MPPT under partial shading conditions based on Perturb & Observe and
Incremental Conductance
Mpho Sam Nkambule1, Ali N. Hasan2, Ahmed Ali3
1
Department of Electrical Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: nkambule833@gmail.com
2
Department of Electrical Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
alin@uj.ac.za
3
Department of Electrical Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
aali@uj.ac.za
Abstract
Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) under uniform and
different weather conditions is the main challenge in photovoltaic
(PV) system. Partial shaded conditions (PSC) causes several
power peaks on a P-V curve. This paper compares two powerful
MPPT algorithm of Perturb & Observe (P&O) and Incremental
Conductance (INC) under PSC. The PV system is developed using
MATLAB simulation software with the Boost DC/DC converter
interconnected. The proposed algorithms are tested under
standard test and different weather conditions to prove their
performance looking at their tracking speed, convergence and the
settling time around the MPP.
Keywords—Maximum power point tracking (MPPT), Partial
shading conditions (PSC), Perturb and Observe, Incremental
Conductance, DC-DC Boost converter.
1. Introduction
Photovoltaic (PV) solar energy is one of the most promising renewable
energy that obtains energy from the sun [1]. it is environment friendly,
freely available and requires minimal maintenance. However, the PV
system has very few disadvantages such as PV efficiency being affected
under PSCs. Therefore, it is necessary to apply MPPT techniques to
maximize the output power in different weather conditions.
MPPT is an algorithm that is utilized to ensure that the PV system
operate at higher efficiency at all the time [2]. The duty cycle is either
increased or decreased on the direction of the MPP.
Partial shading is referred to when different cells are subjected to
different irradiance levels (i.e. shading from building, dust on a PV cell,
trees, partly cloudy etc) [3], while uniform or fixed insolation is referred
as “full sun”. Most MPPT techniques operate at higher efficiency under
a fixed solar insolation and temperature. However, several MPPT
techniques can force the PV system to operate at high efficiency under
different weather conditions as most MPPT algorithm locate the local
maxima power which result in a loss in power harvested.
In this paper, P&O and INC algorithms are utilized as the MPPT
controllers to harness the maximum power from a PV panel. The model
is developed in a way that it will operate on a higher efficiency [4]. The
PV power is considered with reference to the effect of the insolation
and operating temperature. The two MPPT techniques are then
compared looking at their performances, complexity, speed, settling
time around MPP and convergence.
This paper is arranged as follows: Section II shows literature studies.
Section III introduce the proposed MPPT algorithms. Section IV
present the simulation model. Section V demonstrate the results and
discussion. Lastly section VI concludes this paper
2. Related Work
In the past, different methods were utilized to ensures that the PV
system operates at high efficiency. Fractional open circuit Voltage
(Voc) was one of the most admired and used methods in the past years.
This method uses the principle of PV array voltage must be proportional
to its Voc at MPP [5]. This depends on solar cells material, fabrication
and weather conditions [6]. It based on the equation 1. The Vmpp is
determined by measuring the Voc by switching off the power converter.
The Short circuit current method was introduced in the past years by
several researchers. This method operates the same way as the Voc
method. It uses the principle of the linear relationship between PV array
(Impp) and short circuit current (Isc) [7]. It is based on equation 2. Both
of this method are not essential under partial shading conditions. Both
methods suffer from temporary power loss, have low convergence
speed, not precise under PSC. Under PSC they both fail to operate at
maximum power due to P-V curve characteristics and cannot
differentiate the true power peaks.
𝑉𝑚𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘1 × 𝑉𝑜𝑐 (1)
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑝 = 𝑘2 × 𝐼𝑠𝑐 (2)
Where K is proportional constant.
Another approach is switching ripple correlation control (SRCC)
method. This technique uses the ripples in current and voltage caused
due to switching of the converter to track maximum power. It uses the
relationship between power and ripple current or voltage waveform to
harvest maximum power. This logic is clearly stated in [8]. In this
technique the global firmness depends on two hypotheses i.e. P-V
characteristic which do not have local maxima and the input voltage is
always a non-zero ripple quantity. The drawback of this algorithm is
that the false MPP tracking can take place due to local maxima.
In a vigorous to defeat the mentioned drawbacks, several researchers
have implemented artificial intelligence techniques like artificial neural
networks (ANN) [9], [10]. Irrespective of ability of these techniques to
operate on a nonlinear characteristic, it requires higher complete
computation [11], [12]. Despite being the powerful method, it also has
some disadvantage such as unclear structure, complex in
implementation, needs a comprehensive computation and expensive to
implement [13], [14], [15].
 3. MPPT Algorithms
3.1. Perturb & Observe (P&O)
P&O is the easiest and most popular technique, which has been
analysed by several researchers. It operates by sensing voltage and
current of PV system. It measures current, voltage and calculate the
power [16]. It compares new power with the previous power stored in
a memory. If new power is greater than the previous power, then the
new voltage is compared with the previous voltage. If the difference is
greater than zero, then the voltage is adjusted in the positive direction
to reach MPP. If the difference in power is less than zero, the voltage
is perturbed in the negative direction. The process is duplicated until
the PV system is operating at higher efficiency [17]. The P&O
principle is described by the flow diagram in fig. 1 below.
The incremental conductance MPPT technique was developed by I
Muta, T Hoshino, K.H Hussain and M Oskada. It is one of the popular
MPPT techniques. It compares the instant conductance I/V to the
incremental conductance d I/ d V. It is based on the derivation of
obtaining the PV module power with respect to the voltage and balance
the result to be zero [18]. As indicated in below equation.
∆𝐼 𝐼 ∆𝑃
=− ; ( = 0) ; 𝐴𝑡 𝑀𝑃𝑃 (3)
∆𝑉 𝑉 ∆𝑉
From equation (3), the MPP is achieved when the incremental
conductance is equalled to the instant conductance but opposite in sign.
The duty cycle is enlarged or reduced by a minor factor to reach the
MPP as shown on equation (4) and (5) [19].

∆𝐼 𝐼 ∆𝑃
Start >− ; ( > 0) ; 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑃𝑃 (4)
∆𝑉 𝑉 ∆𝑉

∆𝐼 𝐼 ∆𝑃
<− ; ( < 0) ; 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑃𝑃 (5)
Measure V(t) & I (t) ∆𝑉 𝑉 ∆𝑉

Fig. 2 demonstrate the flow diagram of the INC principle.

Calculate P(t)
Start

Yes
P(t)=P(t-1) Measure V(t) & I (t)

No ∆𝑽 = 𝑽(𝒕) − 𝑽(𝒕 − 𝟏)
∆𝑰 = 𝑰(𝒕) − 𝑰(𝒕 − 𝟏)
P(t)>P(t-1)
No No
Yes
∆𝑽 = 𝟎
Yes Yes
V(t)>V(t-1) V(t)>V(t-1)
Yes
No Yes No
∆𝑰 ∆𝑰 = 𝟎
= −𝑰/𝑽
Decrease Increase 𝜟𝑽
Increase Decrease Yes Yes
Vref Vref Vref Vref
No No

Return ∆𝑰 ∆𝑰 = 𝟎
> −𝑰/𝑽
𝜟𝑽 Yes
Yes No No

Fig. 1: Flow diagram of P&O

Increase Decrease Decrease Increase
Vref Vref Vref Vref
The benefits of this method are its simplicity, easy to implement and
comparatively an accurate method. However, it has a drawback of
oscillating around MPP under steady state operation, which results in
a loss of power.

Return
3.2. Incremental Conductance (INC)
Fig. 2: Flow diagram of INC
Benefits of the INC MPPT algorithm are that it is simple to implement, Fig. 3 shows the P&O and INC MPPT technique are used as
has a better tracking speed and better efficiency [20]. MPPT controller. The two techniques are independently
connected to a Boost converter controlled by duty cycle D. The
solar irradiance (G) and temperature (T) are the input of the PV
4. Simulation Model
system respectively. The PWM generator was utilized at the
frequency of 10kHz. The simulation time of all the case studies
The simulation tests were carried out to determine the speed and is t=0.6 seconds.
precision of the MPPT algorithm to validate and compare the
performances of the two techniques (Perturb & Observe and
Fig. 4 and 5 illustrates the masked MATLAB model for the two
Incremental Conductance) under Partial shading conditions and
uniform condition. proposed MPPT algorithm with Boost converter interconnected
between the PV panel and the load. PWM applied to control the
The MATLAB SIMULINK software was used to model and simulate switching of the Boost converter. Solar insolation and
the above discussed MPPT algorithm. Table 1 shows the temperature being the input of the PV system. The PWM
specifications of the Soltech 1STH-215-P PV panel and boost DC-DC generator provides a triangle waveform for pulse width
converter used in this simulation. modulation [21].
Boost converter is utilized as source and load impedance matching. In
this paper it is designed to step up the DC voltage when the duty cycle Table 1: Soltech 1STH-215-P PV Panel and Boost DC/DC converter
is approaching one. The duty cycle is used to control the power flow specifications
by varying the ON/OFF duty cycle of the switching. The output
voltage of the PV system is the input of the DC/DC converter (Voltage
Boost
source) that generates a constant voltage output value as so to ease the
PV Panel specification DC/DC
energy storing within the battery. This incomparable is obtained by
converter
accumulating energy in an inductor and discharge it to the load at
specification
higher voltage. In this design the ripple current is selected to be 20%
of the output current and the voltage ripple to be 1.5% respectively. PV model 1STH-215-P L1 4 mH
The average output and input voltages are determined by the equation Short circuit current (Isc) 7.84 A C1 100 µF
(6). Open circuit voltage (Voc) 36.3 V C2 100 µF
Maximum Voltage (Vmpp) 29 V Ro 20 Ω
𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 1 Maximum current (Impp) 7.35 A
= (6)
𝑉𝑖𝑛 (1−𝐷) Maximum power (Pmpp) 213.15 W
Number of cells in series (Ns) 60
Where Vin and Vout are the respective input and output voltages of Temperature coefficient of Isc -0.36099%/°C
the boost converter and D is the duty cycle of switching. The suitable Temperature coefficient Voc 0.102%/°C
values of the inductors and capacitors were calculated to suit the Diode ideality factor (A) 0.98117
design using the equation (7) and (8) [20].
Series resistance (Rs) 0.39383Ω
𝐷
Shunt resistance (Rsh) 313.3991Ω
𝐶= ∆𝑉𝑜 (7)
𝑅( )𝑓
𝑉𝑜

𝐷(1−𝐷)2 𝑅
𝐿= (8)
2𝐹

Boost Load
PV Panel
DC/DC
Converter

Current &
PWM
Voltage
generator
sensor

MPPT Technique

Fig. 4: System Model and masked P&O in MATLAB

Fig. 3: PV system block diagram
 Table 2: Simulated results of P&O and INC

Weather Measurement P&O INC

Conditions
Case Study 1: 𝐼𝑝𝑣 (𝐴) 6.917 7.068
Fixed irradiance 𝑉𝑝𝑣 (𝑉) 29.94 29.89
𝑃𝑉 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 207.1 211.3
G1: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2
𝑃𝑉 ɳ (%) 97.16% 99.2%
G2: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2
G3: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2 𝐼𝑜 (𝐴) 2.626 2.648
G4: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2
𝑉𝑜 (𝑉) 78.78 79.43
Temperature 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 206.9 210.3
constant @25°𝐶 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 ɳ (%) 97.13% 98.73%

Case Study 2: 𝐼𝑝𝑣 (𝐴) 5.336 5.415

Partial shading 𝑉𝑝𝑣 (𝑉) 30.03 30.22
𝑃𝑉 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 160.3 163.7
G1: 750 𝑊/𝑚2
𝑃𝑉 ɳ (%) 75.18% 76.77%
G2: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2
G3: 500 𝑊/𝑚2 𝐼𝑜 (𝐴) 2.308 2.334
G4: 800 𝑊/𝑚2
Fig. 5: System model and masked INC in MATLAB 𝑉𝑜 (𝑉) 69.24 70.02
Temperature 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 159.8 163.4
constant @25°𝐶 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 ɳ (%) 75.02% 76.67%
5. Results and Discussion Case Study 3: 𝐼𝑝𝑣 (𝐴) 5.024 5.133
Partial shading 𝑉𝑝𝑣 (𝑉) 29.9 30.02
𝑃𝑉 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 150.2 154.1
Table 2 demonstrate the simulated results recorded from the G1: 700 𝑊/𝑚2
𝑃𝑉 ɳ (%) 70.47% 72.34%
MATLAB SIMULINK models of both P&O and INC. The results G2: 1000 𝑊/𝑚2
consist of three case studies, described below. The temperatures of all G3: 450 𝑊/𝑚2 𝐼𝑜 (𝐴) 2.235 2.263
the case studies were kept constant at 25°C, only the solar irradiance G4: 650 𝑊/𝑚2
𝑉𝑜 (𝑉) 67.04 67.88
was varied. Fig. (6-8) shows the graphical results obtained from the
MATLAB simulation of both the MPPT algorithms. Temperature 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 (𝑊) 149.8 153.6
constant @25°𝐶 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 ɳ (%) 70.28% 72.07%
Case study 1 shows the fixed insolation, INC MPPT technique
happens to be the powerful algorithm over P&O. It operated at the
efficiency 99.2% on the PV panel output, also lead and overperformed
P&O at the load operating on 98.73%. Fig. 6 also shows that the INC
converges faster than P&O around MPP. However, the only
disadvantage about INC is that it suffers from oscillations around MPP.

Case study 2 shows the variable insolation which is referred as partial

shaded conditions. INC performed better than P&O with the efficiency
of 76.77% at the output of the PV system. It also overperformed P&O
at the load operating at efficiency of 76.67%. Fig. 7 shows that P&O
settling time around MPP is faster than INC.

Case study 3 shows partial shaded conditions. On this case study INC
slightly performed better than P&O with the efficiency of 72.34% at
the PV output and efficiency of 72.07% at the load output. The INC
algorithm performed better than P&O on all 3 simulation cases, with
the speed of convergence and track a true MPP under PSC. However,
P&O has a faster settling time around MPP.

Fig. 6: PV output power for case 1 (fixed irradiance)


[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Fig. 7: PV output power for case 2 (Partial shading)
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] D. Mlakić and S. Nikolovski, "ANFIS as a Method for
Fig. 8: PV output power for case 3 (Partial shading)
[11] Adedayo M. Farayola, Ali N. Hasan, Ahmed Ali,” Efficient
6. Conclusion
In accordance to the simulation conducted, it is very clear that two
MPPT algorithm can harvest maximum power under PSC. Both
[12] L. Liu, X. Meng, and C. Liu, “A review of maximum power point
techniques are not depending on the PV and are all capable of locating
the true MPP under varying insolation. However, the Incremental
conductance method converges faster than P&O towards MPP.
Meaning INC provides the best solution for partial shading condition
[13] Adedayo M. Farayola, Ali N Hasan, Ahmed Ali,” Optimization
when compared to P&O. But INC method suffers from large
oscillations once it reaches MPP which reduces along with the tracking
process. P&O has fast settling time around MPP, simple to implement
and model as compared to INC algorithm.
[14] D. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian, “AModified
References
M. Seyedmahmoudian, A. Mohamadi, S. Kumary, A. Maung, O.
Than, A. Stojcevski, "A Comparative Study on Procedure and
State of the Art of Conventional Maximum Power Point Tracking
Techniques for Photovoltaic System," International Journal of
Computer and Electrical Engineering (IJCEE), vol. 6, no. 5, pp.
402-414, 2014.
R. Boukenoui; R. Bradai; A. Mellit; M. Ghanes; H. Salhi, "
Comparative analysis of P&O, modified hill climbing-FLC, and
adaptive P&O-FLC MPPTs for microgrid standalone PV
system," in 2015 International Conference on Renewable Energy
Research and Applications (ICRERA), Milwaukee, USA, 2015
S. Saravanan and N. R. Babu, “Maximum power point
tracking algorithms for photovoltaic system – A review,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,” vol. 57, pp.
192-204, May 2016
Adedayo Farayola, Ali N Hasan. Ahmed Ali, “Implementation of
Modified Incremental Conductance and Fuzzy Logic MPPT
Techniques Using MCUK Converter Under Various
Environmental Conditions”, Applied Solar Energy, Springer,
Vol. 53, No.2, September 2017
M. Seyedmahmoudian, A. Mohamadi, S. Kumary, A. Maung, O.
Than, A. Stojcevski, "A Comparative Study on Procedure and
State of the Art of Conventional Maximum Power Point Tracking
Techniques for Photovoltaic System," International Journal of
Computer and Electrical Engineering (IJCEE), vol. 6, no. 5, pp.
402-414, 2014.
M. A. Masoum, H. Dehbonei, and E. F. Fuchs, “Theoretical and
experimental analyses of photovoltaic systems with voltage and
current-based maximum power point tracking,” IEEE Power
Eng. Rev., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 62–62, Oct. 2002.
Abdul-Karim, R., Muyeen, S. M, and Al-Durra, A.: Review of
Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques
for Photovoltaic System. In: Global Journal of Control
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Pages 8-18 (2016)
Akhil Guptaa, Saurabh Chananaa, Tilak Thakur, Int. J. Sustain.
Energy 33 (4) (2014).
Ahmed Ali, A., Hasan, A. N, and Marwala, T.: Perturb and
Observe based on Fuzzy Logic Controller Maximum Power Point
tracking (MPPT). In: IEEE International Conference on
Renewable Energy Research 2014, Milwaukee.USA (2014).
Determinating MPPT in the Photovoltaic System Simulated in
Matlab/Simulink," in MIPRO 2016- 39th International
Convention CTS - Computers in Technical Systems, Opatija,
Adriatic Coast, Croatia, 2016.
Photovoltaic MPPT System Using Coarse Gaussian Support
Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Network Techniques,”
International Journal of Innovative Computing Information and
Control (IJICIC). Vol. 14, No. 1, Feb 2018
tracking methods of PV power system at uniform and partial
shading,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 53, pp. 1500–1507,
2016.
of PV Systems Using Data Mining and Regression Learner
MPPT Techniques”, TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of
Electrical Engineering Vol 10, No 3, P 1080-1089, 2018.
Firefly Algorithm for Photovoltaic Maximum Power Point
 Tracking Control Under Partial Shading,”IEEE Journal of
Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 2016.
[15] R. Boukenoui; R. Bradai; A. Mellit; M. Ghanes; H. Salhi, "
Comparative analysis of P&O, modified hill climbing-FLC, and
adaptive P&O-FLC MPPTs for microgrid standalone PV
system," in 2015 International Conference on Renewable Energy
Research and Applications (ICRERA), Milwaukee, USA, 2015.
[16] D. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian, “A
Modified Firefly Algorithm for Photovoltaic Maximum
Power Point Tracking Control Under Partial Shading,”
IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power
Electronics, 2016.
[17] A. K. Abdelsalam, A. M. Massoud, S. Ahmed, and P. N. Enjeti,
“High-performance adaptive perturb and observe MPPT
technique for photovoltaic-based microgrids,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1010–1021, Apr. 2011
[18] Leopoldo Gil-Antonio, Martha Belem Saldivar-Marquez,
Otniel Portillo-Rodriguez, “Maximum power point
tracking techniques in photovoltaic systems: A brief
review”, 2016 13th International Conference on Power
Electronics (CIEP)
[19] Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Ravi Saxena, “Review on
widely-used MPPT Techniques for PV Applications”,
2016 1st International Conference on Innovation and
Challenges in Cyber Security (ICICCS 2016)
[20] Nabil Karami, Nazih Moubayed, Rachid Outbib “General review
and classification of different MPPT Techniques”,Elsvier
,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1-18.
[21] H. Bounechba, A. Bouzid, K. Nabti and H. Benalla” Comparison
of perturb & observe and fuzzy logic in maximum power point
tracker for PV systems” Science Direct,Elsvier ,Energy Procedia
50 ( 2014 ) 677 - 684.