0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

20 Aufrufe24 SeitenModified Firefly Algorithm

Jun 15, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Modified Firefly Algorithm

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

20 Aufrufe

Modified Firefly Algorithm

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- MPPT6
- The Research of Maximum Power Point Tracking Control Algorithm for Photovoltaic Cells Based on Improved Perturbation‐ Observation Method
- 04800248
- A study of maximum power point tracking algorithms for stand-alone Photovoltaic Systems.pdf
- CHL0072 Synopsis
- 1
- Mohamed 2014
- Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques a Review-37
- P and O MPPT Implementation Using MATLAB Simulink
- energies-10-02036-v2
- A New MPPT for PV
- Ieee Pv Simulation
- Fuzzy Logic Based MPPT for Photovoltaic Modules Influenced by Solar Irradiation and Cell Temperature
- 1-s2.0-S1875389212000466-main
- 2013-Application of the DTC Control in the Photovoltaic Pumping System
- IJETR033013
- Article_A46.pdf
- MPPT-based ANN for photovoltaic system
- Ieee Argencon 2016 Paper 32
- Enhanced MPPT Technique For DC-DC Luo Converter Using Model Predictive Control For Photovoltaic Systems

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

Maximum Power Point Tracking Control

Under Partial Shading

D. F. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract

Photovoltaic (PV) modules subjected to partial shading conditions (PSC) can drastically decrease their power

output. Hence, there have been various maximum power point tracking (MPPT) control algorithms developed to

reduce or counteract the shading effects. Recently, a new meta-heuristic algorithm known as firefly algorithm (FA)

was developed, which, under PSC, has been shown to successfully track the GMP. Nevertheless, the FA still has

some inherent problems, which may hinder the performance of the MPPT. This paper modifies the existing FA to

counteract these problems. As will be demonstrated in the paper, the proposed modified FA (MFA) method can

reduce the number of computation operations and the time for converging to the GMP that the existing FA requires.

Experimental results show that the proposed method can track the global point under various PSC, has a faster

convergence time, compared to the FA, and can effectively suppress the power and voltage fluctuations.

Index Terms

Maximum power point tracking (MPPT), photovoltaic (PV) array, partial shading, global optimization, firefly

algorithm

I. I NTRODUCTION

Partial shading on a photovoltaic (PV) string comprising multiple modules or substrings is known as a serious

problem that significantly decreases the energy utilization. Under partially shading conditions (PSC), the shaded

cells in a module become reverse biased and behave as a load, leading to the hot spot problem. To avoid this,

bypass diodes are used to conduct the current generated by the non-shaded cells within a module. However, the

connection of bypass diodes will change the uniform current-voltage (I-V) and power-voltage (P-V) characteristics

of the module, resulting in multiple peaks [1]. To maximize the efficiency of the module, it is necessary to track

the global maximum point (GMP).

D. F. Teshome, C. H. Lee, Y. W. Lin, and K. L. Lian are with Power and Energy Group of National Taiwan University of Science and

Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, 106, R.O.C. (e-mails: d10207804@mail.ntust.edu.tw; t40143031103@gmail.com; m10307213@mail.ntust.edu.tw ;

kllian@mouse.ee.ntust.edu.tw ).

This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology under contract No.: 103-2221-E-011-099.

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

The conventional MPPT methods such as perturb-and-observe (P&O) [2], [3], hill-climbing (HC) [4] and incre-

mental conductance (INC) [5] essentially rely on determining the gradient of the power with respect to the current,

voltage or duty cycle using the perturbation method for tracking movement [6]. Consequently, the main drawback

of these methods is that they cannot differentiate between a local maximum point (LMP) and the GMP, and the

attained point may be a LMP, leading to power losses. Note that in general, for a utility scale PV system, although

the site will be carefully selected to ensure good solar irradiance and to avoid partial shading (PS) caused by other

buildings or surrounding obstacles, the PS caused by clouds and the mutual shading occurred between adjacent PV

blocks are inevitable in practice [7], [8]. For residential PV installations, PS caused by buildings, trees, clouds, etc.

are very common.

Two approaches are generally used to reduce or counteract the shading effect. The first is based on hardware

fixtures such as dynamic reconfiguration of PV modules according to the shading patterns [9], [10]; distributed

architecture where each module has its own controller [11], [12], [13], [14]; multilevel converter system [15],

allowing each PV source to be controlled separately; and power electronic equalizers [16], [17] which ensure that

all the substrings operate at the same voltage under PSC. This approach is complex and costly [18]. The second

approach is to track the GMP by developing advanced control algorithms (ACA), and this will be the focus of this

paper.

The developed ACA in general can be classified into linear search (LS), artificial intelligence methods (AIM), and

meta-heuristic algorithms (MHAs). Many LS methods are essentially improvements of the conventional maximum

power point tracking (MPPT) methods. For example, Koutroulis and Blaabjerg [18] have proposed a two-stage

method. Firstly, a scanning process is utilized to detect the regions that contain the GMP. Then, in the second stage,

a P&O algorithm is used to find the GMP. However, the disadvantage of this method is that the searching step

(SS) greatly affects the probability of finding the GMP. When the SS is large, the system requires comparatively

less time to locate the GMP but may miss the GMP. On the other hand, a smaller SS can increase the probability

of locating the GMP but requires more time. Patel and Agarwal [19] have proposed a similar approach. First, 85%

of the open circuit voltage is used as the starting point to find and record a peak value. To check if there are

any subsequent peaks, the algorithm steps forward and conduct P&O to search and record the next peak value. If

the obtained value is lower than the previous peak, then the previous peak is the GMP; otherwise the algorithm

continues to move forward. Similar to [18], the problems with this method is that the size of the forward step

greatly affects the probability of tracking the GMP. In addition, as pointed out in [20] and [21], there are cases in

which this method fails to track the GMP. Boztepe et al. [22] have improved [18] by employing a power operating

triangle (POT) and voltage window to restrict the voltage range to be scanned. Nevertheless, the voltage step for

scanning still needs to be chosen with care to avoid missing the GMP. Other LS methods such as the DIRECT

(dividing rectangles) algorithm, proposed by Nguyen and Lehman [23], is based on a Lipschitz condition for finding

the maximum point. To ensure that the GMP is found, the search areas to be divided must also be selected wisely.

Lei et al. [24] proposed a sequential extremum seeking control (ESC) strategy for the GMP tracking. However, this

process requires the variation bound for the turning-point voltage to be found. This in turn requires knowledge of

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

the P-V or P-I characteristics under variable-shading circumstances, which may be difficult to obtain in practice.

In general, in order for LS methods to successfully track the GMP, one needs to choose the parameter carefully or

has a basic knowledge of the P-V or P-I characteristics under the PSC.

Researchers have also used AIM such as neural networks (NN) and fuzzy logic controllers (FLC) to develop

MPPT methods. In [25], a radial basis function and a three-layered feedforward NN are used to track the GMP.

However, the accuracy of this scheme depends on the volume of training data, and considerable computational effort

is needed to ensure reliability and accuracy under any shading condition. In [4], a FLC-based MPPT algorithm

with 16 rules defined in the logic rule table is presented. However, the FLC rule table is largely dependent on the

designers experience and a prior knowledge of how the specific PV system performs [21]. Hence, it is difficult to

generalize the system design, which is the major limitation of the FLC. For a more comprehensive review of FLC,

NN, and LS, [20], [21] are some of the good references.

Finally, a MPPT problem under PSC can be recast as an optimization problem without defined objective functions.

For these problems, MHAs are able to allocate the GMP by exploiting randomization to avoid being trapped in a

LMP and thereby enable the search globally. Chen et al. [26] demonstrated a MPPT method based on biological

swarm chasing behavior to increase the tracking performance. Nevertheless, only uniform insolation conditions were

considered and PSCs were not addressed. Miyatake et al. [27] have realized centralized MPPT control of modular

PV systems, and used the particle swarm optimization (PSO) to determine the individual module voltage. They

showed that the PSO can outperform conventional methods such as HC under PSCs. Ishaque et al. [28] and Liu et

al. [29] implemented PSO-based MPPT control algorithms in a PV system, consisting of a high-power single-stage

converter. However, as reported in [30], one problem of the PSO algorithm is the long GMP tracking time for large

search spaces. In [30], the authors proposed removing the random number from the PSO acceleration factors to

reduce the tracking time. Nevertheless, the value of the maximum change in particle velocity must be restricted,

otherwise LMPs may be obtained. Moreover, since the random numbers are removed, the algorithm lose the main

characteristic of a MHA and cannot be warranted to track the GMP in all PSC. Lian et al. [6] proposed a hybrid

method that combines PSO and P&O. Initially, the P&O is employed to identify the nearest LMP. Starting from

that point, the PSO method is used to search for the GMP. The advantage of this hybrid method is that the search

space of the PSO is reduced. Hence, the time required for convergence can be greatly decreased. Seyedmahmoudian

et al. [31] have proposed combining differential evolution (DE) and PSO. The DE and PSO are employed in an

alternative fashion where the PSO is applied every odd iteration, and the DE is run in every even iteration.

Researchers have also started to look for other MHAs for MPPT. Sundareswaran et al. [32] have proposed using

artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm for MPPT tracking under PSC, and have shown that ABC performs better

than PSO in terms of convergence time. Nevertheless, as stated in [32], the number of bees plays a critical role in

deciding convergence to GMP. If the number is low, the algorithm may get trapped in a LMP. In [33], Jiang et al.

have proposed using the ant colony optimization method for MPPT. The algorithm is tested against both uniform

and shading pattern conditions. However, the performance is almost identical to that of PSO. In 2007, a new MHA

known as firefly algorithm (FA) was developed by Yang [34]. Sundareswaran et al. [35] implemented the FA for

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

MPPT under PSC and shown that it has better tracking performance than PSO and P&O. Nevertheless, the FA still

has some inherent problems, which may hinder the performance of the MPPT. Firstly, the amount of computation

required for each iteration is high. Secondly, the wandering motion of a fly can be excessive if the number of other

brighter flies is high. This may cause the tracking time for GMP to be excessively high. This paper improves the

existing FA to counteract the two above mentioned problems. As will be demonstrated in the paper, the proposed

modified FA (MFA) method can reduce the number of computation operations and the time for converging to GMP

that the existing FA requires. The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. The FA will be briefly reviewed in

Section II. Section III then describes the proposed MFA method. The experimental setup and a comparison of the

FA and the MFA are described in Section IV. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section V.

In this paper, a voltage-based controller will be discussed. The PV voltage as the regulated variable is easier to

implement because the MPPT controller can quickly decide the initial points according to the percentage of the

open circuit voltage (Voc ) [36]. Duty-cycle as the regulated variable can also be done in a similar fashion.

The FA method proposed by Yang [34] has three fundamental assumptions. Firstly, all fireflies are unisex and

will move towards the brighter and more attractive ones until all of them have been compared (except for itself).

Secondly, the attractiveness of a firefly is related to its brightness, which depends on the distance between itself

and other flies. However, because of the light absorption of the air, the attractiveness decreases as the distance

increases. Finally, the brightness or light intensity of a firefly is determined by the value of the objective function

of a given problem. Mathematically, the FA algorithm can be expressed by three equations. The attractiveness,

can be quantitatively stated in (1).

(r) = 0 exp(rm ), m 1, (1)

where 0 is the initial attractiveness at r = 0, r is the distance between two fireflies, and is an absorption

coefficient controlling the reduction of the light intensity. m is an integer, and is set to 2. Equation (2) evaluates

the distance between two fireflies i and j, at positions xi and xj , respectively, and can be defined as Euclidean

distance. v

u d

uX

rij = kxi xj k = t (xi,k xj,k )2 (2)

k=1

where xi,k and xj,k are the k th component of the spatial coordinates of the ith and j th firefly, and d is the number

of the dimensions.

The movement of a firefly is determined by (3).

2 1

xi = xi + 0 erij (xj xi ) + (randn ), (3)

2

where [0, 1] and randn is a random perturbation value. Note that (3) clearly indicates that the movement of a

firefly is affected by attractiveness of a brighter fly and randomization. The randomization provides a good way to

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

move away from local search to the search on global scale. In general, a small value of tends to facilitate local

search while a large one promotes a global search [35].

The purpose of the MPPT block is to obtain Vref , which is sent to the PI controller. Therefore, the position (xi )

variable in (3) is actually the voltage references (Vref ) whereas the second and third terms of (3) can be regarded

as the correction terms for the voltage references. TABLE shows how the terminologies in FA match those of PV

systems.

FA algorithm PV system

Firefly position Voltage reference (Vref )

Distance Voltage difference (Vref )

Attractiveness An exponential function of Vref

Brightness Power (Ppv )

Brightness of the brightest firefly Global maximum power (PGbest )

Since the converter can only respond to one command at a time, the flies are initialized and evaluated in a

successive manner. Fig. 1 summarizes the control action of the FA used for MPPT. Firstly, Vref is initialized, and

the number of flies is set to N, where N is a positive integer. Moreover, the global maximum power, PGbest is

initialized by ranking all the initialized flies according to their power levels. Note that the power is calculated by

multiplying the measured voltage (Vpv ) and current (Ipv ). Then, the program proceeds to a nested for-loop. In the

inner loop, the intensity of fly i, (i.e. the power output Ppv,i is compared against that of fly j (i.e. Ppv,j ), and note

that j 6= i. If Ppv,j > Ppv,i , the voltage reference is updated by (3); otherwise, it is set to a random value. This

nested loop is executed until all the flies have been compared against each other. Note that for the case of MPPT,

d = 1. Hence, rij in (3) should be as stated in (4).

q

rij = (xi xj )2 . (4)

Then, PGbest is updated by ranking the fireflies. Finally, the convergence criterion as defined in (5) is checked

to ensure that the GMP is reached.

where 1 is a tolerance value. Note that generally the tolerance values in the stopping criteria of the meta-heuristic

algorithms are iteratively optimized via multiple runs as reported in [35], [37], [38], and [39].

The main problem of the original FA is that the position of each firefly is changed in a stepwise manner towards

the brighter fireflies. This is due to the fact that all the flies need to compare with each other, and each comparison

comes with a movement, which is governed by (3). This can be observed from Fig. 2. There are four fireflies

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

Begin

number of fireflies, N

Obtain PGbest

Is |PGbest-Ppv,i| 1 ? Is i N ?

i=1...N flies to

update PGbest

Yes

Yes

Calculate the power

(Ppv,i) for the firefly i i=i+1

by multiplying Vpv,i

and Ipv,i

No

Is j (N-1) ?

Yes

Calculate the power

(Ppv,j) for the firefly j

(j i)by multiplying

Vpv,j and Ipv,j

j=j+1

Evaluate (1) and (4) to

obtain the attractiveness

and distance

Is Ppv,j >Ppv,i ?

randomly

Yes

Update Vref

by (3)

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

Initial position

for fly 1 The trajectory movement of

fly 1

Final position

for fly 1

fly 3

fly 4

fly 2

in the space. Assume that flies 2, 3, and 4 are brighter than fly 1. Since it is difficult to describe the lightness

quantitatively, we use hue gradation to indicate the brightless level of the flies. Hence, fly 4 is the brightest, fly 3

is brighter than 2, and fly 1 has no coloration. As shown in the figure, fly 1 changes its position towards flies 2, 3

and 4, respectively, and the coloration (i.e. the brightness) of fly 1 also changes as its position changes. The zigzag

trajectories observed in Fig. 2 may cause the tracking time of the GMP to be excessively long.

Initial

position for

fly 1

fly 3

fly 4

xjavg

Final

position for

fly 2 fly 1

To overcome this problem, this paper proposes using the average of the coordinates of all the brighter fireflies

as the representative point, and the firefly will only move towards this point without wandering towards all the

brighter flies. Hence, the proposed modified FA (MFA) can drastically reduce the tracking time of the GMP.

This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The lightness levels of the four flies and the original position of fly 1 are the same

as those in Fig. 2. However, it only takes one step for fly 1 to move to the final position. The final position of fly

1 is the average of flies 2 to 4. Consequently, (3) is revised as follows:

2 1

xi = xi + 0 erijavg (xjavg xi ) + (randn ), (6)

2

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

where

q

rijavg = (xi xjavg )2 , (7)

L

1 X

xjavg = xj . (8)

L m=1

Note that L is the number of the brighter flies.

Fig. 4 summarizes the flow chart of the proposed method. Similar to the original FA, after initialization, the

program proceeds to a nested for-loop. The intensity of fly i, (i.e. the power output Ppv,i and that of a fly j (i.e.

Ppv,j ) are calculated. In the inner loop, Ppv,j is compared with Ppv,i to find out which flies are brighter than fly

i, and the number of these flies, which is L. Then, xjavg is calculated, and substituted into (6) and (7). Hence,

instead of updating xi with respect to each brighter fly, xi is updated with respect to the average of all the brighter

flies. This can drastically reduce the amount of computation.

Fig. 5 shows the experimental setup of the PV system used to validate the proposed method. The PV array

in the figure is realized by a programmable PV emulator manufactured by AMETEK (Model ETS600X8C-PVF).

This PV emulator is able to mimic the output of a photovoltaic installation exposed to various shading conditions.

Moreover, in terms of performance evaluation of the two MPPT control algorithms, a PV emulator is a good choice

because it can ensure that the two algorithms are being tested in exact same conditions. The DC-DC converter is a

boost converter with an interleaved topology to reduce ripple currents, improve reliability, and increase efficiency

[40]. The controller is implemented in a 32-bit digital signal processor (DSP-TMS320F28035), which sends out

gating signals, P W M1 and P W M2 , to the gate drivers to control the MOSFET switches (SW1 and SW2 ) in

a complementary fashion. Vpv and Ipv are sent to the DSP via sensor circuits and A/D converters. The MPPT

controller takes Vpv and Ipv and determines the voltage reference, which is then sent to the PI controller. The PI

controllers proportional gain is 0.2, and its integral gain is 0.1. The load is a resistive load whose voltage is

regulated by a dc voltage source (Chroma programmable DC power supply 620120P-600-8). Thus, the load voltage

is held at 450V. Table II summarizes the parameter values of the converter circuit, and Fig. 6 shows the actual

setup. Depending on the PV system application, a dc/dc power converter is used to interface the PV array output

power to either a battery bank or a dc/ac inverter connected to the grid. Both of these types can be represented by

Fig. 5.

The parameter values of 0 and for both the FA and the proposed MFA are both set to 1 and 0.96, respectively.

Note that the parameters are iteratively optimized via multiple runs so as to reach GMP in each PSC.

To validate the proposed method and thoroughly compare it with the original FA, two types of case studies

static and dynamic are investigated. In the static case studies, V-I curves representative of different partial shadings,

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

Begin

number of fireflies, N

Obtain PGbest

Set L=0

No

No i=i+1

Rank all the

Is |PGbest-Ppv,i| 1 ? flies to Is i N ?

i=1...N update PGbest Update Vref by (6)

Yes

Yes Calculate the power

(Ppv,i) for the firefly i by Evaluate (7)

multiplying Vpv,i and Ipv,i

No Set xjavg

No Is By (8)

Is j (N-1) ?

L>0 ?

Yes

Yes

Calculate the power (Ppv,j)

for the firefly j (j i)by

multiplying Vpv,j and Ipv,j

end No

j=j+1 Is Ppv,j > Ppv,i ?

Yes

L=L+1

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

10

L1 D1

Ipv Rs

+ +

L2 D2

PV Vpv Cpv Cdc Vdc

Array T1 T2

- -

T1 T2

PWM2 PWM3

DSP

TMS320F28035

Voltage

sensor A/D D/A

VPv,Ipv & Oscilloscope

Current converter converter

sensor

AMETEK PV Emulator

(ETS600X8C-PVF)

Power Supply for Oscilloscope

DSP Control Board

DSP

Chroma Control

62012P- Board DC-DC

600-8 Converter

Loads

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

11

Max. Output voltage 450 V

Input current 0.6 5 A

Output current 0.6 2.8 A

Switching frequency 100 kHz

D1 , D2 IQBD30E60A1

MOSFET switches SPW35N60C3

Load 300

L1 , L2 2 mH

Cpv , Cdc 120 F, 470 F

shown in Fig. 7, are imported to the PV emulator to study their tracking times and MPPT capabilities. For the

dynamic cases, sudden and gradual changes of these P-V curves (and their variants) presented in Fig. 7 with respect

to time are investigated to compare the dynamic tracking performance under PSC.

To ensure reliable operation, the interval between each flies, Tint cannot be smaller than the response time of

the PV emulator, which is 4 ms. Hence, Tint is set to 100 ms.

1) Case 1: There are five LMPs, and the GMP occurs at the leftmost on the P-V curve, as shown in Fig. 7 (a),

and the MPPT controller needs to bypass four LMPs before reaching the GMP. Fig. 8 shows the voltage (upper

plot) and power (lower plot) waveforms when the FA is employed for the MPPT. Note that prior to the activation

of the controller, the dc voltage source at the load side has already been turned on, keeping the load voltage at

450 V, as shown in the figure. As can be seen from the voltage plot, Vpv closely tracks the voltage reference,

Vref , when the control algorithm is activated at t = 1.22 s 1 . This demonstrates that the PI controllers function

properly. However, it takes 2.5 s (i.e. 25 iterations or steps) for the FA to reach the GMP. The first five iterations

are simply outputting the initial values of the five flies. Then, each fly takes turns to move its position according

to the brightness of the other flies as presented in Fig. 1. Each fly moves in four steps, and GMP is reached at the

end of the fourth fly movement.

On the other hand, Fig. 9 shows the voltage (upper plot) and power (lower plot) waveforms when the proposed

method is employed. The control algorithm is activated at t = 1.28 s. It only takes 1.3 s (i.e. 13 iterations) to

reach the GMP. Similar to the FA, the first five steps are to output the initial values of the flies, and the rest of the

iterations are to update the movement of each fly. Since the proposed method uses the average of the coordinates of

the brighter flies as the representative point, each fly only needs to move one step to update its position.Therefore,

the proposed method drastically reduces the convergence time.

1 Note that prior to this is the soft start control for minimizing overcurrent.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

12

Ppv(W) Ipv(A)

277

2.52

110

110 Vpv(V) Vpv(V)

Ppv(W) Ipv(A)

303

2.07

146 Vpv(V) 146 Vpv(V)

Ppv(W) Ipv(A)

408

2.34

174 174

Vpv(V) Vpv(V)

Fig. 7: (a) Case 1: There are five LMPs, and the GMP occurs at the leftmost on the P-V curve ; (b) Case 2: There

are five LMPs, and the GMP occurs at the middle one on the P-V curve; (c) Case 3: There are five LMPs, and the

GMP occurs at the rightmost on the P-V curve.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

13

250

Initialization Stage #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

200

Voltage (V)

150

Controller

activated

100 at 1.22 sec

GMP is

reached Vpv

50

Vref

0

600 600

500 500

400 400

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300

277

Pref = 277W

Vdc

100 100

Pref

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (Sec)

2) Case 2: There are five LMPs, and in this case, the GMP occurs at the middle one on the P-V curve as shown

in Fig. 7 (b). The GMP is 303 W. Fig. 10 shows the voltage and power waveforms when the FA is employed. As

seen from the figure, it takes 21 steps to reach the GMP. Fig. 11 shows the voltage and power waveforms of the

proposed method. It takes only 13 steps (i.e. 1.3 s) to reach the GMP.

For the waveforms of cases 3 (the GMP occurs at the rightmost on the P-V curve), they follow the similar trend

of the previous cases. Nevertheless, since both FA and MFA are both meta-heuristic methods, the convergence time

may be slightly different in each run. Therefore, we have run the above three cases for multiple runs and record

their best, worst and average convergence for reaching GMP in TABLE III. The amount of saving time in each

case is also shown in the table. For the best case, the MFA can save up to 67%, whereas it can save up to 24%for

the worst case. Moreover, the MPPT efficiency (s ) for static cases, is defined as (9) of the two algorithms.

GM Pact

s = 100%, (9)

GM Pth

where GM Pth is the theoretical maximum power that can be achieved, whereas GM Pact is the actual power that

is extracted using the MPPT algorithm. On average, the efficiencies are 99.30% and 98.8% for FA and MFA,

respectively.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

14

250

Initialization Stage

#2 #3 #4

#5

200 #1

Voltage (V)

150

Controller

activated

100 at 1.28 sec

GMP is

reached Vpv

50

Vref

0

600 600

500 500

400 400

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300

277

Pref=277W Vdc

100 Pref 100

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (Sec)

Fig. 9: Voltage and power waveforms of the proposed method for Case 1

1 2.6 s 1.4 s 46%

worst 2 2.5 s 1.9 s 24%

3 2.6 s 1.9 s 27%

1 2.3 s 1.2 s 48%

average 2 2.3 s 1.7 s 26%

3 2.5 s 1.5 s 40%

1 2.1 s 0.7 s 67%

best 2 2.0 s 1.2 s 40%

3 2.1 s 1.3 s 38%

3) Discussions: Although the static tracking efficiency for MFA is slightly lower than that of FA, the tracking

speed is almost twice (on average about 1.7 times faster) of that of FA. Thus, MFA can keep track of the GMP even

if the irradiance changes rapidly. For example, for the PV emulator we used, the tracking time for FA on average

is about 2.4 s for all three partial shading cases whereas that of MFA is 1.4 s. Therefore, for PV characteristics

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

15

250

Initialization Stage #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

200

Voltage (V)

150

Controller

activated

at 1.17 sec

100

Vpv

50 GMP is

Vref

reached

0

600 600

500 500

400 400

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 303

Ppv

200 Pref = 303W 200

Vdc

100 Pref 100

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (Sec)

which change faster than 2 s, MFA can still keep track of the GMP while FA cannot. In addition, if one wants to

attain the efficiency higher than FA, methods such as the P &O can be utilized after MFA has converged to the

GMP. Fig. 12 shows that after 1.5 s, where MFA has converged, the algorithm then switches to P &O, and the

efficiency can be improved to 99.4%2 . The total tracking time is 1.87 s, which is still shorter than that of FA. Note

that other MPPT algorithms having similar efficiency as P &O, can also be used for improving the efficiency of

MFA. The trade-off between tracking time and efficiency should be carefully investigated for optimal performance.

Alternatively, one could also run P &O and other similar algorithms most of the time, and activate MFA only when

there is a significant change in the measured power. Nevertheless, such a topic is beyond the scope of this paper

and is left for future study.

Finally, it is worth noting that although the occurrence of the partial shading caused by the clouds usually do

not happen suddenly, the P &O method is unable to track the GMP, regardless of a ramp or step changes of PSCs,

as shown in [30], [35]. Therefore, it is important to test the performance of the proposed MFA for dynamically

tracking the GMP under PSC, which will be investigated in the next subsection.

2 As reported in [41], the tracking efficiency of P &O method under no partial shading is above 99.4%, and in some cases, it is over 99.5%.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

16

250

Initialization Stage

#2 #3 #4

#1 #5

200

Voltage (V)

150

100 at 1.30 sec reached

V

pv

50 Vref

0

600 600

500 500

400 400

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 303

Pref=303W

V

dc

100 100

Pref

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (Sec)

Fig. 11: Voltage and power waveforms of the proposed method for Case 2

Two scenarios are investigated for the dynamic case. The first one is to investigate the tracking performance

when the irradiance and shadings change in a way that the shapes of the P-V curves are significantly alternated.

The maximum point of the P-V pattern changes from 432 W (uniform P-V characteristic) to 277 W (case 1 in

Section IV B) within 1.3 sec. This is about 36% change of power level, a case to emulate insolation and partial

shading conditions are suddenly altered.

The second scenario is to investigate the continuous dynamic tracking capability. Similar to scenario 1, the starting

power level is 432 W, and the ending power level is 277 W. The changing sequences of the shaded patterns are,

however, as shown in Fig. 13. The shaded patterns and irradiance levels are changed every 5 s. This changing time

is selected based on the following reasons:

1) For the PV emulator we have used, the tracking time for MFA and FA under the worst cases are 1.9 s and

2.6 s, respectively. Hence, for dynamic tracking cases, the PSC change cannot be lower than 3 s.

2) Based on the European test standard EN50530 [42], a converter with MPPT capabilities need to be tested

under several changing irradiance with different time changes and ramp rates. For instance, with ramp change

from 30% to 100%, the time changes are 0.7 seconds (10 uniform P-V profile changes with a ramp time of

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

17

250

Initialization Stage #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

200

Voltage (V)

at 1.25 sec MFA

converged GMP is

100 reached

V

pv

50

V

ref

0

600 600

500 500

400 408

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 300

Pref = 408W

200 P 200

pv

V

dc

100 100

P

ref

0 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Time (Sec)

Fig. 12: Voltage and power waveforms of the MFA combined with P &O

7 seconds), 1.4 seconds, 2.3 seconds, 3.5 seconds, 5 seconds and 7 seconds.

However, the European test standard EN50530 only sets the standard for uniform PV changes (no bypass diodes),

and does not set the test standard for non-uniform PV changes (with bypass diodes). The PV changes set by EN50530

can be easily tracked by the P &O method because all the PV profiles have uniform PV characteristics. To test the

capabilities of the original and the proposed firefly algorithms for tracking the GMP even when the PV characteristics

are non-uniform, similar to [6], [29], [30], and [35], we set several sets of PSCs with different multiple peaks (with

GMP occurring in the left, middle, and right), having a ramp rate lower than 15%. The PV profiles in Fig. 13 of the

manuscript are more challenging and to some extent more practical (since all the profiles are gradually changed)

to test MPPT control algorithms.

Similar to [6], [29], and [31], (10) is used to detect if the GMP has been changed:

|Ppv Ppv,last |

P (%), (10)

Ppv,last

where Ppv,last represents the power at the GMP of the previous operating point, and P is set to 5%. In general,

(10) is needed for all the maximum point tracking algorithms, including the P &O method [43]. If it is satisfied,

the MPPT algorithms are reinitialized to search for the new maximum point.

Note that P in (10) needs to be carefully selected such that it is able to distinguish the fluctuations of the

output power caused by the random noises (or the voltage/current perturbations required in the MPPT algorithms)

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

18

432.49W

422.38W 407.62W

Vpv(V) Vpv(V) Vpv(V)

Ppv(W) Ppv(W)

363.78W 387.82W

Vpv(V)

Ppv(W)

Ppv(W) Ppv(W)

343.77W

302.97W 277

164.76V

Vpv(V) 146.45V Vpv(V) 110 Vpv(V)

from those ones caused by the irradiance variations [43]. Femia et al. [43] has shown how a theoretical optimized

value of P can be obtained for P &O method. Nevertheless, deriving a theoretical optimized value of P for a

FA or other meta-heuristic algorithms are beyond the scope of this paper. In practice, the value of P is iteratively

optimized by extensive simulations.

Figs. 14 and 15 show the resulted tracking responses for FA and MFA for scenario 1. First, both of the algorithms

try to track the GMP of the uniform P-V characteristic. Similar to the non-uniform cases presented in Section IV

B, the FA takes longer time to track the GMP. Then, the uniform P-V curve changes to the P-V curve of case 1,

and the GMP is suddenly changed to 277 W. According to [42], the tracking efficiency for the dynamic cases (d )

is calculated based on the following formula.

P

Vpv,i Ipv,i Ti

d = Pi 100%, (11)

j GM P th,j Tj

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

19

where Tj is period in which the GM P th,j is provided and Ti is period in which the Vpv,i and Ipv,i are sampled.

Hence, the tracking efficiency for FA and MFA are 99.12% and 99.84%, respectively. In terms of loss, the

proposed MFA (0.16%) is about 5 times smaller than that of FA (0.88%). This is due to the fact that MFAs

tracking time is much shorter than that of FA, which in turn can have a positive impact on the dynamic tracking

efficiency.

250

200

Voltage (V)

150

100

Vpv

50

Vref

0

600 600

432W

500 500

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 300

Pref

100 100

Vdc

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (Sec)

Fig. 14: (a) Top: voltage of the FA for dynamic variations of partial shading; (b) Bottom: power waveforms of the

FA for dynamic variations of partial shading

Fig. 16 and 17 show the tracking profiles of scenario 2 for the FA and MFA, respectively. As can be seen from

the figures, both methods can successfully track the GMP. However, the MFA exhibits much less power and voltage

fluctuations, as compared to the FA. The MFA takes less time to settle to the GMP whenever a power change

is detected. This case study clearly demonstrates that the MFA can effectively track the GMP with much shorter

convergence time and smoother profile.

V. C ONCLUSIONS

This paper described a new MPPT method that can be used to track the GMP when a PV panel is partially

shaded by cloud, snow, trees, and/or other buildings. The proposed approach essentially modifies the existing firefly

algorithm, and uses the average of all the brighter fireflies as the representative point so that the firefly will only

move towards this point without wandering towards all the brighter flies. Hence, the proposed method can drastically

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

20

250

200

Voltage (V)

150

100

Vpv

50 Vref

0

600 600

432W

500 500

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 300

Pref

100 100

Vdc

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (Sec)

Fig. 15: (a) Top: voltage of the MFA for dynamic variations of partial shading; (b) Bottom: power waveforms of

the MFA for dynamic variations of partial shading

decrease the tracking time and reduce the number of operations per iteration. Experimental results show that the

proposed MFA can save up to 67% of the tracking time, when compared to FA. Due to its short tracking time, the

dynamic efficiency of MFA in general is better than that of FA when fast irradiance change occurs.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to sincerely thank the associated editor, anonymous reviewers, and Prof. Chung-Ming

Young from NTUST for their valuable comments and suggestions, which improved the quality of the paper.

R EFERENCES

[1] E. Romero-Cadaval, G. Spagnuolo, L. Garcia Franquelo, C. Ramos-Paja, T. Suntio, and W. Xiao, Grid-connected photovoltaic generation

plants: Components and operation, IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 620, Sept. 2013.

[2] D. C. Jones and R. W. Erickson, Probabilistic analysis of a generalized perturb and observe algorithm featuring robust operation in the

presence of power curve traps, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 29122926, June 2013.

[3] R. C. N. Pilawa-Podgurski, W. Li, I. Celanovic, and D. J. Perreault, Integrated cmos energy harvesting converter with digital maximum

power point tracking for a portable thermophotovoltaic power generator, IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power

Electronics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 10211035, Dec 2015.

[4] B. Alajmi, K. Ahmed, S. Finney, and B. Williams, Fuzzy-logic-control approach of a modified hill-climbing method for maximum power

point in microgrid standalone photovoltaic system, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 10221030, April 2011.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

21

250

200

150

Voltage (V)

100

V

pv

50

V

ref

0

600 600

432W 422W

500 408W 364W 500

388W

344W

400 303W 400

277W

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 300

200 200

P

pv

P

100 ref 100

V

dc

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (Sec)

Fig. 16: (a) Top: voltage of the FA for dynamic variations of partial shading (power gradually decreasing); (b)

Bottom:power waveforms of the FA for dynamic variations of partial shading (power gradually decreasing)

[5] G. C. Hsieh, H. I. Hsieh, C. Y. Tsai, and C. H. Wang, Photovoltaic power-increment-aided incremental-conductance mppt with two-phased

tracking, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 28952911, June 2013.

[6] K. L. Lian, J. H. Jhang, and I. S. Tian, A maximum power point tracking method based on perturb-and-observe combined with particle

swarm optimization, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 626633, 2014.

[7] T. Kerekes, E. Koutroulis, D. Sra, R. Teodorescu, and M. Katsanevakis, An optimization method for designing large pv plants, IEEE

Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 814822, April 2013.

[8] W. B. F. Corporation, Utility scale solar power plants: a guide for developers and investors. India: World Bank, 2012.

[9] G. Velasco-Quesada, F. Guinjoan-Gispert, R. Pique-Lopez, M. Roman-Lumbreras, and A. Conesa-Roca, Electrical pv array reconfiguration

strategy for energy extraction improvement in grid-connected pv systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 11,

pp. 43194331, Nov 2009.

[10] D. Nguyen and B. Lehman, An adaptive solar photovoltaic array using model-based reconfiguration algorithm, IEEE Transactions on

Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 26442654, July 2008.

[11] N. Femia, G. Lisi, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, Distributed maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic arrays: Novel

approach and system analysis, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 26102621, July 2008.

[12] G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, An analog technique for distributed mppt pv applications, IEEE Transactions on Industrial

Electronics, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 47134722, Dec 2012.

[13] F. Wang, X. Wu, F. C. Lee, Z. Wang, P. Kong, and F. Zhuo, Analysis of unified output mppt control in subpanel pv converter system,

IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 12751284, March 2014.

[14] R. Bell and R. C. N. Pilawa-Podgurski, Decoupled and distributed maximum power point tracking of series-connected photovoltaic

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

22

250

200

Voltage (V)

150

100

V

pv

50

V

ref

0

600 600

432W 422W

500 408W 388W 364W 500

344W

400 303W 400

277W

DC Bus(V)

Power(W)

300 300

P

200 pv 200

P

ref

100 100

V

dc

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (Sec)

Fig. 17: (a) Top: voltage of the MFA for dynamic variations of partial shading (power gradually decreasing); (b)

Bottom: power waveforms of the MFA for dynamic variations of partial shading (power gradually decreasing)

submodules using differential power processing, IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.

881891, Dec 2015.

[15] I. Abdalla, J. Corda, and L. Zhang, Multilevel dc-link inverter and control algorithm to overcome the pv partial shading, IEEE Transactions

on Power Electronics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1418, 2013.

[16] L. Villa, T.-P. Ho, J.-C. Crebier, and B. Raison, A power electronics equalizer application for partially shaded photovoltaic modules,

IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 11791190, March 2013.

[17] M. Uno and A. Kukita, Single-switch voltage equalizer using multistacked buck-boost converters for partially shaded photovoltaic

modules, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 30913105, June 2015.

[18] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, A new technique for tracking the global maximum power point of pv arrays operating under partial-shading

conditions, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184 190, April 2012.

[19] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, Maximum power point tracking scheme for pv systems operating under partially shaded conditions, IEEE

Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1689 1698, April 2008.

[20] Y.-H. Liu, J.-H. Chen, and J.-W. Huang, A review of maximum power point tracking techniques for use in partially shaded conditions,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 436 453, 2015.

[21] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, A review of maximum power point tracking techniques of pv system for uniform insolation and partial shading

condition, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 19, pp. 475 488, 2013.

[22] M. Boztepe, F. Guinjoan, G. Velasco-Quesada, S. Silvestre, A. Chouder, and E. Karatepe, Global mppt scheme for photovoltaic string

inverters based on restricted voltage window search algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3302

3312, 2014.

[23] D. Nguyen and B. Lehman, An adaptive solar photovoltaic array using model-based reconfiguration algorithm, IEEE Transactions on

Industrial Electronics, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2644 2654, July 2008.

[24] P. Lei, Y. Li, and J. Seem, Sequential esc-based global mppt control for photovoltaic array with variable shading, IEEE Transactions on

Sustainable Energy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 348 358, July 2011.

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

23

[25] Syafaruddin, E. Karatepe, and T. Hiyama, Artificial neural network-polar coordinated fuzzy controller based maximum power point

tracking control under partially shaded conditions, IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 239 253, june 2009.

[26] L.-R. Chen, C.-H. Tsai, Y.-L. Lin, and Y.-S. Lai, A biological swarm chasing algorithm for tracking the pv maximum power point, IEEE

Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 484 493, June 2010.

[27] M. Miyatake, M. Veerachary, F. Toriumi, N. Fujii, and H. Ko, Maximum power point tracking of multiple photovoltaic arrays: A pso

approach, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 367 380, Jan. 2011.

[28] K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, M. Amjad, and S. Mekhilef, An improved particle swarm optimization (pso) based mppt for pv with reduced

steady-state oscillation, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 3627 3638, aug. 2012.

[29] Y.-H. Liu, S.-C. Huang, J.-W. Huang, and W.-C. Liang, A particle swarm optimization-based maximum power point tracking algorithm

for pv systems operating under partially shaded conditions, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1027 1035,

dec. 2012.

[30] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, A deterministic particle swarm optimization maximum power point tracker for photovoltaic system under partial

shading condition, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 31953206, 2013.

[31] M. Seyedmahmoudian, R. Rahmani, S. Mekhilef, A. M. T. Oo, A. Stojcevski, T. K. Soon, and A. S. Ghandhari, Simulation and hardware

implementation of new maximum power point tracking technique for partially shaded pv system using hybrid depso method, IEEE

Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 850 1698, July 2015.

[32] K. Sundareswaran, P. Sankar, P. S. R. Nayak, S. P. Simon, and S. Palani, Ehanced energy output from a pv system under partial shaded

conditions through artificial bee colony, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 198 209, July 2015.

[33] L. L. Jiang, D. L. Maskell, and J. C. Patra, A novel ant colony optimization-based maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic

systems under partial shaded condtions, Energy Buildings, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 227236, March 2013.

[34] X. S. Yang, Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. UK: Luniver Press, 2008.

[35] K. Sundareswaran, S. Peddapati, and S. Palani, Mppt of pv systems under partial shaded conditions through a colony of flashing fireflies,

IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 463472, June 2014.

[36] W. Xiao, N. Ozog, and W. Dunford, Topology study of photovoltaic interface for maximum power point tracking, IEEE Transactions

on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 1696 1704, june 2007.

[37] X.-S. Yang, S. Deb, M. Loomes, and M. Karamanoglu, A framework for self-tuning optimization algorithm, Neural Computing and

Applications, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 20512057, 2013.

[38] A. Oi, C. Nakazawa, T. Matsui, H. Fujiwara, K. Matsumoto, and H. Nishida, Pid optimal tuning method by particle swarm optimization,

in SICE Annual Conference, 2008, Aug 2008, pp. 34703473.

[39] B. Akay and D. Karaboga, Computational Collective Intelligence. Semantic Web, Social Networks and Multiagent Systems: First

International Conference, ICCCI 2009, Wrocaw, Poland, October 5-7, 2009. Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

2009, ch. Parameter Tuning for the Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm, pp. 608619.

[40] P. W. Lee, Y. S. Lee, D. K. W. Cheng, and X. C. Liu, Steady-state analysis of an interleaved boost converter with coupled inductors,

IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 787 795, Aug. 2000.

[41] D. S. Morales, Maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic applications, Masters thesis, Aalto University, Dec. 2010.

[42] E. C. for Electrotechnical Standarization, Overall efficiency of grid connected photovoltaic inverters. Brussels: BSI, 2010.

[43] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method, IEEE

Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 963973, July 2005.

D. F. Teshome received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia in

2007, the M.Sc. degree in energy engineering and management from University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal and the

M.Sc. degree in renewable energy from Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain in 2013. From

2007 to 2011, he was working as a Project Engineer in Ethio-Telecom at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He is currently

pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,

This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/JESTPE.2016.2581858, IEEE

Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics

24

Taiwan.

C. H. Lee is currently pursuing his M. S. degree from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,

Taipei, Taiwan.

Y. W. Lin obtained his B. S. and M. S. degrees from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,

Taipei, Taiwan in 2014 and 2016, respectively. He is currently with Delta Products Corp., Chungli, Taiwan.

K. L. Lian received the B.A.Sc. (Hons.), M.A.Sc, and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the University

of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, in 2001, 2003, and 2007, respectively. He was a Visiting Research Scientist at

the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan, from 2007 to 2009. Currently, he is an Associate

Professor at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.

2168-6777 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

- MPPT6Hochgeladen vonmanish_chaturvedi_6
- The Research of Maximum Power Point Tracking Control Algorithm for Photovoltaic Cells Based on Improved Perturbation‐ Observation MethodHochgeladen vonSEP-Publisher
- 04800248Hochgeladen vonsreedeviish
- A study of maximum power point tracking algorithms for stand-alone Photovoltaic Systems.pdfHochgeladen vonn s
- CHL0072 SynopsisHochgeladen vonbinesheb
- 1Hochgeladen vonRaja Sajin
- Mohamed 2014Hochgeladen vonify
- Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques a Review-37Hochgeladen vonSheik Mohammed
- P and O MPPT Implementation Using MATLAB SimulinkHochgeladen vonIvan Ivo Lazić
- energies-10-02036-v2Hochgeladen vonDobrea Marius-Alexandru
- A New MPPT for PVHochgeladen vonJagadish G Shivanagutti
- Ieee Pv SimulationHochgeladen vonsupriyasenapati
- Fuzzy Logic Based MPPT for Photovoltaic Modules Influenced by Solar Irradiation and Cell TemperatureHochgeladen vonSuresh Kumar
- 1-s2.0-S1875389212000466-mainHochgeladen vonOnselwojoud Mouni
- 2013-Application of the DTC Control in the Photovoltaic Pumping SystemHochgeladen vonSachin Angadi
- IJETR033013Hochgeladen vonerpublication
- Article_A46.pdfHochgeladen vonMuhammad Nur Sururi
- MPPT-based ANN for photovoltaic systemHochgeladen vonOthman Ben Cheikh
- Ieee Argencon 2016 Paper 32Hochgeladen vonademargcjunior
- Enhanced MPPT Technique For DC-DC Luo Converter Using Model Predictive Control For Photovoltaic SystemsHochgeladen vonIJERD
- [11]Hochgeladen vontinhmaixatoi2006
- 2016Hochgeladen vonPraveenKumarBonthagarla
- International Journal of Engineering Research and DevelopmentHochgeladen vonIJERD
- Control of Hybrid Battery Ultra-capacitor Energy Storage for Stand AloneHochgeladen vonabo_obaid
- Simulation & Controlling of 3- Phase Grid Integrated Solar PV SystemHochgeladen vonIJRASETPublications
- Renewable Energy SolutiosHochgeladen vonZsuzsanna Vári
- PSK2-40-C-SJ120-3Hochgeladen vonDWIGHT GERONIMO
- SPECSHochgeladen vonDWIGHT GERONIMO
- 2017dcHochgeladen vonkevin maravilla
- AL BHR TOWER.pptxHochgeladen vonpooja

- DPSO Based SEPIC Converter in PV System Under Partial Shading ConditionHochgeladen vonTio S
- PID Tuning Methods-Automation Study With MathCad-AHochgeladen vonTio S
- yetayew2016Hochgeladen vonTio S
- IRJET-V2I503Hochgeladen vonTio S
- 10.1109@iccc.2015.7432890Hochgeladen vonTio S
- Kumar 2015Hochgeladen vonTio S
- A Comparative Study of Sepic Cuk and Zeta ConvertersHochgeladen vonbaskar

- Terms of Use - Wikimedia FoundationHochgeladen vonjunkzxc
- Low-Power High-speed Low-Offset Fully Dynamic CMOS Latched ComparHochgeladen vonkbmn2
- tw_1801-223Hochgeladen vonAbu Bindong
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentHochgeladen vonriteshsamantray521383
- Pioneros soviéticos de la computaciónHochgeladen vonRoderico Rosales
- tenow-TBS6925Hochgeladen vonAlexander Wiese
- HEC-HMS_Stylesheet_Reports_Guide.pdfHochgeladen vonLEELAKER
- Portable Heat Meter - CALECHochgeladen vonMicronics Ltd
- Automotive Electrical And Electromechanical System DesignHochgeladen vonapi-3773204
- EXPRO-CFD- Progress in Fluid Structure InteractionHochgeladen vonalireza_vatandoust
- MoteC i2 Pro DIFF Analysis V2.1Hochgeladen vonDean Rautenbach
- ASEAN-Investment-Report-2018-for-Website.pdfHochgeladen vonAkhmad Bayhaqi
- hit_7080_omnHochgeladen vonDiegoRomero
- Continual improvement.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous B7pghh
- Developing E-Business Systems and ArchitecturesHochgeladen vonNikola Lanjak
- Parrot User s Manual Dec6Hochgeladen vonMarcus Drago
- Mini Project 1Hochgeladen vonNurulAnisAhmad
- Advanced Computer Networks - CS716 Power Point Slides Lecture 26Hochgeladen vonTaran Aulakh
- Best Biotech Websites in the WorldHochgeladen vonAshish Dabas
- Ds Concrete Forming HbHochgeladen vonUpali Karunarathne
- Andrew SP-FS52 Single Sheet_new.pdfHochgeladen vonRafael
- TP-Link Network Router TL-ER6120Hochgeladen vonJose Luis
- A Synthetic Overview of the Collaborative EconomyHochgeladen vonEric Prenen
- 7404VNOX_VNPX 5.53.s6.b1.dg4 UM1.12Hochgeladen vonMeh Mehson
- Audit ChecklistsHochgeladen vonGrace Angelie C. Asio
- Isl62771Hochgeladen vonsalahudeen03
- Evaluation of Students - Case Presentations-bms3Hochgeladen vonmanali
- Opciones TL MR3020Hochgeladen vonMiguel Angel Gil
- NO00013AHochgeladen vonVarun Vashisht
- Bar CodeHochgeladen vonlani_concepcion

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.