmahmoudian, M., Horan, B., Rahmani, R.,
et al., Efficient photovoltaic system maximum power
point tracking using a new technique, Energies, Solar
Photovoltaics Trilemma, 2016, vol. 9, no. 3.
11. Jalakanuru, N.R., Performance study of incremental
conductance and modified incremental conductance
MPPT algorithms for photovoltaic applications, Int. J.
Sci., Eng. Technol. Res. (IJSETR), 2016, vol. 5, no. 3,
pp.701–705.
12. Divya, C.H. and Rao, G.V., Modified incremental
conductance method for MPPT of solar panels using
RC Controller, Int. J. Professional Eng. Studies, 2017,
vol. 8, no. 3.
13. Abdul-Karim, R., Muyeen, S.M., and Al-Durra, A.,
Review of maximum power point tracking techniques
for photovoltaic system, Global J. Control Eng. Technol.,
2016, vol. 2, pp. 8–18.
14. Pakkiraiah, B. and Durga, S.G., Research survey on
various MPPT performance issues to improve the solar
PV system efficiency, J. Sol. Energy, 2016, vol. 2016,
p. 20.
15. El-Khozondar, H.J., El-Khozondar, R.J., Khaled, M.,
and Teuvo, S., A Review Study of Photovoltaic Array
Maximum Power Tracking Algorithms, Springer Open
Renewables: Wind, Water, and Solar, 2016.
16. Savaliya, S. and Soumyadeep, R., A comparative study
on different MPPT techniques applied on photovoltaic
system, Int. J. Adv. Res. El., Electron. Instrum. Eng.
(IJAREEIE), 2015, vol. 4, no. 3.
17. Rekioua, D. and Matagne, E., Optimization of Photo-
voltaic Power Systems, Green Energy and Technology,
Springer; ISSN 1865-3529.
18. Reisi, A.R., Moradi, M.H., and Jamasb, S., Classifica-
tion and comparison of maximum power point tracking
techniques for photovoltaic system: A Review, ELSE-
VIER Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013,
vol. 19, pp. 433–443.
19. Dhande, D.P., Chaudhari, A.P., and Mahajan, G.K.,
A review of various MPPT techniques for photovoltaic
systems, Int. J. Innovations Eng. Res. Technol., 2015,
vol. 2, no. 12.
20. Madaci, B., Hemsas, K.E., Chenni, R., and Khellaf,
A., Maximum power point tracking technical based on
Fuzzy Logic Controller for Photovoltaic System, Pro-
ceedings of 27th Research World International Confer-
ence, Paris, France, January 2017, pp. 7–11.
21. Tey, K.S. and Mekhilef, S., Modified incremental con-
ductance MPPT algorithm to mitigate inaccurate
responses under fast-changing solar irradiation level,
Solar Energy, 2014, vol. 101, pp. 333–342.
22. Mehmet, A. and Yilmaz, A.S., Improving the perfor-
mance of MPPT on DC grid PV systems by modified
incremental conductance algorithm, JOCET, 2017,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 114–119.
23. Natsheh, E.M., Power generation of solar PV systems
in Palestine, Appl. Sol. Energy, 2016, vol. 52, no. 3,
pp. 193–196.
24. Farayola, A.M., Ali, N.H., and Ahmad, A., Curve fit-
ting polynomial technique compared to ANFIS tech-
nique for maximum power point tracking, 8th IEEE
International Renewable Energy Congress (IREC) 2017,
Amman, Jordan, 2017.
APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY Vol. 53 No. 2 2017