58

Chapter-4

Fixed and Variable Step-Size Perturb Voltage MPPT Control for

Photovoltaic System

4.1 Introduction

Owing to the global development toward the design and analysis development
of PV systems as alternative energy sources, this effort will explore the potential of
using solar energy systems in the domestic and industrial application. One of the
disadvantages of PV systems is their low efficiencies compared to their cost. In order
to overcome these drawbacks, maximum power should be extracted from the PV
systems. Maximum power point tracking is a concurrent control scheme applied to the
PV systems, to extract the maximum power from the PV module. The power
delivered from the source to the load is maximized when the input resistance is
matched with the source resistance. For further improvement of tracking efficiency,
the fixed step-size perturb voltage (FSPV) maximum power point algorithm and
Variable step-size perturb voltage (VSPV) maximum power point algorithms are
proposed and explained in this chapter. These both MPPT methods are capable of
attaining maximum power equal to the maximum load power. Therefore, the tracking
efficiency is improved.

4.2 FSPV MPPT Method

The tracking efficiency can be further improved by employing a hill-climbing

MPPT technique such as the FSPV control algorithm. This simple control algorithm
does not require previous knowledge of the PV system characteristics or the
measurement of solar irradiance and cell temperature, and is easy to implement with
analogue and digital circuits. In addition, this method operates by periodically
changing the duty ratio of the boost converter and evaluating the corresponding output
 59

power. When the maximum of the product, Imax * Vmax is found, the maximum power
point (MPP) has been located.

4.3 Model of FSPV MPPT Method

By investigating the performance of system configuration, the maximum

power operating point can always be tracked by keeping derivative of power and
voltage (dP/dV) equal to zero with changing of solar irradiance and cell temperature.
The power slope dP/dV can be calculated digitally by sampling the PV array voltage
and current at successive time intervals (k-1) and (k) as follows.

dP P(k )  P(k  1)
(k )  (4.1)
dV V (k )  V (k  1)

V ( k )  V ref  V (4.2)

Where

V  Perturb voltage

P(k )  V (k ).I (k )

The algorithm of FSPV, the operating point of the PV array by increasing or

decreasing a control parameter by a fixed amount (fixed size) and measures the PV
array output power before and after the perturbation.

When the power increases, the algorithm continues to perturb the system in
the same direction; otherwise, the system is perturbed in the opposite direction. In this
fashion, the peak power tracker continuously seeks the maximum power operating
point with significance. Fig. 4.1 shows a block diagram for photovoltaic system with
proposed FSPV method, in which the PV array output voltage reference is used as the
 60

control parameter in conjunction with a controller to adjust the duty ratio of the MPPT
power converter.

Fig.4.1 Block diagram of proposed FSPV MPPT with PV System

4.4 FSPV MPPT Algorithms

The principle of FSPV is to perturbation by acting decrease or increase on the

duty cycle of the boost converter by using reference voltage (Vref) and then observing
the direction of change of PV output power. If at any instant ‘k’ the output PV power
P(k) & voltage V(k) is greater than the previous computed power P(k−1) & V(k-1),
then the direction of perturbation is maintained otherwise it is reversed. The algorithm
steps are as follows.

Step 1 : Start

Step 2 : Initialize the value of Duty cycle between 0 and 1.

Step 3 : Measure the values of PV array current and voltage. Then, calculate
and predict of power at kth and kth -1 instants.
 61

Step 4 : Calculate the change in power (dP) and change in voltage (dV).

Step 5 : If dP <0 & dV >0 then decrease the duty cycle.

Step 6 : If dP <0 & dV <0 then increase the duty cycle.

Step 7 : If dP >0 & dV >0 then increase the duty cycle.

Step 8 : If dP >0 & dV <0 then decrease the duty cycle.

Step 9 : Go to Step 3 and repeat the above steps until it reaches the Maximum
power Point.

Step 10 : Stop.

Fig 4.2 FSPV control action

In fixed step-size perturb voltage MPPT algorithm first, it initializes the range
of the duty ratio is normally between 0 and 1. Next, it measures the output voltage and
current of photovoltaic array, then calculate the output power at the present instant by
using measured values. By comparing with the present and previous output power and
voltage, based on the difference fixed step-size perturbs value either it can be
increased or decreased. Let us consider at case 1 here dP<0 and dV<0, so that perturb
is increased to reach MPP and at case 2 dP<0 and dV>0 so that perturb is decreased to
reach MPP. Similarly, at case 3 dP>0 and dV<0 , perturb is decreased to reach MPP
 62

and at case 4 dP>0 and dV>0, perturb is increased to reach MPP. This process is
continued until it reach as the maximum power point (MPPs).

4.5 Flowchart of FSPV MPPT Algorithm

Fig.4.3 Flowchart of FSPV Algorithm

 63

Apparently, the flowchart of FSPV consists of two loops. Firstly, the MPPT
control algorithm based on the calculation of the PV out coming power and power
change, which is identified by resulting the present and previous values of PV voltage
levels. The secondly, regulates the array voltage according to the set reference
voltage. The flowchart of FSPV is shown in Figure 4.3.

4.6 Results of Proposed FSPV MPPT Control

FSPV MPPT algorithm based PV system was simulated using

MATLAB/Simulink. The PV system was simulated with the same operating
conditions as in earlier cases. That is irradiance between 200W/m2 -1000W/m2 and
the range of temperature is 25 0C-55 0C.

4.6.1 Variation of Irradiance

The simulation results of proposed FSPV control method has been presented
in this section. From Fig 4.4, it is observed that the steady state performance of the
array output voltage is significantly less (15.2V), when solar irradiance operated at
1000W/m2 and the corresponding cell temperature is 25 oC.

Fig 4.4 FSPV MPPT: Simulated waveforms of the output Voltage of PV system.
 64

Fig 4.5 FSPV MPPT: Simulated waveform of the output current of PV system.

Fig 4.6 FSPV MPPT: Simulated waveform of the output power of PV system.

Fig.4.5 shows the output current of the PV array is achieved at steady state
value of 5.292A. Likewise, Fig.4.6 shows the corresponding output power of
photovoltaic array as 80.4 Watts (tracking power) out of 100 Watts (available power).
Therfore, the maximum tracking effeicincy of PV system with proposed FSPV
method is 80.4%.
 65

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig 4.6 (b) FSPV MPPT: Simulated waveform of the output voltage, current and
power of PV system at 200W/m2 with 25C.
 66

From Fig 4.6(b), it is observed that the steady state performance of the array
output voltage is significantly less (14.5V), when solar irradiance operated at
200W/m2 and the corresponding cell temperature is 25 oC.

Fig.4.7 FSPV MPPT: Simulation results of PV array current, voltage and power
at sudden change of a irradiance,

Fig. 4.8 FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV array voltage at different

irradiance
 67

Fig. 4.9 FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV array current at different

irradiance

Fig. 4.10 FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV array power at different

irradiance
 68

Fig. 4.7 shows the simulation results of current, voltage, and power of the PV
array for the proposed FSPV MPPT algorithms for a sudden increase in the irradiance
from 400W/m2 to 1000W/m2.

Fig 4.8 shows the analytic repersentation of output voltage with different value
of solar irradiance, It is observed, when the irradiance is increased from 400W/m2
(low) to 1000 W/m2 (high) the coressponding output voltage of PV array is slightly
incerased from 10.71V to 15.2V respectively. Similarly, when the irradiance is
increased the coressponding output current and power is also incresed,and its analytic
repersentation is shown in Fig 4.9 and 4.10.

Fig. 4.11 shows the performance evaluation of output power with various
proposed MPPT control algorithms (FVF, FCF and FSPV.) From the figure, it is
clear that, the FSPV method gives more tracking power than FVF and FCF.

Fig. 4.11 FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of output power vs irradiance with
various proposed MPPT method
 69

Table 4.1
FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV output Voltage, Current and power at
different Temperature

FSPV
Temperature Irradiance
MPPT Technique
(◦c) (w/m2)
Vmp (V) Imp (I) Pmp (W)

25 15.2 5.292 80.4

35 14.51 5.301 76.92

1000
45 13.83 5.305 73.40

55 13.15 5.311 69.89

Table 4.2
FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV output Voltage, Current and power at
different Irradiance

Irradiance Temperature FSPV

2
(w/m )
(oC) MPPT Technique

Vmp (V) Imp (A) Pmp (W)

1000 15.2 5.292 80.4

800 15.08 4.233 63.89

600 25 14.89 3.177 47.32

400 14.07 2.115 29.75

200 10.71 1.139 12.2

 70

From the tabulated results, it is observed that, the numerical evaluation of

output voltage, current and power with proposed MPPT control algorithm can be
obtained when the temperature is increased from 25 oC to 55 oC with a fixed irradiance
at 1000W/m2. From table 4.1, it is obvious that the maximum tracking power is 80.4
watts (extracting power) from 100 watts (available power) at temperature 25oC and
irradiance is 1000 W/m2 (standard condition). From Table 4.2, it is observed that
when the irradiance increases with fixed temperature, the photovoltaic voltage
increases and the current also increases proportionality. Similarly, the photovoltaic
power is increased when the irradiance is increased.

4.6.2 Investigation of Various Fixed Step-size Voltage Perturbation

Fig. 4.12 shows the analytic repersentation of tracking efficiency with various
fixed step-size voltage perturbations (V) has been achieved at standard test
conditions (STC). From table 4.3, it is clearly observed that when voltage perturb
(V) is increased, the oscillation around the MPPs is also increased, i.e ΔV is 5% and
Corresponding-tracking efficiency is 78.28%.

Fig. 4.12 FSPV MPPT: Tracking Efficiency vs voltage perturb (V)

 71

Table 4.3
FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV array voltage, current, power and
tracking efficiency with different voltage Perturbation

4.6.3 Variation of Load

Fig. 4.13 FSPV MPPT: Tracking Efficiency Vs Load

 72

The resulting array tracking efficiency is shown in Fig. 4.13. The estimated
power follows the maximum power under very fast varying load with a very good
precision. The tracking power is shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4
FSPV MPPT: Analytical evaluation of PV array voltage, current, power and
tracking efficiency at different load

The main issue of FSPV method is that the I-V and P-V response is slow in
case of rapidly changing atmosphere conditions (temperature and irradiance) and
there are more oscillations around the MPPs can be found. To overcome this
drawback, the variable step-size perturb voltage MPPT algorithm is proposed which is
presented in section 4.7.
 73

4.7 Variable Step-size Perturb Voltage (VSPV) MPPT Method

The restriction of the FSPV algorithm of tracking under rapidly changing

irradiance is attained. The proposed VSPV MPPT algorithm retains the benefit of the
FSPV MPPT algorithm having fast response to track the maximum power point
quickly.

4.8 Model of VSPV MPPT Method

The Fig.4.14 shows that this method involves additional measurement of

power. The expression of VSPV tuning method is given (4.5).

Fig.4.14 Block diagram of proposed VSPV MPPT with PV System

 74

The original expressions perturb and observe MPPT is

dP(k )  P(k )  P(k  1) (4.3)

dP ( k )  dP1 ( k )  dP2 ( k ) (4.4)

where,

dP1 (k )  Pc (k )  P(k )

And

dP2 (k )  P(k  1)  Pc (k )

Therefore,

dP ( k )  Pc ( k )  P ( k )  P ( k  1)  Pc ( k )

dP(k )  2 Pc (k )  P(k )  P(k  1) (4.5)

4.9 Variable Step-size Perturb Voltage MPPT Algorithm

It is very clear to analyze the proposed MPPT algorithm, the watts-volts curve
is shown in Fig.4.15. The algorithm steps are,

Step 1: Start
Step 2: Initialize the value of duty ratio between 0 to 1.
Step 3: Measure the value of array voltage, current and power
at Kth, Cth and (K-1)th instants.
 75

Step 4: Calculate the change in power dP and change in voltage dV

Step 5: If dP <0 & dV >0 then decrease the duty cycle.

Step 6: If dP <0 & dV <0 then increase the duty cycle.

Step 7: If dP >0 & dV >0 then increase the duty cycle.

Step 8: If dP >0 & dV <0 then decrease the duty cycle.

Step 9: Go to Step 3 and repeat the above steps until it reaches the Maximum
power Point.

Step 10: Stop.

Fig.4.15 VSPV control action

4.10 Flowchart of VSPV MPPT Algorithm

Fig.4.16 shows the flowchart of VSPV MPPT algorithm. A further

irradiance control loop has been proposed in this improved version. If there is a
sudden change in photovoltaic array output current, this is due to a sudden change in
irradiance, which has caused by fast moving atmospheric condition like clouds. The
 76

array current change dD necessities to be define as a system parameter. With this

extra irradiance control loop, fast tracking can be achieved. However, it loses stability
if operated at a high perturbation rate and voltage feedback signal.

Fig.4.16 Flowchart of VSPV Algorithm

 77

4.11 Results of Proposed VSPV Control Algorithm

4.11.1 Variation of Irradiance

To show the usefulness of improved perturb and observe MPPT control of PV

system, mathematical simulation has been carried out by using MATLAB/Simulink.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig 4.17. VSPV MPPT: Simulated waveforms of PV Output (a) Voltage (b)
Current (c) Power at standard test conditions.
 78

The model parameters and specifications of the PV module and DC-DC

converter used in this thesis is given in Appendix. From Fig.4.17 it is realized that the
performance of the PV output voltage (16.40V), current (5.076A) and power
(83.25W) at standard test condition.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig 4.18. VSPV MPPT: Simulated Waveforms of PV Output (a) Voltage (b)
Current (c) Power at Irradiance is 200 W/m2 and Temperature is 25 oC.
 79

Similarly, from the Fig .4.18 it is observed that the performance of output
voltage, current and power of the PV system the oscillations are significantly more
due to low irradiance 200W/m2 respectively.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig.4.19. VSPV MPPT: Simulated Waveforms of PV Output (a) Voltage (b)

Current (c) Power at Irradiance 1000 W/m2 and Temperature at 55 oC.
 80

The Fig.4.19 shows the response of PV output voltage, current and power with
irradiance at 1000 W/m2 at cell temperature of 55oC. It is clear that, the output power
of the PV system is reduced as compared to cell temperature of 25 oC.

Fig.4.20 VSPV MPPT: Simulation results in array current, voltage and power at
Fixed irradiance.

Table 4.5

VSPV MPPT: Evaluation of PV Output Voltage, Current and Power with

different Temperatures at Constant Irradiance condition
 81

Fig. 4.20 shows the simulation results of current, voltage, and power of the PV
array for the proposed VSPV MPPT control algorithms for a fixed irradiance is
1000W/m2. And it is observed that, power gives 83.25 Watts (tracking power) out of
100 Watts (available power). Therfore, the maximum tracking effeicincy of PV
system with proposed VSPV method gives 83.25%.

It can be found from Table 4.3, that the maximum output power of the PV
system is 83.25 W can be obtained when the solar irradiance is 1000 W/m2 at cell
temperature of 25oC and 71.20W at cell temperature of 55 oC.

Table 4.6

VSPV MPPT: Evaluation of PV Output Voltage, Current and Power with

different Irradiance at Constant Temperature condition

It is clear from the Table 5.4, that the minimum output power of the PV
system of 12.40 W can be obtained from the solar irradiance is 200 W/m2 at cell
temperature of 25oC and maximum tracking power (83.25 W) can be achieved at
standard test conditions.
 82

Fig 4.21 shows the analytic repersentation of tracking efficiency with different
solar irradiances, It is observed, when the irradiance is increased from 200W/m2 (low)
to 1000 W/m2 (high) the coressponding extracted power of PV array is slightly
incereased from 12.40 W to 83.25W respectively. Similarlly, Fig.4.22. gives the
analytical evalution of output power vs irradiance with various proposed methods.
From the analytical evalution, VSPV control algorithm gives significant improvement
among with various MPPT control alogrithms.

Fig. 4.21 With VSPV control algorithm: Tracking Efficiency Vs Irradiance

From table 4.8, it is observe that the output power response of the PV system
in terms of settling time it is observed that for high/low irradiance (1000/200) W/m2
for FSVP it takes to reach steady state 0.08/0.06 sec, for VSPV MPPT control
technique, convergence search due to additional loop is large. Therefore, time taken to
reach steady state is significantly more, i.e. 0.15/0.25 sec respectively. From the
tabulated results, it is observed that,there is siginificant improvement in output power
of the PV system of proposed VSPV method is analized.
 83

Fig. 4.22 With VSPV control algorithm: Analytical evaluation of output power vs
irradiance with various proposed methods

Table 4.7
Comparative analysis of FCF, FSPV and VSPV MPPT algorithms at different
irradiance.
 84

Table 4.8
Analysis of Time Response

Response Irradiance (W/m2) MPPT Control Methods

FCF FSPV VSPV

Settling 1000 (High) 0.08 0.08 0.15

Time (in
sec) 200 (Low) 0.1 0.06 0.25

4.11.2 Variation of Voltage perturbation (V)

Fig 4.23 shows the analytic repersentation of tracking efficiency versus

perturb voltage (V), As the pertrub voltage increases, the oscillation boundary
around the MPPs is increcease and the tracking efficiency is reduced. The
coresponding numerical respentation is shown in table 4.9.

Fig. 4.23 With VSPV control algorithm: Analytical evaluation of Tracking

efficiency (%) vs V.
 85

Table 4.9

VSPV MPPT: Comparison of PV Output Voltage, Current and Power with

different V.

4.11.3 Variation of Load

Fig. 4.24 With VSPV control algorithm: Analytical evaluation of Tracking

efficiency (%) vs Load Resistance (Ohms).
 86

Table 4.10
VSPV MPPT: Comparison of PV Output Voltage, Current and Power with
different Load Resistance.

Fig 4.24 shows the analytic repersentation of tracking efficiency versus load
resistance. From the tabulated results it is clearly observed that, the PV array gives the
maximum power at about 83.25Watts which is observed in Table 4.10.

4.12 Conculsions

This chapter proposes a simulation based FSPV Maximum Power Point

Tracking technique designed for photovoltaic systems which experience voltage and
current (power based) conditions. The strength of the proposed algorithm is
demonstrated by means of Lyapunov’s arithmetical approach. This method has
several advantages like simplicity, ease of implementation and good performance.
However, it experiences several demerits due to fixed perturb values, while the steady
state oscillations are relative to the perturb value. Large perturb values cause more
oscillations, smaller perturb values result in slower response. Therefore, the problem
between faster response and steady-state oscillations is intrinsic. To improve the
module performance further, an variable step-size perturb voltage method has been
proposed in the same chapter. In this technique, the additional irradiance loop is
involved in VSPV algorithm, with varying perturbation; the system has a quicker
 87

response to irradiance and temperature transients. However, the problems in choosing

the voltage incremental and decrement step dV and current change threshold remain
unsolved. To overcome this problem, an advanced MPPT algorithm is presented in
the next chapter.