Research on MPPT control strategy based on

CCAOA algorithm
Yiping Xiao (  yp_xiao2013@163.com )
Hubei University of Technology
Zongtao Shen
Hubei University of Technology
Yunfeng Zhao
Hubei University of Technology
Hongjian Jiao
Hubei University of Technology

Research Article

Keywords: Partial shading, Multiple peaks, MPPT, Collaborative and Cosine arithmetic optimization
algorithm

Posted Date: October 3rd, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3364776/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License

Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.

Research on MPPT control strategy based on CCAOA algorithm

Yiping Xiao12* ∙ Zongtao Shen1 ∙ Yunfeng Zhao1 ∙ Hongjian Jiao1

Abstract
Photovoltaic (PV) arrays under partial shading conditions (PSC) can lead to multiple peaks in the power-voltage curve of
PV system output. The traditional maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm is difficult to solve the multi-peak
problem and generally has slow convergence speed and easy fall into local optimality. To address this problem, a
collaborative and cosine arithmetic optimization algorithm (CCAOA) was proposed in this paper. The cosine factor was
introduced into the mathematical optimization acceleration function in traditional AOA to enhance the global search
capability of the algorithm. And the circle chaotic mapping and cross-variance strategy were introduced to increase the
diversity and randomness of the algorithm population. Meanwhile, a cooperative search strategy of addition and
subtraction is used to strengthen the local search capability of the algorithm, thus accelerate the convergence speed of the
algorithm. The effectiveness of the CCAOA is evaluated by using six typical IEEE standard test functions, and the
simulation results show that compared with AOA, TSO and PSO algorithms it outperforms other algorithms in terms of
convergence speed and accuracy. Appling the CCAOA into the MPPT control, the performance of MPPT control strategy
based on CCAOA was verified by simulation. The simulation results illustrate that the CCAOA has better performance in
tracking speed, stability and efficiency when comparing with AOA, TSO and PSO algorithms. In conclusion, the MPPT
control based on CCAOA can significantly improve the power generation efficiency of PV arrays under PSC.

Keywords Partial shading·Multiple peaks·MPPT·Collaborative and Cosine arithmetic optimization algorithm

Abbreviations
1 Introduction
MPPT Maximum power point tracking
With environmental pollution, depletion of fossil fuel
PV Photovoltaic
and energy shortage, the exploration of new renewable
P&O Perturb and observe
clean energy has become a research hotspot worldwide.
GMPP Global maximum power point
Solar energy, as a renewable and clean energy source, has
MPP Maximum power point
been paid more and more attention [1,2]. However,
LMPP Local maximum power point
photovoltaic (PV) systems output is easily affected by the
PSC Partial shading conditions
environment (i.e., irradiance and temperature), and
AOA Arithmetic optimization algorithm
especially the output curve of PV arrays under shading
PSO Particle swarm optimization
conditions exhibits multiple peaks. This makes it very
TSO Tuna swarm optimization
difficult to track the global maximum power point (GMPP)
IC Incremental-conductance
of the PV array [3-5]. Therefore, it is necessary to use
MPPT control algorithm to track the maximum power
Yiping Xiao
point of the PV system in order to ensure its maximum
yp_xiao2013@163.com
output power.
1. School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Hubei The traditional algorithms (i.e., perturb & observe
University of Technology, Wuhan, 430068，China. (P&O) and incremental conductance (IC)) are suitable for
tracking the maximum power point under uniform
2. Hubei Collaborative Innovation Center for High-efficiency
irradiation conditions. Under local shading conditions,
Utilization of Solar Energy, Hubei University of
these algorithms can easily fall into local maximum power
Technology, Wuhan 430068, China.
1
points (LMPP) and unable to solve the GMPPT problem
effectively, and it also easily generates large steady-state
oscillations, resulting in performance degradation [6-8].
To solve those problems, many researchers have proposed
many different meta-heuristic algorithms to improve
GMPPT performance [9-11]. The authors (G. Dileep. et al.
2021) proposed an improved particle swarm algorithm
(PSO). Applying the algorithm into the MPPT control
system, the convergence speed and tracking accuracy of
the algorithm were improved by both linearly decreasing
the inertia weight and cognitive coefficient, and linearly
increasing the social coefficient [12]. The authors
(AboKhalil et al. 2021) proposed an opposition-learning
firefly algorithm (FA) and applied it to the MPPT system.
By adjusting the parameters of the firefly algorithm and
using an opposition-based learning (OBL) method it can
effectively maintain the diversity of the population and
track the GMPP better [13]. The authors (AlShammaa et al.
2022) used the cuckoo search algorithm (CSO), which has
faster convergence speed and higher precision than the
conventional algorithm [14]. The authors (Fu Changxin. et
al. 2022) applied an improved slime mold algorithm
(SMA), which selected individuals with better fitness
values by linear decreasing, and introduced a spiral search
strategy to expand the search range and improve the global
search performance of the algorithm [15].
Arithmetic optimization algorithm (AOA) is a meta-
heuristic algorithm proposed by Abualigah et al. in 2021
based on the idea of arithmetic operation notation in
mathematics, which has the characteristics of simple
formula structure and fast convergence speed [16-20].
However, being used in the MPPT control system, the
algorithm is easy to fall into LMPP and too much
oscillation during the search process. To resolve these
problems, some researchers put forward a few solutions
[21-24]. The authors (Chtita Smail et al. 2023) proposed
an MPPT control system using the AOA, the authors
proposed an MPPT control system using the AOA, which
has higher accuracy and faster convergence speed than the
traditional algorithm, but the algorithm is easy tends to fall
into LMPP [25]. The authors (Thota Rajasekar. et al. 2022)
proposed an AOA based on the Levy flight strategy
(AOA-LF). The algorithm utilizes the stochastic variable
step size of the Levy flight strategy so that the algorithm
2
does not easily fall into LMPP and improves the tracking
accuracy of the algorithm [26].
To further improve the performance of the MPPT
control system based on AOA, the improved AOA called
Collaborative and Cosine AOA(CCAOA) was proposed in
this paper. A cosine factor was introduced to avoid the
algorithm falling into LMPP. And the circle chaotic
mapping and cross-variance strategies were introduced to
increase global search ability of the algorithm. Meanwhile,
the cooperative strategy was proposed to improve search
accuracy and increase the convergence speed of the
algorithm. Then the superiority of the algorithm was
verified by using IEEE standard functions. Finally, the
MPPT control system simulation based on CCAOA was
made, and algorithm performance comparison among PSO,
TSO, AOA and CCAOA was done. The results show that
CCAOA has faster convergence speed and tracking
accuracy, and is not easy to fall into LMPP, thus
decrease the power loss of the PV power generator
system.
2 PV Array Model and Output Characteristics
2.1 Photovoltaic Cell Model
Fig.1 shows the mathematical model of a single PV
cell. Iph is the photo current generated by the PV cell, Id is
the current flowing through the diode, VDS is the voltage
across the diode, and Ip is the current through the parallel
resistor Rp. I is the output current of the cell and V is the
output voltage. When the ambient temperature and
sunlight irradiation are constant, the current Iph remains
constant and can be regarded as a constant current source
[Error! Reference source not found.].
The expression for the output current I of a
photovoltaic cell is as follows:
V + IRs
I = I ph − I d − I p = I ph − I d −
Rp (1)
+ Id Ip I +
Rs
Iph
VDS Ds Rp
V
- -
Fig.1 Mathematical model of photovoltaic cells
 Fig.2 a PV Array
b P-V Characteristic Curves

4×1
PV array

a b

The expression for the diode current Id is as follows: In engineering applications, as some PV cells are in
 qVd   q(V + IRs )  indifferent irradiation, for example caused by shading,
I d = I 0  e KT − 1 = I 0 e  KT − 1
    (2)
they easily become loads and consume energy, resulting in
 
Where I0 is the diode saturation current; q is the unit high PV cell temperature and the "hot spot effect". So that
charge; K is the Boltzmann constant; T is the Kelvin a bypass diode is usually connected to each PV cell in
temperature; η is the ideal factor of the dipole, generally parallel to prevent the PV cells from being damaged. As
taking the value of 1~2, and the ideal diode factor is 1. shown in Fig.2(a), a set of [4×1] PV arrays under partial
The diode saturation current I0 is expressed as shading conditions is used as the study object. The
follows: individual PV cell parameters are: maximum power
3 qEg  1 1 
T   − 
 K  Tr T 
Pm=264.75W; open circuit voltage Uoc=44.6V; short
I 0 = I RS   e (3)
 Tr  circuit current Isc=8.15A; maximum power point voltage
Where IRS is the reverse saturation current of the diode; Eg Um=35.3V; maximum power point current Im=7.5A.
is the bandgap energy of the diode; Tr is the ambient When the PV array is in the shadow state, there are
temperature reference value, which takes the value as 25°. multiple peaks in the P-V characteristic curve of the PV
The photogenerated current Iph is influenced by the array, as shown in Fig.2(b). Moreover, the location of the
solar irradiance G and ambient temperature T. The global peak is heavily dependent on factors such as the
expression for Iph is as follows: environment. The use of conventional MPPT algorithms
G leads to high power losses, so the use of meta-heuristic
I ph = [ I scr + Ki (T − Tr )]
1000 (4) MPPT algorithms is one of the most efficient ways to
Where Iscr is the short-circuit current; Ki is the ambient solve the problem of multi-peaks of PV arrays.
temperature influence factor.
A PV cell array usually consists of several PV cells 3 Collaborative and Cosine Arithmetic
connected in series and parallel. Assuming that the PV Optimization Algorithm (CCAOA)
array consists of M * N PV cells, where M cells are 3.1 Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm
connected in series to form a PV battery string, and such N
battery strings are connected in parallel, the PV array Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm uses the four
output current Ism is expressed as follows: mathematics operations to solve math multipolar problem.
GN These four operators are division (D), multiplication (M),
I sm = [ I scr + K i (T − Tr ) −
1000 subtraction (S), and addition (A). D and M are used for
N
 q VMsm + INsm Rs   Vsm − I sm Rs global exploration, while S and A are for local exploitation.
NI 0  e  
− 1 − M
  Rsh (5) The algorithm involves three specific phases: initialization,
exploration, and exploitation.
2.2 Output characteristic curve of PV array under
partial shading 3.1.1 Initialization
3
 During the initialization phase, the AOA randomly
r2
generates N initial candidate solutions in the search space, µ

each of which converges towards the global optimal µ r3

solution using mathematical models based on arithmetic

operators.
Then before performing search, the algorithm
determines whether to perform global exploration or local Division (D)

exploitation by comparing the size of r1 and the value of Multiplication (M)

Subtraction (S)
math optimizer accelerated (MOA) function. If r1>MOA Addition (A)
Optimum aera
(r1 is a random number within [0,1]), the exploration phase Move

begins. Otherwise, the exploitation phase starts. The MOA

function is given by Eq.6: Fig.3 Position updating model in AOA
Max − Min
MOA(C _ Iter ) = Min + C _ Iter  ( )
M _ Iter (6) 3.1.3 Exploitation
Where C_Iter is current iteration number, M_Iter is the
When the exploration phase starts, the S and A
maximum number of iterations, Min, Max are the
operators perform exploitation phases owing to their high-
minimum and maximum values of acceleration function,
density nature, which can speed up the search of the
and Min value is 0.2, Max value is 1, accordingly.
population towards the target. If r3 < 0.5 (r3 is a random
3.1.2 Exploration number within [0,1]), the position is updated by operator S.
Else, A operator is responsible for updating the position.
When the exploration phase starts, the D and M
The mathematical model of position update is represented
operators perform exploration due to their highly
by Eq.9.
decentralized nature, which can explore the search field
best ( x) − MOP  ((UB − LB )  
extensively, thus avoid local optimal solutions. If r2 < 0.5 + LB) r 2  0.5

X ( C _ Iter + 1) = 
（r2 is a random number within [0,1]）, the D is executed. best ( x) + MOP  ((UB − LB )   +

 LB) otherwise (9)
Otherwise, the M is carried out. The position updated is
expressed by Eq.7: Fig.3 illustrates the search mechanism of AOA to
best ( x)  ( MOP +  )  ((UB find the global optimal solution in a two-dimensional
 − LB )   + LB ) r 2  0.5
 search space. As shown in Fig.3, the D, M, S, and A
X ( C _ Iter + 1) = 
best ( x )  MOP  ((UB − LB ) operators are used in the search space to update the
 (7)
 + LB ) otherwise
locations of candidate solutions, aiming for obtaining the
Where 𝜀 is a small integer number, best(x) is the position
global optimal solution.
of the current optimal individual x, and UB and LB are the
upper and lower search limits respectively. µ is a control 3.2 CCAOA
parameter to adjust the search process and its value is 0.5.
In GMPP tracking, the conventional AOA has some
Math Optimizer Probability (MOP) is a probability
limitations that lead to poor exploration. This is related to
coefficient, and its value is calculated by Eq.8 as follows:
1
three factors: (i) In the actual search process, the choice of
C _ Iter  global exploration and local exploitation varies nonlinearly,
MOP(C _ Iter ) = 1 − 1
M _ Iter  (8) while the MOA function is a linearly varying curve, so it
Where α represents the sensitivity parameter for iterative leads to poorer search results. (ii) control parameter µ and
development accuracy, which is set to 5 in AOA. boundary conditions are all constants throughout the
iterations (i.e., more than half of the variables in the
equations are constants, resulting in lack of randomness),
so it is easy to diverge from the global optimal region. (iii)
During local exploitation, the algorithm does not

4
effectively utilize the A and S operators, thus reducing the
individual search capability and leading to poor accuracy.
To solve these problems, an improvement AOA called
collaborative and cosine AOA (CCAOA) was proposed. In
CCAOA, MOA is amended, control parameter µ is
modified, crossover variation strategy is used in global
exploration, and collaborative exploitation of the A and S
operators is applied in local exploitation.
3.2.1 Amendment of MOA
MOA function value is used to randomly determine
whether to execute global exploration or local exploitation.
The larger the value of MOA function, the greater the
likelihood of conducting a local search. While the smaller
the value of MOA function, the greater the possibility of
executing a global search. In the AOA, the curve of MOA
function described in Eq.6 is a straight line that grows
linearly from 0.2 to 1 with the number of iterations. It
shows the probability of MOA function values over 0.5 is
higher, and below 0.5 is lower, which decreases the
likelihood of global exploration and increases the
possibility of local exploitation, which cannot keep the
balance of global exploration and local exploitation.
In this work the MOA function was reconstructed
into a nonlinear function by introducing a cosine factor.
The amended MOA (AMOA) function is given by Eq.10.
C _ Iter   (10)
MOA(C _ Iter ) = Max − ( Max − Min)  cos( )
2 M _ Iter
Where C_Iter is current iteration number, M_Iter is the
maximum number of iterations, Min, Max are the
minimum and maximum values of acceleration function,
which are 0.2 and 1, respectively.
According to Eq.10 and Eq.6, the curve of AMOA
function and MOA function can be drawn as Fig.4 shows.
Fig.4 MOA and AMOA curve
5
In Fig.4, the curve in blue presents standard MOA
function, while the curve in red presents the improved
MOA function. From the figure, it can be seen that the
improved MOA function value keeps slow growth in the
early stage of iteration, which is beneficial for global
exploration, and maintains rapid growth in the later stage
of iteration, which makes local search faster and improves
the algorithm's convergence speed, thus keep the balance
of global exploration and local exploitation.
3.2.2 Control parameter µ modification
During the iteration process, the position update of
the candidate solutions is related to the constant control
parameter µ. In the original AOA, µ takes the value of 0.5,
which is obviously not beneficial to the diversity of
population position. In this work, the chaotic circle
mapping is introduced into µ to increase the diversity of
population. The modified mathematical model of µ is
given by Eq.11.
b
 = x + a − mod(
1 sin(2 x1),1)
2 (11)
Where a=0.5, b=2.2, and x1 is a random number within
[0,1]. According to Eq.11, the distribution of the values of
control parameter µ changing with iteration number is
shown in Fig.5.
Fig.5 Circle Chaos map diagram
In Fig.5, it can be seen that the values of control
parameter µ are distributed between 0 and 1, most of them
are concentrated in the range of 0.4 to 0.6. Thus, the
diversity of the population can be increased and the
superiority of the original algorithm parameters can be
inherited, which avoid falling into the local optimal
solution.
3.2.3 Crossover variation strategy
 In global exploration, if the change in population
position satisfies the Eq.12 and Eq.13. Then it indicates
that the individual position updated exceeds the boundary
range of the search, which not satisfying the algorithm's
requirements.
X ( C _ Iter + 1) − best ( X )  k  (UB − LB )
X ( C _ Iter + 1)  UB
Where UB is the upper limit of the search region, LB is the
lower limit of the search region, k is a control threshold,
which is taken as 0.05 in this work.
To solve the problem, the cross-variance strategy is
introduced to update the individual position by exchanging
A or S operator by a random number r3. This strategy is
randomized and does not retain information about
previously excellent individuals. Therefore, in this paper, a
sign function is used to guide the position update through
comparing the information of the previous excellent
(12) individual and the current individual, which helps to
(13) enhance the convergence speed of the MPPT control
algorithm. The update of the position is given by Eq.15.
f ( best ( x ) ) − f ( x )
X (C _ Iter + 1) = best ( x) + sign( )  MOP
best ( x) − x
(15)
((UB − LB)   + LB)
Where sign(x) is the sign function, f(best(x)) is the fitness

information between the optimal and random individuals. value of the current population optimal individual, f(x) is

The mathematical model of update the position is given by the fitness value of the current individual, best(x) is the

Eq.14. current population optimal individual position, and x is the

X (C _ Iter ) = Qrand + p  (1 − t  best ( x))
Where Qrand is a random number in [0,1], p is a random
number within [-1,1] for the coefficient of variation, t is a
random number within [0,1] for the crossover coefficient.
This strategy increases the randomness of the population
and improves the algorithm exploration capability.
3.2.4 Collaborative exploitation of the A and S
In exploitation, the AOA chooses the execution of the
(14) current individual position, µ is given by Eq.11.
3.3 Algorithm performance verification
In order to verify the superiority of CCAOA, six
IEEE standard test functions are used to verify the
algorithm performance, and performance comparison
simulations ware done with AOA, PSO and TSO
respectively. The test function expressions are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1 Test functions used in Function Dim Zone Fmin

this work
F1 =  i =1 | xi | + i =1 | xi | 10 [-10,10] 0
30 30

i 10 [-100,100] 0
F 2 =  i =1(x j ) 2
30

j=1

F 3 =  i =1ixi4 + random  0,1) 10 [-1,1] 0

30

30 10 [-5,5] 0
F 4 =  [ xi2 − 10cos(2 + 10)]
i =1

1 30 2 30 x  10 [-500,500] 0
F5 = 
4000 i =1
xi −  cos  i  + 1
i =1  i

{10sin 2 ( y1 ) +  i =1 ( yi − 1) + ( yn − 1)
29 2 2
F6 = 50 [-10,10] 0
30
 1 + 10sin ( yi + 1) } +  i =1u ( xi ,10,100, 4 )
2 30

6
Fig.6 Results for
test functions F1-F6
Fig.6 show the optimality seeking effect of AOA,
PSO, TSO and CCAOA in the test function. From the
above figure, it can be seen that PSO has a poor global
optimization effect and is easy to fall into local optimality.
In the single-peak test functions, the optimization effect of
AOA is better than that of TSO, and in the multi-peak test
functions, the optimization effects of AOA and TSO are
similar. But the overall convergence speed is relatively
slow. And the CCAOA has the best optimization finding
effect for both single-peak and multi-peak test functions,
and it can find the optimal solution more quickly in most
of the test functions. Therefore, CCAOA is more capable
of finding the optimal solution than AOA, TSO and PSO,
and the convergence speed is faster.
4 MPPT Control Strategy Based on CCAOA
4.1 MPPT Control System
MPPT control system consists of PV arrays and
Boost circuit with a resistive load. The circuit schematic
diagram of the MPPT control system is shown in Fig.7.
7
The parameters of circuit are set as C1=10uF, C2=50uF,
L1=3mH, R=50 Ω. The simulation model was built in
MATLAB/SIMULINK.
4.2 Flow chart of MPPT based on CCAOA
When the weather, dust and other environmental
factors lead to changes in irradiation and temperature, the
GMPP of the PV array will also change. The MPPT
control system should respond quickly in this situation and
quickly restart tracking the new GMPP. The restart
condition is given by Eq.16.
Ppv − Pm
P=  (16)
Pm
Where Ppv is the current output power of the system, Pm is
the maximum power point power, β is the termination
threshold, which is set to 0.05 in this work.
The procedure for the MPPT control based on
CCAOA is as follows:
Step-1: Initialize the CCAOA parameter information,
individual position is duty cycle in MPPT systems. Where
the initial parameters Max=1, Min=0, α =5.
Step-2: Calculate the fitness value at the current position
using Eq.17.
Ppv = Vpv  Ipv
Step-3: if P(C_iter)>P(best), update the fitness value of
the optimal individual using Eq.18.
P(best )=P(C _ iter )
Step-4: Update MOP, MOA, µ, using Eq.8, Eq.10, Eq.11.
Step-5: If r1 > MOA, CCAOA performs global exploration.
Use Eq.7 to update the position, and if the position
updated out during this exploration satisfies Eq.12 and
Eq.13, the Eq.14 can be used to update the position again.
Else, execute the exploitation phase and update the
position using Eq.15.
Step-6: If Eq.19 is satisfied, the optimal position is output
and the search is stopped, Q is taken as 0.01.
(17) P(C _ iter ) − P(C _ iter − 1)  Q  P(C _ iter ) (19)
Step-7: Repeat step 2 to step 7 until the end of the
iteration.
(18)
Step-8: Check if the iteration reaches the maximum value.
If yes, send the best position and terminate the search.
Step9: If Eq.16 is satisfied, the algorithm starts step 1 and
restarts.
The MPPT control flow chart based on CCAOA is
shown in Fig.8

Fig.7 Circuit schematic of MPPT

MPPT PWM
control system
IPV
MOSI

D
+
L1
S1

S2

MOSI
VPV Duty cycle
C1 C2 R
S3

S4

-
Boost converter
Solar PV array

Fig.8 MPPT control flow chart based Start

on CCAOA
Yes No
MOA<r1？
Algorithm
Update
initialization
individual
positions using
Equation 7

Controller
collects Ipv, Update Update
Whether individual
Vpv and individual
expressions 12 and locations using
calculates Ppv positions using
No 13 are satisfied Yes Equation 14 Equation 15
Yes
P(C_Iter)>P(best)
？

P(best)=P(C_Iter) C_Iter=C_Iter+1
BOOST No
Dbest=C_Iter
circuit
Whether
expression 19 is
satisfied? Yes

No

No C_Iter>M_Iter
PWM ?

Yes

Yes Whether the No

restart conditions end
are met?

8
Table 2 Photovoltaic irradiance patterns and GMPP values of different patterns
PV Module
Pattern S1 S2 S3 S4 GMPP (W)
G1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1060.47
G2 400 500 1000 700 459.91
G3 500 500 1000 1000 562.00
G4 900/800 900/800 900/400 900/700 936.70/564.4
G5 100/800 600/800 400/400 700/700 382.91/564.4

5 Comparison simulation of MPPT algorithms
In this work, the suggested four algorithms (CCAOA,
AOA, PSO, and TSO) was applied to PV system, and their
performances were evaluated using five distinct sets of
irradiance patterns given in Table 2 and the temperature is
set as 25°. Among them, G1 is uniform irradiation, G2 and
G3 are static partial shading conditions, G4 and G5 are
dynamic partial shading conditions (after 2s the irradiation
changes).
5.1 Under static conditions
MPPT performance comparison simulation of four
algorithms (CCAOA, AOA, PSO, and TSO) were
conducted under three different static irradiance levels,
labeled as G1-G3. The simulation results are presented in
Fig.9- Fig.11.

Fig.9 G1 pattern

Fig.10 G2 pattern

9
 Fig.11 G3 pattern
From Fig.9, it can be seen that under G1 (uniform
irradiance) condition all four algorithms are capable of
converging near the GMPP. The converging speed of the
algorithms can be ranked from fastest to slowest as
follows: CCAOA > AOA > PSO > TSO. TSO exhibits the
longest search time, taking 1.63s, while CCAOA achieves
the GMPP within only 0.31s. The accuracy or the tracking
efficiency of the algorithms can be ranked from highest to
lowest as follows: CCAOA > TSO > PSO > AOA. AOA
shows the poorest tracking efficiency at 99.89%, while
CCAOA has an efficiency of 99.99%. In summary,
compared with the other three algorithms, the performance
of CCAOA is excellent, which has the fastest converging
speed and the highest efficiency under uniform irradiance.
As shown in Fig.10, under G2 condition, TSO gets
trapped in the LMPP. AOA and PSO take approximately
Fig.12 G4 pattern
10
1.02s and 1.31s, respectively, to converge near the GMPP.
In contrast, CCAOA efficiently finds the GMPP in just
0.35s, achieving a tracking efficiency of 99.98%.
As shown in Fig.11, under G3 condition, PSO fails to
track the GMPP. AOA becomes trapped in the LMPP.
While both CCAOA and TSO successfully track the
GMPP with values of 561.91W and 561.35W, respectively.
However, CCAOA exhibits a higher tracking efficiency of
99.98%. Furthermore, the tracking time for TSO is 0.71s,
while CCAOA's tracking time is only 0.42s, which is
faster in speed.
5.2 Under dynamic conditions
Under two different dynamic conditions, labeled as
G4&G5, the MPPT performance comparison simulation
results of four algorithms are shown in Fig.12- Fig.13.
 Fig.13 G5 pattern

Table 3 Performance Maximum Tracking Tracking power

Pattern Algorithm Tracking efficiency (%)
comparison of four power (W) time (s) (W)
algorithms in five cases. TSO 1.63 1060.21 99.98
PSO 1.11 1060.18 99.97
G1 1060.47
AOA 0.41 1059.33 99.89
CCAOA 0.31 1060.32 99.99
TSO 0.09 423.79 92.15
PSO 1.31 459.75 99.97
G2 459.91
AOA 1.02 458.98 99.80
CCAOA 0.35 459.84 99.98
TSO 0.71 561.35 99.88
PSO - - -
G3 562.00
AOA 0.42 538.98 95.90
CCAOA 0.42 561.91 99.98
TSO 1.09/2.94 936.47/564.03 99.97/99.93
PSO 0.87/2.57 935.92/564.25 99.91/99.97
G4 936.70/564.40
AOA 0.52/2.52 932.19/540.49 99.52/95.76
CCAOA 0.41/2.42 936.43/564.35 99.97/99.99
TSO 1.01/2.98 329.05/564.29 99.92/99.98
PSO 0.98/2.09 329.20/423.44 99.97/75.02
G5 329.30/564.40
AOA 0.52/2.54 307.13/564.30 93.27/99.98
CCAOA 0.41/2.41 329.26/564.37 99.99/99.99
Current sensor
Voltage sensor

PWM

a b
Fig.14 a Experimental system structure b The experimental setup

11
 From Fig.12, it is evident that AOA easily gets
trapped in LMPP. CCAOA has a faster convergence rate
compared to PSO and TSO algorithms, and TSO exhibits
significant steady-state oscillations.
From Fig.13, PSO gets trapped in LMPP after
changing in irradiance. Both TSO and AOA have also
relatively longer convergence times than CCAOA, and
TSO also exhibits significant oscillations.
As compared to TSO, AOA, and PSO algorithms,
CCAOA can adapt to external environmental changes
quickly and accurately track the GMPP under two
dynamic irradiance conditions above. It demonstrates the
faster tracking speed and higher tracking efficiency of
above 99.95%. The performance comparison of four
algorithms in five cases was shown in Table 3.
6 Experimental setup
To verify the proposed CCAOA-based MPPT control
method, the hardware experiment platform is constructed.
a b
Fig.15 a P-V characteristic curve under uniform irradiation
The platform includes STM32F334 controller chip, and
ITECH's IT6005C-80-150 programmable PV simulator,
the Boost main circuit and its control circuit which forms
a board and a resistor used as the output load. The
structure of the experimental system is shown in Fig.14(a),
The experimental equipment used in this work is shown
in Fig.14(b).
This experiment is validated in three different
environments and the results are shown in Fig.15 , Fig.16
and Fig.17. The three experimental conditions for which
they had a maximum power point were 106.06W, 67.22W
and 90.08W respectively. The tracking efficiency of the
CCAOA-based MPPT method is 99.22%, 99.33%, and
99.54% under the three experimental conditions. The
experimental results show that above experimental output
curves are similar to those of the MATLAB/ SIMULINK
simulation results. Therefore, the feasibility of the
algorithm is successfully verified.
Power(W)
Voltage(V)
Current(A)
Time(Sec)
b Output curves based on uniform irradiation condition
12
 Power(W)
Voltage(V)
Current(A)
Time(Sec)

a b
Fig.16 a P-V characteristic curve under localized shading condition 1 b Output curves based on localized shading condition 1

Power(W)
Voltage(V)
Current(A)

Time(Sec)

a b
Fig.17 a P-V characteristic curve under localized shading condition 2 b Output curves based on localized shading condition 2

7 Conclusion

In this paper Collaborative and Cosine AOA different irradiance patterns were validated in MATLAB/
(CCAOA) was proposed to further improve the SIMULINK environment when comparing with TSO,
performance of the MPPT control system. The CCAOA AOA, and PSO algorithms. The results indicate that the
was tested using IEEE standard test functions. Meanwhile, CCAOA enhances both exploration and exploitation by
the excellent performance of the CCAOA under five providing a cosine factor, circle chaotic mapping with the
13
help of cross-variance strategy and the cooperative photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions via

strategy in the search. When compared with TSO, AOA, modified model predictive control. Electrical Engineering

and PSO algorithms, the CCAOA shows superior search 103:1923–1947.

performance, faster convergence speed and higher 4. Ibrahim A, Aboelsaud R, Obukhov S (2019) Improved particle

tracking efficiency ， smaller steady-state oscillations. swarm optimization for global maximum power point tracking of

Future studies could be carried out in considering more partially shaded PV array. Electrical Engineering 101:443–455

accurate mathematical model of PV cell. 5. Hassan Aakash, Bass Octavian, Masoum Mohammad A.S. (2023)
An improved genetic algorithm based fractional open circuit
8 Declarations
voltage MPPT for solar PV systems. Energy Reports 9:1535-1548.

Ethical Approval 6. Harrison Ambe, Nfah Eustace Mbaka, de Dieu Nguimfack

Not applicable. Ndongmo Jean, Alombah Njimboh Henry (2022) An Enhanced

P&O MPPT Algorithm for PV Systems with Fast Dynamic and

Competing interests Steady-State Response under Real Irradiance and Temperature

Always applicable and includes interests of a financial or Conditions. International Journal of Photoenergy 2022:21

personal nature 7. Bongsuck Kim, Jiajun Ding, Woosik Sim, Jongmin Jo, Hanju Cha
(2019) A Study on High-Efficiency MPPT Algorithm Based on

Authors' contributions P&O Method with Variable Step Size. The Transactions of Korean

Applicable for submissions with multiple authors. Institute of Power Electronics 24(1):1-8.
8. Xie Lei, Han Tong, Zhou Huan, Zhang Zhuo Ran, Han Bo, Tang

Funding Andi (2021) Tuna Swarm Optimization: A Novel Swarm-Based

Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global Optimization. Computational

(2023AFB992) Intelligence and Neuroscience 2021:9210050-9210050

Open Research Fund for Hubei Provincial Key Laboratory 9. Katche Musong L., Makokha Augustine B., Zachary Siagi O.,

of Efficient Solar Energy Utilization and Energy Storage Adaramola Muyiwa S (2023) A Comprehensive Review of

Operation Control (HBSEES202315) Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) Techniques Used in
Solar PV Systems. Energies 16(5):2206.

Availability of data and materials 10. Ji-Ying Shi, Fei Xue, Zi-Jian Qin, Le-Tao Ling, Ting Yang, Yi

The data that support the findings of this study are Wang, Jun Wu (2016) Tracking the global maximum power point

available from the corresponding author upon reasonable of a photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions using a

request. modified firefly algorithm. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable

Energy 8(3): 033501
11. Yong Tian, Bizhong Xia, Wei Sun, Zhihui Xu, Weiwei Zheng

9 References (2014) Modeling and global maximum power point tracking for
photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions using
1. Dalia Yousri, Thanikanti Sudhakar Babu, Dalia Allam, Vigna K.
modified particle swarm optimization algorithm. Journal of
Ramachandaramurthy, Magdy B. Etiba (2019) A Novel Chaotic
Renewable and Sustainable Energy 6(6): 063117
Flower Pollination Algorithm for Global Maximum Power Point
12. G. Dileep, S.N. Singh (2017) An improved particle swarm
Tracking for Photovoltaic System Under Partial Shading
optimization based maximum power point tracking algorithm for
Conditions. IEEE Access 7: 121432-121445
PV system operating under partial shading conditions. Solar
2. Sarwar Sajid, Javed Muhammad Yaqoob, Jaffery Mujtaba Hussain,
Energy 158:1006-1015
Arshad Jehangir, Ur Rehman Ateeq, Shafiq Muhammad, Choi
13. AboKhalil Ahmed G., Alharbi Walied, AlQawasmi Abdel Rahman,
JinGhoo (2022) A Novel Hybrid MPPT Technique to Maximize
Alobaid Mohammad, Alarifi Ibrahim M. (2021) Maximum Power
Power Harvesting from PV System under Partial and Complex
Point Tracking of PV Systems under Partial Shading Conditions
Partial Shading. Applied Sciences 12(2):587.
Based on Opposition-Based Learning Firefly Algorithm.
3. Samani L, Mirzaei R (2021) Maximum power point tracking for
Sustainability 13(5): 2656-2656
14
14. AlShammaa Abdullrahman A., M. Abdurraqeeb Akram,Noman
Abdullah M., Alkuhayli Abdulaziz, Farh Hassan M. H. (2022)
Hardware-In-the-Loop Validation of Direct MPPT Based Cuckoo
Search Optimization for Partially Shaded Photovoltaic System.
Electronics 11(10): 1655-1655
15. Fu Changxin,Zhang Lixin, Dong Wancheng (2022) Research and
Application of MPPT Control Strategy Based on Improved Slime
Mold Algorithm in Shaded Conditions. Electronics 11(14): 2122-
2122
16. Abualigah Laith, Diabat Ali, Mirjalili Seyedali, Abd Elaziz
Mohamed, Gandomi Amir H. (2021) The Arithmetic Optimization
Algorith. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 376: 113609
17. Peng Lu, Sun Chaohao, Wu Wenli (2022) Effective arithmetic
optimization algorithm with probabilistic search strategy for
function optimization problems. Data Science and Management
5(4):163-174
18. Liu Zhilei, Li Mingying, Pang Guibing, Song Hongxiang, Yu Qi,
Zhang Hui (2022) A Multi-Strategy Improved Arithmetic
Optimization Algorithm. Symmetry 14(5):1011-1011
19. Li Xu Dong, Wang Jie Sheng, Hao Wen Kuo, Zhang Min, Wang
Min (2022) Chaotic arithmetic optimization algorithm. Applied
Intelligence 52(14):16718-16757
20. Aydemir Salih Berkan (2022) A novel arithmetic optimization
algorithm based on chaotic maps for global optimization.
Evolutionary Intelligence 16(3):981-996
21. Agushaka Jeffrey O., Ezugwu Absalom E. (2021) Evaluation of
several initialization methods on arithmetic optimization
15
algorithm performance. Journal of Intelligent Systems 31(1):70-94
22. AlJame Maryam, Alnoori Aisha, Alfailakawi G. Mohammad,
Ahmad Imtiaz (2023) A Spark-Based Parallel Implementation of
Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm. International Journal of
Applied Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC) 14(1):1-27
23. Zhang Rui, Yang Bo, Chen Nuo (2022) Arithmetic optimization
algorithm based MPPT technique for centralized TEG systems
under different temperature gradients. Energy Reports 8:2424-
2433
24. Mohamed Ahmed Ebrahim, Nasser Ahmed Shymaa, Eladly
Metwally Mohamed (2023) Arithmetic optimization algorithm
based maximum power point tracking for grid-connected
photovoltaic system. Scientific Reports 13(1):5961-5961
25. Chtita Smail, Derouich Aziz, Motahhir Saad, EL Ghzizal
Abdelaziz (2023) A new MPPT design using arithmetic
optimization algorithm for PV energy storage systems operating
under partial shading conditions. Energy Conversion and
Management 289: 117197
26. Thota Rajasekar, Sinha Nidul (2022) An enhanced arithmetic
optimization algorithm for global maximum power point tracking
of photovoltaic systems under dynamic irradiance patterns[J].
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects 44(4): 10116-10134
27. Charin Chanuri, Ishak Dahaman, Mohd Zainuri Muhammad
Ammirrul Atiqi, Ismail Baharuddin, Mohd Jamil Mohamad
Kamarol (2021) A hybrid of bio-inspired algorithm based on Levy
flight and particle swarm optimizations for photovoltaic system
under partial shading conditions. Solar Energy 217:1-14