THE 8 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON ADVANCED TOPICS IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING May 23-25, 2013 Bucharest, Romania

th

Comparative Analysis of the Perturb-and-Observe and Incremental Conductance MPPT Methods

Ioan Viorel BANU, Rzvan BENIUG, Marcel ISTRATE Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi, Romania ibanu86@yahoo.com, rbeniuga@ee.tuiasi.ro, mistrate@ee.tuiasi.ro
Abstract- This paper presents a comparative study between two maximum power point tracking (MPPT) methods in Matlab/Simulink program that are perturb-and-observe method and incremental conductance method. Starting from the implemented model of the photovoltaic (PV) array together with the buck converter and its MPPT control have been simulated the PV systems with both MPPT algorithms at different solar radiation and temperature, and finally are presented the simulations result depending on irradiance and temperature. Keywords: photovoltaic systems, maximum power tracking, perturb-and-observe, incremental conductance point

I.

INTRODUCTION

Commonly, when a photovoltaic (PV) array is connected directly to the load, the operating point of PV solar array is seldom at the maximum power point (MPP) [1]. The Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) combined with a dc-dc power converter allows to a PV generator to produce maximum continuous power, regardless of the measurement conditions (solar radiation, temperature) [2]. There are at least 19 different algorithms of MPPT control with different ways on implementation and performance [3]. The best known MPPT classic algorithms are perturb-andobserve (P&O) and incremental conductance (IncCond). These algorithms are based on the same technology, regulating PV array voltage by adjusting the optimal set point that represents the voltage at maxim power point (MPP) [4]. Details on the different MPPT methods can be found in [5]. This paper aims to implement in Matlab/Simulink the perturb-and-observe (P&O) and incremental conductance algorithms that are published in the literature. This comparative analysis is designed to determine which of these two methods are the most suitable for MPPT in order to establish an optimal algorithm if is desired undertake analysis of power depending on solar radiation respectively function of temperature taking into account the modification of change of duty cycle parameter that enter in the MPPT control algorithms of the considered model of PV system. II. IMPLEMENTATION IN SIMULINK OF THE MODELS

Fig. 1. Stateflow chart of the perturb-and-observe algorithm.

As the name implies, the concept behind of this method is based on observation of PV array output power and its perturbation by changing the current or the voltage of PV array operation. The algorithm increments or decrements continuously the reference voltage or current based on the previous value of power until reaches the MPP [6, 7]. When dP/dV > 0 and the operating voltage of PV array is perturbed in a specific direction, it known that perturbation moves the operating point of PV array to the MPP. P&O method will then continue to perturb the PV voltage in the same direction. When dP/dV <0, the perturbation moves the operating point of PV array away from the MPP and the P&O method reverses the direction of the perturbation [8, 9]. B. Incremental Conductance MPPT Algorithm The incremental conductance method is based on the derivative of PV output power in relation to voltage [1, 10] as in

A. Perturb and Observe MPPT Algorithm The P&O algorithms are widely used in control of MPPT thanks to their simple structure and reduced number of necessary measured parameters [6]. The Stateflow chart implementation of P&O method is given in figure 1.

dP d (VI ) dI dI dI = =I +V = I +V . dV dV dV dV dV
The PV solar array operates at the MPP when [1, 10]:

(1)

dP dI I dI = 0 I +V =0 = , dV dV V dV

(2)

where I/V is the instantaneous conductance of PV array and dI/dV is the instantaneous change in conductance or incremental conductance. Comparing these two quantities it shows the position of currently operating point in relation with MPP [1]. Analyzing (3) can be established the position of operating point and if the PV panel operates at MPP [10, 12].
dP dV > 0, forV < VMPP dP dV = 0, forV = VMPP . dP dV < 0, forV > V MPP

In Fig. 4 is shown the PV panel model created in Matlab/Simulink as in [1, 11]. The PV array model has two inputs an irradiance inputs and respectively a voltage input that is coming as a feedback from the system and in the output of the block is calculated the current. The main parameters of PV solar array are listed in Table I.

(3)
Fig. 4. PV panel sources and 3D fit surface of PV array at 25C. TABLE I PV ARRAY SPECIFICATIONS PV array specifications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of cells in series Open circuit voltage Short circuit current Series resistance of PV model Parallel resistance of PV model Temperature exponent for Is Temperature exponent for Rs Diode quality factor of PV model nCells = 36 Voc = 21.6 V Isc = 7.34 A Rs = 0 Rp = TXIS1 = 3.3842 TRS1 = 0 N=1.5

The Stateflow chart implementation of the incremental conductance method [1, 10, 13, 8] is depicted in Fig. 2 [1].

The main components parameters of buck converter that are implemented in Simulink are given in Table II [1].
TABLE II BUCK CONVERTER COMPONENTS PARAMETERS Buck converter components parameters 1 2 3 Inductance Capacitance Switching frequency L = 23 H C = 120 F fSW = 100 kHz

Fig. 2. Stateflow chart of the incremental conductance algorithm.

C. Simulink Model of PV System with MPPT The Simulink model of the PV system that is used for simulations is depicted in Fig. 3, and represents a PV solar panel connected to a resistive load through a dc-dc buck converter with a variant subsystem of MPPT controller that allow to choose between these two MPPT algorithms: P&O and incremental conductance.

In Fig. 5 is given the MPPT controller implemented in Simulink using a variant subsystem DC-DC MPPT Buck Controls and also is given the MPPT controller that uses the Stateflow implementation of P&O algorithm, the MPPT controller with incremental conductance method having also the same structure. A variant subsystem provides several implementations for a subsystem and during simulation is active only one implementation [14]. This variant subsystem block contains two child subsystems P&O Method and IncCond Method that have been depicted in Fig. 1 and in Fig. 2, where one child is active during simulation.

Fig. 3. Simulink model of the considered PV system.

Fig. 5. MPPT variant blocks and Simulink implementation of MPPT controller [1].

Fig. 6. Step variation of irradiance.

III.

RESULTS AND COMMENTS

First are simulated the P&O and incremental conductance algorithms using the step variation of irradiance at temperature of 25C and different values of step change of duty cycle deltad (10 ms, 8 ms and 5 ms) of implemented MPPT algorithms, and the simulation result are presented in Fig. 7-9. Afterwards are given the simulation result for 1000 W/m2 and 800 W/m2 irradiance levels and deltad=8 ms for a temperature levels of 25C (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11) and respectively 70C (Fig. 12 and Fig. 13). The simulation results are presented in parallel for both methods at the same deltad. The output of PV panel is represented by magenta line and the output of buck converter is represented by cyan line. For deltad=10 ms (Fig. 7) the simulation runs quickly for both methods, the incremental conductance algorithm have good results with the smallest step recovery of power, but with slightly higher variation of power against case of deltad=8 ms (Fig. 8). The P&O algorithm cannot follow faster variations of irradiance according to step variation of irradiance from Fig. 6 and consequently the results are totally different toward the case of incremental conductance method.

Fig. 8. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for step irradiance at deltad=8 ms.

Fig. 9. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for step irradiance at deltad=5 ms.

In Fig. 10-13 are presented the simulation result of both P&O and incremental conductance MPPT algorithms at the optimum step change of duty cycle previously established (deltad=8 ms) for constant levels of irradiance of 1000 W/m2 and 800 W/m2 from the Irradiance variant subsystem and temperature levels of PV Panel sources of 25C and 70C. From these figures it can be seen that incremental conductance algorithm is also better than P&O algorithm at change of temperature.

Fig. 7. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for step irradiance at deltad=10 ms.

The step recovery of power for deltad=8 ms (Fig. 8) is smaller than for delta d=5 ms (Fig. 9) and simulation results are best for all three cases considered, but after that recovery in case of delta d=5 ms the variation of power are minimal compared to the case of delta d=8 ms. Moreover, for P&O MPPT algorithm, at deltad=5 ms, the simulation runs very slow.

Fig. 10. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for 1000 W/m2 at 25C.

Fig. 11. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for 800 W/m2 at 25C.

the buck converter and the variant subsystem of MPPT controller. This comparative analysis aims to establish which of these two algorithms is indicated for MPPT in case of analysis depending on solar radiation and temperature considering the modification of change of duty cycle of MPPT controller. Have been simulated the PV system with both P&O and incremental conductance algorithms at different solar radiation and temperature, and finally are presented some simulations result. Considering the optimal rapport between time of simulation, step change response of buck converter and the maximum power obtained, the best result for both P&O and incremental conductance MPPT methods are obtained at step change of duty cycle deltad=8 ms of MPPT controller. The incremental conductance algorithm is superior compared with P&O both at power obtained as well as at step recovery of power and variation of temperature. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by the project Cuantumdoc Doctoral Studies for European performances in research and innovation (ID-79407), financed by the European Social Fund and the Romanian Government. REFERENCES
[1] [2] *** http://www.mathworks.com, C. Osorio, Recorded WebinarModel-Based Design for Solar Power Systems, 2009. D. Rekioua and E. Matagne, Optimization of Photovoltaic Power Systems, Modelization, Simulation and Control, Springer, 2012. D. P. Hohm and M. E. Ropp, Comparative Study of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithms, Progress in photovoltaic: research and applications, vol. II, no 1, 2003, pp. 47-62. E. F. Camacho, M. Berenguel, F. R. Rubio, and D. Martnez, Control of Solar Energy Systems, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer, 2012, pp. 52. M. A. G. de Brito, L. P. Sampaio, G. Luigi Jr., G. A. e Melo, and C. A. Canesin, Comparative Analysis of MPPT Techniques for FV Applications, International Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), 2011, pp. 94-104. *** www.ni.com, National Instruments, Maximum Power Point Tracking, Jul. 07, 2009. M. G. Villalva, E. Ruppert F. and J.R. Gazoli, Analysis and simulation of the P&O MPPT algorithm using a linearized FV array model, Industrial Electronics, 2009. IECON '09. 35th Annual Conference of IEEE, 2009, pp. 231-236. D. Sera, T. Kerekes, R. Teodorescu and F. Blaabjerg, Improved MPPT algorithms for rapidly changing environmental conditions, Power Electronics and Motion Control Conference, 2006, pp. 1614-1619. D. P. Hohm and M.E. Ropp, Comparative Study of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithms Using an Experimental, Programmable, Maximum Power Point Tracking Test Bed, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2000. Conference Record of the Twenty-Eighth IEEE, 2000, pp.1699-1702. T. Esram and P.L. Chapman, Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 22, no. 2, 2007, pp. 439-449. I. V. Banu and M. Istrate, Modeling of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for Photovoltaic Systems, Proceedings of the International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), 2012, pp. 953-954. W.J.A. Teulings, J.C. Marpinard, and A. Capel, A maximum power point tracker for a regulated power bus, Power Electronics Specialists Conference, PESC '93 Record, 24th Annual IEEE, 1993, pp. 833 838. M.A. Hamdy, A new model for the current-voltage output characteristics of photovoltaic modules, J. Power, 1993, pp. 11-20. *** www.mathworks.com, Help of Variant Subsystem, Matlab 2012.

Fig. 12. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for 1000 W/m2 at 70C.

[3] [4] [5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9] Fig. 13. Simulation result of P&O and incremental conductance for 800 W/m2 at 70C.

Also can be observed that in case of simulation at 1000 W/m2 and 70C (Fig. 12) the voltages and currents at the output of PV panel and at the output of buck converter have values much closer than in case of simulation at 1000 W/m2 and 25C (Fig. 10). IV. CONCLUSIONS This paper presents a comparative study between perturband-observe and incremental conductance MPPT methods in Matlab/Simulink. The PV system model used for simulation consists of the PV panel, the variant subsystem of irradiance,

[10] [11]

[12] [13] [14]