Implementation and Comparative Analysis of P&O

and INC MPPT Method for PV System

Kriti Jain
Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Department
Oriental Institute of Science and
Technology, Bhopal, India
kritikjjain@gmail.com
Prof. Manju Gupta
Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Department
Oriental Institute of Science and
Technology, Bhopal, India
manjugupta@oriental.ac.in
Dr. Aashish Kumar Bohre
Electrical Engineering Department
Samrat Ashok Technological Institute,
Vidisha, India
aashish.bohre@gmail.com

Abstract— Different types of techniques have been used for
tracking the MPPT of PV system such as perturb and observe
and incremental conductance, etc. The incremental
conductance MPPT tracking techniques is complex but more
efficient than P&O of PV system under specified atmospheric
conditions. Therefore, the aim of this work is to present
comparison between P&O and INC maximum power point
tracking techniques. This paper presents the implementation
and comparison of performances with respect to output
parameters for P&O and INC MPPT algorithms. The
comparison shows INC technique is more efficient and offers a
fast tracking speed for the MPPT of a PV array. The modeling
of the system is executed with MATLAB/SIMULINK software.
Keywords— Photovoltaic (PV) system, Maximum power point
tracking (MPPT), Perturb and observe (P&O), Incremental
conductance (INC).
I. INTRODUCTION
The natural resources like sunlight, wind energy, rain,
tides and geothermal can generate renewable power. The
renewable sources are naturally replenished. Therefore, most
useful applications of these generating resources are
limitless, unlike decreasing normal fossil fuels. The global
power has given by a rehabilitated momentum for growth
and build renewable power and clean and resources.
Consequently, renewable energy resources are much cleaner
and which are not producing toxic waste contrasting their
conventional sources.
II. THE MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING
(MPPT) METHODS
Generally the solar systems have very low efficiency.
Hence to maximize efficiency, several types of MPPT
methods are applied [1, 4, 5, 7-9, 13-16, 19]. This is a
procedure used for getting maximum possible power from
variable sources. For PV system the I-V characteristic is non-
linear, therefore making it problematic to be used for power
such a load. Boost converter is also used for this, whose duty
is changed by MPPT. A converter is utilized on the demand
side and solar system is employed to supply this converter
[17-18]. This technique increases the output power of PV
systems. MPPT systems are typically connected into an
electrical power conversion device that gives current or
voltage conversion, regulation and filtering, for driving
different loads, including motors, batteries. Solar systems,
inverters change the DC - AC energy and can incorporate
MPPT: these inverters sample response powers (I-V
characteristic) from photovoltaic string and utilization of
proper load so as to produce maximum power [6-9]. MPP is
a product of MPP current (Impp) and voltage (Vmpp).
Photovoltaic solar system I-V characteristic, where a line
intersects a knee of curves where the maximum power
conversion point is located.
There are various methods used to track for MPP. Some
of the most popular methods are[1, 4, 5, 13, 15-16]:
i. The Incremental Conductance MPPT methods
ii. The Perturb-Observe MPPT methods (Hill Climbing)
iii. The Fractional open circuit voltage MPPT methods
iv. The Fractional short circuit current MPPT methods
v. The Parasitic Capacitance MPPT Method
vi. The Constant Voltage MPPT Method
vii. The Constant Current MPPT Method
viii. The Fuzzy based MPPT methods
ix. The Hybrid MPPT Methods
The PV array lies of various PV systems in parallel and
series connections. The series assemblies are accountable for
growing module voltage; in which parallel assembly is
accountable for growing the array current. The basic
conceptual diagram to implement MPPT of PV system is
revealed in Fig. 1 [9].
Fig. 1. The Block diagram to implement MPPT of PV system [9]
III. PERTURB & OBSERVE (P&O) MPPT
ALGORITHM
The Perturb and Observe strategies expresses, the PV
system working voltage is through little augmentation, but a
variation in control annoyed the power is certain, at that
point are going toward MPP and continue perturbing a
similar way. On the off chance that P is negative, we are
moving far from course MPP and sign bother provided has
be of changed Shows the stream graph of P&O strategy
calculation [1, 4]. Here, P&O calculation conveys the current
and voltage estimation from the photovoltaic. The result of
current and voltage is intensity of sunlight based photograph
voltaic exhibit. The value of sun powered photovoltaic
module power and voltage at ith moment are kept. All over
again the sunlight based photograph voltaic (PV) power is
computed after that esteem (i+1)th moment from the
deliberate measure of current and voltage [7]. By the side of
(i+1)th moment the power as well as voltage are subtracted
individuality on ith moment. Under the RHS of P-V normal
for sun powered photograph voltaic exhibit where the
voltage is relatively staying steady incline of intensity and
voltage is negative and on the LHS, the slant of intensity and
voltage is certain [15]. The flowchart to implement Perturb
& Observe Algorithm is given in Fig. 2.

978-1-5386-4996-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE


Fig. 2. Flowchart for Perturb & Observe Algorithm
IV. INCREMENTAL CONDUCTANCE (INC)
METHOD
This strategy includes the assumption to change in the
output conductance ratio is same as negative output
conductance ratio. Here, this technique peak power of PV
lies at over 98% of its incremental conductance [4-5]. Also,
the flow chart to Implement Incremental Conductance
Algorithm is presented in Fig. 2.
section. The system simulation is divided into two sections:
In the first case simulation of the PV system under
irradiation = 1000 W/m2 and T = 25°C and for second case
simulation of system when solar irradiation, changes from
400 to 1000W/m2 at constant temperature T = 25°C.
A. Simulation Modeling and Result Analysis of MPPT
Methods for Constant Irradiations
The comparison between P and O and INC MPPT
methods for PV system is presented including constant
irradiations which is 1000 W/m2. The PV system was
constructed using a 249.86 W array connected in centralized
mode. The array composed with 4 parallel strings each
containing 10 modules in series to obtain a suitable terminal
voltage. The simulation modeling of system with P&O and
INC MPPT method for constant irradiation is illustrated in
Figure 4 to11. PV array parameters (Trina Solar TSM-
250PA05.08) is given in Table I.
The array voltage stabilized at approximately from 275
for P&O; 299 V for INC. The analysis of simulation results
are illustrated in the Table-II and Figures 4 to 11, also the
comparison of Output Parameters with P&O and INC MPPT
Method for Constant Irradiation is presented in Table below.
The shows simulation results gives the information about the
superiority and performance effectiveness of INC than P &O
algorithms. The system output performance parameter such
as voltage and power are more effective for INC method.
TABLE I. PV array parameters (Trina Solar TSM-250PA05.08)
Max. Power 250 W Current at max. power 8.06
Isc 8.55 A Voltage at Max Power 31
Voc 37.6 V Series connected string 10
Cell/module 60 Parallel string 4

TABLE II. Comparison of Output Parameters with P&O and INC

MPPT
Method for Constant Irradiation
Fix Irradiation 1000
S. ( W/m2)
Parameters
No.
P & O Method INC Method
1 Panel Voltage Vpv(V) 274.2 299
2 Panel Current Ipv(A) 33.75 33.04
3 Temperature(0C) 25 25
PV Maximum
4 9255 9880
Fig. 3. Flowchart for Incremental Conductance Algorithm Power/MPPT
Boost Converter Output
5 341 350.2
V. SIMULATION AND RESULTS Voltage (V)
The simulation and results of comparison between 6
Boost Converter Output
26.31 27.02
Perturb & observe (P&O) and incremental conductance current (A)
(INC) MPPT techniques for PV system with constant Boost Converter Output
7 8970 9465
Power (W)
irradiations and variable irradiations are presented in this

Fig. 4. Simulation modeling of system with P&O MPPT method for constant irradiation
 Fig. 5. Simulation modeling of system with INC MPPT method for constant irradiation

(a)

Figure 6: PV array V-I and P-V characteristic for varying irradiation

(b)
Figure 8: PV array maximum power for constant irradiation with (a) P&O;
(b) INC Method

(a)

(a)

(b) (b)
Fig. 7. PV array voltage for constant irradiation with (a) P&O; (b) INC Fig. 9. Boost converter output voltage for constant irradiation with (a)
Method P&O; (b) INC Method
 is larger with INC method than P&O. Hence, the system
output performance parameters like voltage and power are
more effective for INC over P&O method.

(a)

Fig. 12. Variable irradiation for PV array

(b)
Fig. 10. Boost converter output power for constant irradiation with (a)
P&O; (b) INC Method

(a)

Fig. 11. Comparison of PV max power and converter output power with
P&O and INC Method for constant irradiation

B. Simulation Modeling and Result Analysis of MPPT

Methods for Variable Irradiations
Here P and O and INC MPPT techniques for PV system
are compared for variable irradiations which are 500, 600,
800 & 1000 W/m2 and constant temperature of 25° C. The
simulation modeling of system with P and O and INC MPPT
algorithm including variable irradiation is illustrated in
Figure 12 and 16. The irradiation level changed at different
levels as 500 600 800 1000, 800 W/m2 which is shown in
Figure 19; and had an effect on DC output voltage, output (b)
current and output power as shown in figures 14 to 19 Fig. 13. PV array voltage for variable irradiation with (a) P&O; (b) INC
respectively. The estimated voltage changed due to shading Method
on PV array hence DC voltage of converter changes finally
get a new maximum power point at voltages approximately TABLE III.Comparison of Output Parameters with P&O and INC MPPT
221 volts (P&O) and 250 volts (INC). Hence the system Method for Variable Irradiation
parameters are heavily dependent on solar irradiation level Variable Irradiation (500
and MPPT method used. The comparison of output S. 600 800 1000 W/m2)
Parameters
No P&O INC
parameters with P&O and INC MPPT method for variable Method Method
irradiation is given in Table-III. 1 Panel Voltage Vpv (V) 221.1 245.9
The result analysis as given in Figures and Tables with P 2 Panel Current Ipv (A) 27.2 27.15
3 Temperature (0C) 25 25
&O and INC methods for constant and variable irradiation
4 PV Maximum Power/MPPT 6013 6677
shows the comparison between INC and P &O; also
5 Boost Converter Output Voltage (V) 274.7 287.8
indicates the effectiveness of INC over P &O 6 Boost Converter Output current (A) 21.2 22.21
method/algorithms. It is shown that output voltage is higher 7 Boost Converter Output Power (W) 5825 6393
with INC method than P&O. Similarly, system output power
 Fig. 14. Simulation modeling of system with P&O MPPT method for variable irradiation

Fig. 15. Simulation modeling of system with INC MPPT method for variable irradiation

(a) (a)

(b) (b)
Fig. 16. PV array maximum power for variable irradiation with (a) P&O; Fig. 17. Boost converter output voltage for variable irradiation with (a)
(b) INC Method P&O; (b) INC Method

(a)
(b)
Fig. 18:.Boost converter output power for variable irradiation with (a)
P&O; (b) INC Method
Fig. 19. Comparison of PV max power and converter output power with
P&O and INC Method for variable irradiation
VI. CONCLUSION
Initially, the overall PV models run with constant
irradiations with P and O and INC MPPT technique for the
presented system. For constant irradiations the boost
converter output voltage including P&O and INC MPPT
method are 341 V and 350.2 V respectively. Also, the boost
converter output voltage including P&O and INC MPPT
method for constant irradiations are 8970 W and 9465 W
respectively. It is seen that at constant irradiations the INC
MPPT algorithm/ technique/ method gives better results and
less oscillation over P&O. Subsequently, the proposed
system models run with variable irradiations including P&O
and INC MPPT method. In the results analysis it’s found that
the output voltage of boost converter including P&O and
INC MPPT method for variable irradiations are 274.7 V and
287.8 V respectively. Furthermore, the boost converter
output power with P&O and INC MPPT method for variable
irradiations are 5825 W and 6393 W respectively. Hence,
from the above analysis it can be concluded that the INC
method shows a superior performance over P&O method.
REFERENCES
[1] Visweswara K., “An investigation of incremental conductance based
maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic system”, Energy
Procedia, vol. 54, pp.11-20, jan, 2014.
[2] Nema S, Nema RK, Agnihotri G., “Matlab/simulink based study of
photovoltaic cells/modules/array and their experimental verification”,
International journal of Energy and Environment, Vol. 1(3), pp. 487-
500, Jan, 2010.
[3] Pandiarajan N, Muthu R., “Mathematical modeling of photovoltaic
module with Simulink”, In International Conference on Electrical
Energy Systems (ICEES 2011), Vol. 6, pp. 314-319, Jan, 2011.
[4] Putri RI, Wibowo S, Rifa’i M., “Maximum power point tracking for
photovoltaic using incremental conductance method”, Energy
Procedia, Vol 68, pp. 22-30, Apr 2015.
[5] Chafle SR, Vaidya UB., “Incremental conductance MPPT technique
FOR PV system”, International Journal of Advanced Research in
Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, Vol 2(6), pp.
2719-2726, Jun 2013.
[6] Kun Ding, Hohai University “A MATLAB-Simulink-Based PV
Module Model and Its Application Under Conditions of Nonuniform
Irradiance”, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 27, no.
4, 864-872, December 2012.
[7] Bharti RN, Mandal RK., “Modeling and Simulation of Maximum
Power Point Tracking for Solar PV System using Perturb and Observe
Algorithm”, International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology, Vol. 3(7), pp. 7-18, 2014.
[8] Patel H, Gupta M, Bohre AK, “Mathematical modeling and
performance analysis of MPPT based solar PV system”, In Electrical
Power and Energy Systems (ICEPES), IEEE International Conference
on, pp. 157-162, Dec 2016.
[9] Viswambaran, Vidhya K., Arfan Ghani, and Erping Zhou, "Modelling
and simulation of maximum power point tracking algorithms &
review of MPPT techniques for PV applications", Electronic Devices,
Systems and Applications (ICEDSA), 2016 5th IEEE International
Conference, pp. 1-4, 2016.
[10] Garg R, Singh A, Gupta S., “PV cell models and dynamic simulation
of MPPT trackers in MATLAB”, In Computing for Sustainable
Global Development (INDIACom), 2014 IEEE International
Conference, pp. 6-12, 2014.
[11] Safari A, Mekhilef S., “Incremental conductance MPPT method for
PV systems”, In Electrical and computer engineering (CCECE), 2011
24th IEEE Canadian Conference, pp. 345-34, May 2011.
[12] Parekh AP, Vaidya BN, Patel CT., “Modeling and Simulation Based
Approach of Photovoltaic System” Global Research Analysis, Vol
2(4), Apr 2013.
[13] Lokanadham, M., and K. Vijaya Bhaskar, "Incremental conductance
based maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for photovoltaic
system." International Journal of Engineering Research and
Applications (IJERA) Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1420-1424, 2012.
[14] Ranjan K, Kumar N., “Modelling and simulation of perturb and
observe algorithm on solar pv system using different converters in
matlab/simulink” In Power Electronics, Intelligent Control and
Energy Systems (ICPEICES), IEEE International Conference, pp. 1-6,
July 2016.
[15] Gomathi, B., and P. Sivakami, "An Incremental Conductance
Algorithm based Solar Maximum Power Point Tracking
System."International Journal of Electrical Engineering, Vol. 9, No 1,
pp. 15-24, 2016.
[16] Uma Maheswara Rao, and A. Srihari Babu. Ch UM, Babu AS.,
“Design and Simulation of PV System with Incremental Conductance
Method for Maximum Power Point Tracking”, International Journal
of Scientific Engineering and Technology, Vol. No.3 Issue No.5, pp.
643-646, May 2014.
[17] Bhuvaneswari G, Annamalai R., “Development of a solar cell model
in MATLAB for PV based generation system”, In India Conference
(INDICON), 2011 Annual IEEE 2011, pp. 1-5, Dec 2011.
[18] Hassan, M., and A. H. Bhuiyan, "Design and performance evaluation
of three-phase inverter for grid-connected photovoltaic system",
Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 2010, pp1-8, 2010.
[19] I. H. Altas and A.M. Sharaf, “A Photovoltaic Array Simulation Model
for Matlab-Simulink GUI Environment,” IEEE, Clean Electrical
Power, International Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP
'07), June 14-16, 2007.