See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309176058

Implementation of a modified P&O-MPPT algorithm adapted for varying solar

radiation conditions

Article  in  Electrical Engineering · September 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s00202-016-0457-3

CITATIONS READS

42 2,363

3 authors:

Abdelhakim Belkaid Ilhami Colak

Université Abderrahmane Mira de Béjaia Nisantasi Üniversitesi
26 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS    243 PUBLICATIONS   3,449 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Korhan Kayisli
Nisantasi Üniversitesi
50 PUBLICATIONS   251 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Smart grid View project

pHd project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdelhakim Belkaid on 20 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Electr Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00202-016-0457-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Implementation of a modified P&O-MPPT algorithm adapted
for varying solar radiation conditions
Abdelhakim Belkaid1,2 · Ilhami Colak3 · Korhan Kayisli3
Received: 10 May 2016 / Accepted: 4 October 2016
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract The aim of this study is to enhance the perfor-
mance of photovoltaic (PV) power systems. The Perturb
and Observe (P&O) maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
technique is largely used in these systems. This method has
two major drawbacks, which are the oscillation near the max-
imum power point (MPP) in static and the losing tracking
direction in dynamic. To overcome these handicaps, a mod-
ified P&O algorithm is proposed. The new algorithm differs
mainly from the basic one by adding the change in the PV
current as a third test in its flowchart. This controller is able
to track MPPs perfectly with less possibility to deviate from
its tracking way. The algorithm is applied for tuning the duty
cycle of a boost converter and tested under a stringent pro-
file of sunshine variation as recommended by the EN 50530.
It was found that, the simulation results are satisfactory, the
convergence speed is increased and the average efficiency is
improved by four percent during varying solar radiation con-
ditions. Furthermore, the proposed PV-MPPT system does
not require any extra hardware components.
B Ilhami Colak
ilhcol@gmail.com
Abdelhakim Belkaid
belkaid08@yahoo.fr
Korhan Kayisli
korhankayisli@gmail.com
1 Department of Electromechanics, University of Bordj Bou
Arreridj, El-Anasser 34030, Bordj Bou Arreridj, Algeria
2 Automatic Laboratory of Setif (LAS), University of Setif 1,
El Maabouda, Street of Bejaia, 19000 Setif, Algeria
3 Engineering and Architecture Faculty of Nisantasi University,
Istanbul, Turkey
Keywords Solar energy · Photovoltaic system · Perturb and
Observe · Maximum power point tracking · Boost converter ·
Dynamic efficiency
1 Introduction
Solar power is among the renewable resources. It is very
interesting because of its cleanliness and its minor impacts
to environment [1]. Using the optoelectronic effect known
as photovoltaic phenomenon, it can produce electricity from
light of the sun. The solar cell, otherwise known as photo pile
is the elementary unit in PV system. It consists of semicon-
ductor materials such as silicon, germanium and selenium.
One photocell can only create a small quantity of power. To
satisfy the majority of electrical applications, solar cells are
usually associated in series to form PV modules. These mod-
ules can be coupled in series and in parallel to build an array
with the desired power [2]. The most commonly used semi-
conductor material in photovoltaic cells is silicon that is an
element most frequently found in sand and rocks.
The PV output power generated by PV arrays depends on
many parameters such as the irradiance level, the temper-
ature, the air mass coefficient, the load and so forth. Also,
cloudy weather and shadowing phenomenon can perturb
the PV power. Another remark is that the PV power has a
non-linear curve with a unique maximum power. To over-
come these problems, one must exploit the PV generator at
its maximum power reducing the energy failure due to the
abovementioned factors. There are a lot of MPPT algorithms
[3–6] that are capable to pursuit the PV peak power on dif-
ferent operating conditions. Some of them are simple and
others are complicated. All these have the same objective
that is forcing the PV array to operate at its maximum power
on every functioning circumstance.
123

Of these, two simplest off-line techniques are using frac-
tional estimation: the short circuit current method [7] that
approximates the MPP current as a fraction of the short cir-
cuit current, the fraction is normally from 0.78 to 0.92 [8],
and the open circuit voltage method [9] that approximates
the optimal voltage as a fraction of the open circuit voltage,
the proportionality ratio is commonly between 0.7 and 0.78
[10]. These methods are very simple, but they are less accu-
rate and have a weaker performance. Otherwise, a few MPPT
methods have good performance in static and dynamic states,
but they need particular conception and knowledge of spe-
cific topics like neural network [11,12], fuzzy logic [13] and
sliding-mode-based MPPT [14–16] methods.
Two other techniques, which exist in large quantities in
PV systems, are the Incremental Conductance (IC) [17,18]
and Perturb and Observe method (P&O) [19–23]. The IC
algorithm follows the MPP by comparing the instantaneous
conductance to the opposite of incremental conductance [15].
It senses PV current, PV voltage and, thus, calculates the I–V
curve slope to adjust power converter duty cycle. The con-
ventional P&O algorithm (with fixed step size) is habitually
used in PV applications due to its simplicity and ease of
realization. It is based on perturbation in the PV output volt-
age and observation of the result in power change of the PV
array. It needs solely two sensors to measure the PV current
and voltage. As drawback, it performs fluctuations at steady-
state regime that makes it no more accurate and thus wastes
energy. Also, it fails the peak power when the quick changes
in luminosity occur. To overcome the oscillations problem,
one can choose a small step size but this choice leads to a high
response time. That is why a compromise between the track-
ing rapidity and accuracy is considered when choosing the
increment. Many researchers propose variants of the P&O
method known under the name adaptive P&O algorithms to
resolve the aforementioned drawbacks. The adaptive P&O
algorithms use an intelligent mechanism for changing the
perturbation size to reduce the power oscillations [20–24].
On the other hand, some researches made changes into the
former algorithm to enhance the dynamic performance effi-
ciency of the PV system. For example, Kashif et al have
proposed modifications into two MPPT techniques largely
found in the literature i.e., P&O and IC methods to improve
the steady and dynamic performance during sudden variation
of sunlight levels [25].
The P&O algorithm seeks continually the MPP which is
at the knee of the current–voltage curve by adjusting the con-
verter duty cycle. As mentioned above, this method has some
advantages such as simple structure and low cost. However,
it has some drawbacks: one of them is the MPP oscillation
in steady states and the other is the losing tracking direc-
tion when a gradually rapid change in the solar radiation
occurs. In this last circumstance, the conventional P&O is
not competent to know if the variation in the power is owed
123
Electr Eng
to the perturbation of the reference voltage or owed to the
modification in the irradiance levels. The deviation problem
causes inaccurate trajectory of the peak power that indicates
a decrease in the overall PV chain efficiency. In the objec-
tive to overcome this handicap, this paper proposes a new
MPP tracker based on a modified P&O algorithm. The pro-
posed controller makes slight modifications into the old one
by adding a third parameter in its flowchart, which is the
change in the PV current. Also, the step size will be dou-
bled in cases where the tracking direction is bad. Another
contribution is the using of a stringent irradiance profile as
recommended by the European standard test EN 50530 which
can verify, truthfully, the effectiveness of the proposed MPPT
system. Consequently, this effort is conducted to enhancing
the dynamic efficiency of PV system with an improved P&O,
which can reduce the probability of diverging away from the
maximum power.
The paper is prearranged as follows: Sect. 2 offers a com-
prehensive modeling and the characteristics of a PV array
and Sect. 3 gives functional analysis of the boost chopper.
Subsequently, the basics and drawbacks of traditional P&O
technique are illustrated. Next, we proposed a modified P&O
that is capable to track the MPP with best dynamic efficiency
on every operating condition. Thereafter, Sect. 5 depicts the
software implementation results. Finally, conclusions and
some perspectives are presented at the end of the paper.
2 Solar module characteristics
The PV array is constructed by Np strings in parallel; each
string is formed by Ns modules in series. Generally, one mod-
ule is built with some cells coupled in series. A PV cell can
deliver just a little quantity of power, why an assemblage of
many cells is necessary for feeding various PV applications.
PV cell produces electricity from light energy using the pho-
tovoltaic effect, which is an optoelectronic phenomenon. The
material most used for solar cells is the crystalline silicon,
which can be extracted from the sand or the rock.
Many works of literature speak very well about the mod-
eling and characteristics of solar module. They specify an
implicit nonlinear formula with exponential function link-
ing the module current to the module voltage. Using an
ideal one-diode model, the last relationship is described as
in [15,26,27].
⎡ ⎛   ⎞ ⎤
Ns
V+ Np Rs I
I = Np Iph − Np Is ⎣exp ⎝ ⎠ − 1⎦
n s a vt
 
Ns
V+ Np Rs I
−   (1)
Ns
Np Rp
Electr Eng
where I and V are the PV array output current (A) and the
PV array output voltage (V), respectively, n s is the number of
PV cells connected in series in each branch, Rs and Rp are the
PV module series and parallel resistances (), respectively,
a is the p − −n junction ideality factor, 1 < a < 5, and
a = 1 is the ideal value.
In Eq. (1), the module photo-current Iph that depends on
solar irradiance G and temperature T is determined from:
3 Selecting a suitable converter
Dc–dc converters are a sizeable part of the photovoltaic con-
version chain. These converters are used to adapt the input
voltage of a system relative to the desired output voltage. Sev-
eral types of dc–dc converter topologies have been addressed
for photovoltaic applications in the literature. Some of these
are the buck topology [29], the boost topology [15,30],
the buck–boost topology [14,31], the Cuk converter [1,17],
 ∗
G the sepic converter [32,33], the quadratic-boost converter
Iph = Isc + ki (T − 298) (2)
1000 [34], and so on. The buck is used to lower the voltage.
The boost can be used for increasing the voltage. Then,
where ki is the short-circuit current temperature coefficient,
∗ is the short-circuit current at standard test conditions STC buck–boost, Cuk and sepic are the configurations that are
Isc
capable to step up and step down the output voltage. Many
(1000 W/m2 , 298 K and AM 1.5).
studies present a comparative analysis on different dc–dc
Moreover, the reverse saturation current Is varies with
non-isolated converters used as PV-MPP trackers [35,36]. A
temperature according to the next expression (3):
boost-type converter is generally employed as the first stage
∗ + k (T − 298)
Isc instead of a transformer, to boost the wide range of voltage in
i
Is =  ∗  (3) the two-stage PV structure, or when requiring smaller num-
Voc +kv (T −298)
exp n s vt −1 ber of modules for a given desired output voltage. The boost
dc–dc converter especially deserves attention because of its
where Voc ∗ is the open-circuit voltage at STC conditions, k
v higher efficiency, elevated voltage gain, and simple structure.
is the open-circuit voltage temperature coefficient, and vt = However, its main drawback is its limited working range. For
kb T /q is the thermal voltage, kb = 1.38065 · 10−23 J/K is the aforementioned benefits, we choose the boost-type con-
the Boltzmann’s constant and q = 1.60218 · 1019 C is the verter to insert between the PV array and the load, not only
charge of an electron.
The abovementioned equations are used to implement the
PV array model in MATLAB software using the electrical
specifications of the selected solar module (MSX 60) which
are shown in Table 1. First of all, the model is simulated to
plot the PV module curves for different levels of solar irradi-
ance as shown in Fig. 1. These curves are obtained using the
following parameters: Rs = 0.357 , Rp = 151 , n s = 36,
Ns = Np = 1, a = 1. From the module characteristics, it
shows that the MPP locus varies with changing of irradiance.
The red curves give the P–V and I–V module characteristics
at STC conditions; the MPP is located on asterisk point that
has Vmpp = 17.1 V, Impp = 3.5 A as horizontal coordinate
and vertical coordinate, respectively. Two other points are
important: the short-circuit current and the open-circuit volt-
age that are the intersections of a given curve with y-axis and
x-axis, respectively. At STC, Isc = 3.8 A, Voc = 21.1 V .

Table 1 Parameters of Solarex MSX 60 module [15,28]

Maximum power Pmax 59.85 W

Open-circuit voltage Voc 21.1 V
Short-circuit current Isc 3.8 A
Voltage at maximum power Vmpp 17.1 V
Current at maximum power Impp 3.5 A
Temperature coefficient of Voc −0.08 V/◦ C
Temperature coefficient of Isc 0.003 A/◦ C Fig. 1 MSX 60 module curves at 25 ◦ C under various irradiance levels:
a power-voltage; b current-voltage

123
 Electr Eng

Initialization

Sense V ( k ), I ( k )
Calculate P ( k ) V ( k ). I ( k )

Yes
P 0 No change

No
Fig. 2 Boost converter electrical circuit
P 0
No
to adapt the voltage levels but also to track the MPP of the Yes
PV array. This converter contains mainly a diode, a switch,
V 0 V 0
an inductor and a capacitor as shown in Fig. 2. The switch Yes No
may be a MOSFET which can be turned on and off repeat- No Yes

edly with an operating frequency f and variable duty cycle d d d d d d

d. The transformation ratio of the converter is controlled by
a PWM signal. The conduction of the switch and diode are
complementary; the boost converter has two working modes
according to the position of the switch. The first mode is
when the switch is closed (ON) and the second mode takes
place when the switch is open (OFF). The functioning analy-
sis of the converter is made by applying the Kirchhoff’s
laws governing the operation of the system.
The following expression gives the relation between the
output and the input voltages:
1 the MPP tracker incessantly seeks the maximum power loca-
Vo = · V, (4)
1−d
where Vo is the average of the load voltage vo
It is noted that one can control the converter output voltage
by varying its input voltage or its duty cycle. The last para-
meter is always between 0 and 1, then the circuit operates as
a voltage booster.
By applying the principle of the power conservation
between the two sides of the converter, we can deduce the
relation between currents:
1 advantages such as the simple realization, being indepen-
I = · Io , (5)
1−d
where I and Io are the input and the output average current
of the converter.
4 Maximum power point seeking methods
4.1 The traditional P&O and its handicaps
The P&O algorithm is an iterative approach; it needs just
two sensors for sensing the current and the voltage of the PV
array, and then, the output power is computed as the prod-
uct of these two parameters. Its operating principle is based
on perturbing, by a small increment, the array terminal volt-
age and comparing the array terminal power with that of the
d d d
Update
V (k ) V (k 1)
I (k ) I (k 1)
Fig. 3 Original P&O algorithm diagram
preceding perturbation cycle. If the perturbation leads to an
increase (decrease) in panel power, the succeeding perturba-
tion is made in the same (opposite) direction. In this manner,
tion.
From expression (4), it shows that for a given output volt-
age, the input voltage of the selected converter is inversely
proportional to its duty cycle. Therefore, the P&O can act on
the duty cycle as demonstrated by the organizational chart of
the algorithm of the Fig. 3 [37].
Through tuning the duty cycle of the power converter,
the operating point climbs on the power–voltage character-
istic to attain the peak power point which is at the top of
the curve. As mentioned above, this technique has certain
dent from solar array parameters, the high efficiency, cheap,
and it requires just two grandeurs voltage and power [37–
39]. Unfortunately, it has a few drawbacks like the nonstop
oscillation around the MPP [28,37], when the operating point
reaches the surroundings of the PV array peak power. The
second handicap is the deviation away from the MPP under
changing of the solar radiation [28,38,40]. This divergence
is generally caused when the change in irradiance is gradual
[28]. As a result, both the handicaps cause the energy losses.
The original P&O drawbacks are illustrated graphically in
Fig. 4.
4.2 The proposed P&O and its benefits
A new variant of P&O method is proposed to overcome
the limitations of the conventional one. It begins by sens-

123
Electr Eng

Table 2 Different control actions for the proposed algorithm

Case V P I G Tracking direction Control action d

1 + + + Increase True d = d + d
2 + + − Constant True d = d − d
3 + − + Increase Wrong d = d − 2d
4 + − − Constant Wrong d = d + 2d
5 − + + Constant True d = d + d
6 − + − Decrease True d = d − d
7 − − + Constant Wrong d = d − 2d
8 − − − Decrease Wrong d = d − 2d

Fig. 4 The original P&O drawbacks

Initialization
Sense V(k), I (k)
Calculate P(k) V(k).I (k)
P 0
N Y
V 0
Y N
varying atmospheric conditions. In the fixed illumination, the
algorithm acts as the old one. But if the illumination varies,
the proposed algorithm acts contrary to the conventional one.
When the bad tracking way is detected, the step size must be
doubled to augment the speed of tracking. Using this process,
the MPPT control can differentiate if the change in power is
due to the sunlight change or due to the reference voltage
perturbation, and thus, the divergence from the MPP can be
V 0 avoided.
N Y

I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0
N Y N Y N Y N Y 5 Simulation results with interpretations
d d d d d d d d
In this section, a software implementation of the proposed
d 2d d 2d d 2d d 2d d d d d d d d d
MPPT system is performed on Matlab/Simulink and Sim-
PowerSystems as depicted in Fig. 6, which incorporates the
solar module, the boost converter with its MPPT control
Update
V(k) V(k 1) and the load. The selected solar module for this study is the
I(k) I(k 1) Solarex MSX 60 that is modeled using single-diode model
to furnish the current and the voltage which are introduced
Return
into the converter and the MPPT tracker simultaneously. The
components of the converter are selected according to the
Fig. 5 The proposed algorithm diagram values offered in Table 3.
To prove the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, a
stringent profile for varying the solar radiation is used. This
ing the current and the voltage and, thus, computes the profile contains different shapes such as the step up, the step
power as shown in Fig. 5. The proposed MPPT may present down, the ramp up and the ramp down as recommended
an enhancement in the system behavior by adding a third by the European Efficiency Test, EN 50530 [25]. Two vari-
parameter in its flowchart, which is the change in current. ous slopes are selected: their values are, respectively, 1875
Therefore, eight cases of the operating point perturbation W/m2 /s and 2500 W/m2 /s as illustrated in Fig. 7a. With this
are distinguished; four are as the original method (fixed profile, the proposed tracker may be tested very well under
irradiance) and four others are added to indicate the states transient and steady-state conditions. The test’s time was
of rapidly changing of irradiance level either increasing or extended for 4 s; the temperature was maintained at fixed
decreasing. More explanation is given in Table 2, illustrating value of 25 ◦ C. The step size of duty cycle used for both the
after each perturbation case, the power difference resulting, P&O algorithm and its variant is d = 0.0002.
the true or the wrong tracking direction and the control action First of all, the proposed P&O tracker was experienced
corresponding. If the change in voltage and the change in during a selected irradiance profile, and the simulation results
current have opposite sign, the PV array is in the case of are given in Fig. 7b. The waveforms of PV grandeurs such
constant illumination; if not, the PV array is in the case of as current I (A) , voltage V (V ), power P (W ) and the load

123
 Electr Eng

Fig. 6 The proposed MPPT system under Matlab/Simulink

Table 3 The specifications of the boost converter Figure 8 which is composed by three parts, represents the
Parameter Label Value comparison of the MPP pursuiting using the proposed and
the original P&O techniques. The part (a) depicts the evo-
Switching frequency f 10 kHz lution of the peak power obtained using both the techniques
Boost inductor L 0.5 mH cited before with many zoomed locations. In part (b), the effi-
Boost capacitor C 470 µF ciency defined as the ratio of the maximum power achieved
Input capacitor Cin 1000 µF using the MPPT control per the ideal MPP is illustrated. The
Load R 30  ideal MPP or the theoretical peak power, which is the goal
of the algorithm, is calculated using the mathematical model
of the solar module. The last part (c) gives the progress of
voltage Vo (V ) are plotted. It can be seen that the diverse
the converter duty cycle. The results confirm the drawbacks
grandeurs have achieved the same values as given by the PV
of the traditional method.
curves illustrated in Fig. 1. When comparing the behaviours
Also, they confirm the ability of the proposed method to
of V and Vo , it can be confirmed that the converter used is
correct the wrong MPP trajectory by avoiding the loss of
a voltage step. Furthermore, the waveforms of I and P are
tracking direction. As shown in the results, at the ramp-down
significantly affected by the evolution of irradiance than V ,
zones, the tracking deviation is very small as watched in the
which is only slightly affected.

Fig. 7 Simulation of the proposed algorithm: a illumination profile, b the matching results

123
Electr Eng

non-capability to operate under partial shading conditions.

Disadvantage of this study is the lack of experimental results.

6 Conclusion

In this study, a software implementation of the cost-effective

P&O MPPT technique applied to a stand-alone photovoltaic
system was presented. Slight modifications introduced into
the conventional P&O algorithm are enough to solve, sat-
isfactorily, its drawbacks. A suitable power converter was
selected and a stringent irradiance profile according to the
European Standard Test EN 50530 was chosen to evaluate
the performance of the proposed PV-MPPT system. Simula-
tion results were carried out via MATLAB-Simulink tools.
From the achieved results, it was confirmed that, the pro-
posed algorithm with its simple structure and non-requiring
of sophisticated hardware for implementation, can track the
varying irradiance profile perfectly with less divergence from
the MPPs. Also, they indicate that the new tracker exhibits the
high dynamic efficiency with acceptable steady-state oscil-
lation. Finally, one can say that more power loss was avoided
and the MPPT yield is increased for about four percentage
points.
As future work, the principle of the proposed technique
will be developed to get the possibility of tracking under
partially shaded conditions. Also, it would be an attractive
topic to check their validity on other more efficient converter
structures.
Fig. 8 Comparison of tracking performances under varying irradiance
levels: a MPP tracking, b efficiency, c duty cycle evolution

References
enlarged image. However, at the ramp-up locations, the pur-
suiting divergence becomes large and more large when the
slope gradient is big. From Fig. 8b, it can be seen that the
instantaneous efficiency of the classical algorithm drops until
55 % when the irradiance increases gradually and until 60 %
when the irradiance increases suddenly. To better compare
the performance of these two techniques, we calculate the
average value of their yields. Since the conventional method
exhibits many points where it loses the tracking direction, its
average efficiency descends to 0.9394. On another side, the
proposed method tracks the irradiance profile perfectly, while
its average efficiency rises to 0.9774. It can be concluded
that with slight modifications made in the traditional algo-
rithm, the convergence speed is increased and the dynamic
efficiency is improved during varying solar radiation condi-
tions.
The proposed MPPT system is checked with a resistance
and it can be applied for a battery or other type of load.
Since this technique is robust to changes in illumination, it is
also robust to temperature variation. Its main limitation is the
1. Safari A, Mekhilef S (2011) Simulation and hardware implementa-
tion of incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method
using Cuk converter. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(4):1154–1161
2. Alajmi B, Ahmed K, Finney S, Williams B (2013) A maximum
power point tracking technique for partially shaded photovoltaic
systems in microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 60(4):1596–1606
3. Bhatnagar AP, Nema BRK (2013) Conventional and global maxi-
mum power point tracking techniques in photovoltaic applications:
A review. J Renew Sustain Energy 5:1–23
4. Ishaque K, Salam Z (2013) A review of maximum power point
tracking techniques of PV system for uniform insolation and partial
shading condition. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 19:475–488
5. Eltawil MA, Zhao Z (2013) MPPT techniques for photovoltaic
applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 25:793–813
6. Subudhi B, Pradhan R (2013) A Comparative study on maximum
power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems.
IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 4(1):89–98
7. Kollimalla SK, Mishra MK. A new adaptive P&O MPPT algorithm
based on FSCC method for photovoltaic system. International Con-
ference on Circuits, Power and Computing Technologies, ICCPCT,
21st–23rd March 2013, Nagercoil, India, pp 406–411
8. Yuvarajan S, Xu S (2003) Photo-voltaic power converter with a
simple maximum-power-point-tracker. Int Symp Circuits Syst. III-
399–III-402

123

9. Murtaza AF et al (2012) A novel hybrid MPPT technique for solar
PV applications using perturb and observe and fractional open
circuit voltage techniques. In: 15th International Symposium on
Mechatronika, 5th–7th December, Prague, Czech, pp 1–8
10. Schoeman JJ, van Wyk JD (1982) A simplified maximal power
controller for terrestrial photovoltaic panel arrays. In: Proc. 13th
Annu. IEEE Power Electron Spec Conf, pp 361–367
11. Liu YH, Liu CL, Huang JW, Chen JH (2013) Neural-network based
maximum power point tracking methods for photovoltaic systems
operating under fast changing environments. Sol Energy 89:42–53
12. Whei-Min L, Chih-Ming H, Chiung-Hsing C (2011) Neural-
network based MPPT control of a stand-alone hybrid power
generation system. IEEE Trans Power Electron 26:3571–3581
13. Gounden NA, Ann Peter S, Nallandula H, Krithiga S (2009) Fuzzy
logic controller with MPPT using line-commutated inverter for
three phase grid-connected photovoltaic systems. Renew Energy
34:909–915
14. Belkaid A, Gaubert JP, Gherbi A (2014) Sliding mode control
for tracking maximum power point in buck-boost photovoltaic
systems. In: 11th International Conference on Modeling and Sim-
ulation of Electric Machines, Converters and Systems, ELECTRI-
MACS (2014) 19th–22nd May. Valencia, Spain, pp 140–147
15. Belkaid A, Gaubert JP, Gherbi A (2016) An improved sliding mode
control for maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic systems.
J Control Eng Appl Inf 18(1):86–94
16. Mamarelis E, Petrone G, Spagnuolo G (2013) An hybrid digital-
analog sliding mode controller for photovoltaic applications. IEEE
Trans Ind Inform 9(2):1094–1103. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2220372
17. Radjai T, Rahmani L, Mekhilef S, Gaubert JP (2014) Implementa-
tion of a modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm with
direct control based on a fuzzy duty cycle change estimator using
dSPACE. Solar Energy 110:325–337
18. Fangrui L, Shanxu D, Fei L, Bangyin L, Yong K (2008) A variable
step size INC MPPT method for PV systems. IEEE Trans Industr
Electron 55:2622–2628
19. Petreus D, Moga D, Rusu A, Patarau T, Daraban S (2010) A max-
imum power point tracker for photovoltaic system under changing
luminosity conditions. In: IEEE International symposium Indus-
trial Electronics (ISIE), pp 556–561
20. Fermia N, Granozio D, Petrone G, Vitelli M (2007) Predictive and
adaptive MPPT perturb and observe method. IEEE Trans Aerosp
Electron Syst 43:934–950
21. Mamarelis E, Petrone G, Spagnuolo G (2014) A two-steps algo-
rithm improving the P&O steady state MPPT efficiency. Appl
Energy 113:414–421
22. Abdelsalam AK, Massoud AM, Ahmed S, Enjeti P (2011)
High-performance adaptive perturb and observe MPPT technique
for photovoltaic-based microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Electron
26:1010–1021
23. Piegari L, Rizzo R (2010) Adaptive perturb and observe algorithm
for photovoltaic maximum power point tracking. Renew Power
Gener IET 4:317–328
24. Zhang F, Thanapalan K, Procter A, Carr S, Maddy J (2013)
Adaptive hybrid maximum power point tracking method for a pho-
tovoltaic system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 28:353–360
123
View publication stats
Electr Eng
25. Ishaque K, Salam Z, Lauss G (2014) The performance of perturb
and observe and incremental conductance maximum power point
tracking method under dynamic weather conditions. Appl Energy
119:228–236
26. Yu GJ, Jung YS, Choi JY, Kim GS (2004) A novel two-mode MPPT
control algorithm based on comparative study of existing algo-
rithms. Sol Energy 76:455–463
27. Colak I, Kabalci E, Bal G (2011) Parallel DC-AC conversion sys-
tem based on separate solar farms with MPPT control. In: 8th
International Conference on Power Electronics- ECCE Asia, May
30–June 3, The ShillaJeju, Korea
28. Ahmed J, Salam Z (2015) An improved perturb and observe (P&O)
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm for higher effi-
ciency. Appl Energy 150:97–108
29. Alajmi BN, Ahmed KH, Finney SJ, Williams BW (2011) Fuzzy
logic-control approach of a modified hill-climbing method for max-
imum power point in microgrid standalone photovoltaic system.
IEEE Trans Power Electron 26(4):1022–1030
30. Coelho RF, Concer F, Martins DC (2009) A study of the basic DC–
DC converters applied in maximum power point tracking. In: Proc
IEEE Brazilian Power Electron Conf, pp 673–678
31. Koutroulis E, Kalaitzakis K, Voulgaris NC (2001) Development
of a microcontroller-based, photovoltaic maximum power point
tracking control system. IEEE Trans Power Electron 16(1):46–54
32. Veerachary M (2005) Power tracking for nonlinear PV sources with
coupled inductor sepic converter. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst
41(3):1019–1029
33. Chiang SJ, Shieh HJ, Chen MC (2009) Modeling and control of
PV charger system with SEPIC converter. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
56(11):4344–4353
34. Valderrama-Blavi H, Bosque J, Guinjoan F, Marroyo L, Martinez-
Salamero L (2012) Power adaptor device for domestic dc-
microgrids based on commercial mppt inverters. IEEE Trans Ind
Electron 60(3):1191–1203
35. Farahat MA, Metwally HMB, Mohamed AA (2012) Optimal
choice and design of different topologies of DC–DC converter used
in PV systems, at different climatic conditions in Egypt. Renew
Energy 43:393–402
36. Walker GR, Sernia PC (2004) Cascaded DC–DC converter con-
nection of photovoltaic modules. IEEE Trans Power Electron
19(4):1130–1139
37. Mei Shan Ngan, Chee Wei Tan (2011) A study of maximum power
point tracking algorithms for stand-alone photovoltaic systems. In:
IEEE Applied Power Electronics Colloquium (IAPEC), pp 22–27
38. Jiang Joe-Air et al (2014) On application of a new hybrid maximum
power point tracking (MPPT) based photovoltaic system to the
closed plant factory. Appl Energy 124:309–324
39. El Khateb Ahmad, Abd Rahim Nasrudin, Selvaraj Jeyraj, Nasir
Uddin Mohammad (2013) Maximum power point tracking of
single-ended primary-inductor converter employing a novel opti-
misation technique for proportional-integral derivative controller.
IET Power Electron 6(6):1111–1121
40. Femia N, Petrone G, Spagnuolo G, Vitelli M (2004) Optimizing
sampling rate of P&O MPPT technique. In: Proc. IEEE PESC, pp
1945–1949