718

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

Variable Perturbation Size Adaptive P&O MPPT

Algorithm for Sudden Changes in Irradiance
Sathish Kumar Kollimalla, Student Member, IEEE, and Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractIn this paper, a variable perturbation size adaptive

perturb and observe (P&O) maximum power point tracking
(MPPT) algorithm is proposed to track the maximum power under
sudden changes in irradiance. The proposed method consists of
three algorithms, namely current perturbation algorithm (CPA),
adaptive control algorithm (ACA), and variable perturbation algorithm (VPA). CPA always tries to operate the photovoltaic (PV)
panel at maximum power point (MPP). ACA sets the operating
point closer to MPP, only if the operating limits are violated. These
operating limits are expressed in terms of the operating current
range of the PV panel and the sudden changes in irradiance. VPA
dynamically reduces the perturbation size based on polarity of
change in power. Two-stage variable size perturbation is proposed
in this paper. The proposed algorithm is realized using a boost
converter. The effectiveness of proposed algorithm in terms of
dynamic performance and improved stability is validated by
detailed simulation and experimental studies.
Index TermsAdaptive control algorithm (ACA), adaptive P&O
MPPT algorithm, current perturbation algorithm (CPA), fractional
short circuit current (FSCC) method, maximum power point
tracking (MPPT), perturb and observe (P&O) method, variable
perturbation algorithm (VPA).

I. INTRODUCTION
HE MAIN objective of the maximum power point (MPP)
tracking (MPPT) algorithms is to achieve fast and accurate
tracking performance and minimize oscillations due to varying
weather conditions. A comparative study on MPPT techniques
for photovoltaic (PV) power systems is reported in [1] and [2].
Among different MPPT algorithms, much focus has been on
perturb and observe (P&O) [3], hill climbing [4], and incremental
conductance (INC) methods [5]. In [3], a survey of P&O techniques has been presented. It has been shown that the existing
techniques suffer from oscillations, complexity, designer dependency, and more computational effort. In the P&O method, the
operating point oscillates around the MPP giving rise to the
wastage of some amount of available energy. These oscillations
can be minimized by reducing the xed perturbation size, but it
takes relatively more time to reach MPP. The solution to this
conicting situation is to have a variable step size as suggested in
[6]. Although the implementation of these methods are simple, it

Manuscript received August 19, 2013; revised November 22, 2013;

accepted January 08, 2014. Date of publication February 05, 2014; date of
current version June 17, 2014. This work was supported in part by the Department
of Science and Technology (DST), India, under the project Grant DST/TM/SERI/
2k10/47(G).
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India (e-mail:
kollimallasathish@gmail.com; mahesh@ee.iitm.ac.in).
Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TSTE.2014.2300162

is not very accurate and rapid, since the effects of temperature and
irradiation are not taken into consideration. Patel and Agarwal [7]
proposed a variable perturb by adopting four power ranges. In
each range, a specic perturb value is used; hence, the method is
not fully adaptive. Several methods are proposed to address these
issues by considering adaptive perturbation [8], [9].
An INC method is given in [5], [10], and [11], which is based
on the fact that the slope of the PV array power curve is zero at
MPP, negative on the right, and positive on the left of the MPP.
The INC method inherits the same problems as P&O, namely the
tradeoff between the speed and oscillations. In [4], the author
claims that the INC method is prone to failure in case of large
changes in irradiance.
In another method, the MPP current IMPP (or MPP voltage
VMPP ) is continuously monitored with respect to the short circuit
current ISC (or open circuit voltage VOC ) [12][14]. This method
is well known as the fractional short circuit current [(FSCC) or
fractional open circuit voltage] method. Since this method
approximates a constant ratio, its accuracy cannot be guaranteed
under varying weather conditions.
To overcome the above-mentioned drawbacks, several methods have been proposed using articial intelligence (AI)-based
algorithms such as neural network (NN) [15] and fuzzy logic
controller (FLC) [16]. But these methods also have drawbacks
such as the requirement of large data storage and extensive
computation. For instance, NN requires a large amount of data
for training, which is the major constraint. Similarly, FLC
requires extensive computation to deal various stages. Since the
nonlinear characteristics of the solar module should be well
ascertained to create the control rules, the versatility of these
methods is limited. Furthermore, low-cost hardware processors
cannot be used for these applications because the MPP continuously changes with atmospheric conditions in real time.
In this paper, a variable perturbation size adaptive P&O MPPT
algorithm is proposed in order to overcome the drawbacks in the
conventional P&O method. The proposed method consists of
three algorithms namely, current perturbation, adaptive control,
and variable perturbation. The adaptive control algorithm
(ACA) moves the operating point closer to the MPP by multiplying the short circuit current with optimal proportionality
constant. The ACA gets activated only if there is sudden change
in irradiance or sudden change in PV current. In the proposed
method, the short circuit current is estimated instead of measuring, which reduces the losses and saves the additional component
cost required. Further, the proposed algorithm features the tuning
of variable perturbation size in two stages, namely coarse and
ne tuning. In the coarse tuning, the perturbation size is determined based on irradiance level. In the ne tuning, the

1949-3029 2014 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.

KOLLIMALLA AND MISHRA: VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM

719

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed MPPT algorithm.

perturbation size is determined based on operating point oscillations around MPP.

II. VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT
ALGORITHM
The objective of the MPPT algorithm is to track the current
IMPP and voltage VMPP of PV array, where maximum output
power PMPP is obtained under a specic irradiance and
temperature. In this paper, a variable perturbation size adaptive
P&O MPPT algorithm is proposed using conventional P&O and
FSCC methods. The proposed method is divided into three
algorithms:
1) Current Perturbation Algorithm (CPA): This algorithm
uses the concept of a conventional P&O algorithm, but it
considers current perturbation instead of voltage perturbation to speed up the tracking performance. CPA is explained using a owchart as shown in Fig. 1.
2) Adaptive Control Algorithm (ACA): This algorithm uses
the concept of FSCC. It determines the new operating point
closer to MPP. It was carried out by multiplying the short
circuit current with an optimal proportionality constant.
Further, ACA sets the perturbation size to coarse perturbation size (IC ), which varies with irradiance. This
algorithm gets activated only if there is sudden change in
irradiance or sudden change in PV current.

3) Variable Perturbation Algorithm (VPA): This algorithm

reduces the perturbation size dynamically whenever the
operating point crosses the MPP to minimize the oscillations around MPP. It provides the ne tuning of perturbation size.
A. Current Perturbation Algorithm
In Fig. 1, Ipv k, Vpv k, and Ppv k are current, voltage, and
power of PV module at kth iteration, respectively. The generalized equation is derived for the proposed MPPT algorithm as
given
Iref Ipv k signIpv k  Ipv k  1  signPpv  Ik
(1)
where the function sign: gives either 1 or 1 depending on
positive or negative value inside the function, respectively.
The idea behind considering current perturbation is explained
as follows. At a given temperature and irradiance, the output
current of PV module in the voltage region, 0 to VMPP , i.e., lefthand side (LHS) of MPP, is almost constant as shown in Fig. 2.
On the other hand, the current is drastically changing on the righthand side (RHS). Therefore, when the operating point lies in the
LHS of MPP, the PV system reaches MPP faster with reduced
oscillations with relatively small perturbation in current as
compared to voltage. If the operating point lies in the RHS of

720

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

1) Determination of Reference Current: Once ISC is estimated,

then the new operating point is calculated using FSCC.
According to FSCC, IMPP is approximately linearly related to
ISC as given in [1]
IMPP  ksc ISC

Fig. 2. Characteristics of PV array.

MPP and operating current Ipv k is less than IMPP  ISC 

IMPP , then the current perturbation gives slower response.
To avoid this situation, an ACA is proposed. Therefore, the
operating range for which the current perturbation alone gives
satisfactory response is given as
2IMPP  ISC  Ipv k  ISC :

(2)

B. Adaptive Control Algorithm

ISC KT

S
Snom

ISC Snom ; Tnom KA

where ksc is a proportionality constant. It is assumed that the

value of ksc lies between ksc low and ksc up for given range of
irradiance and temperature.
The value of ksc is chosen such that i) the operating point lies
within the limits of (2) and ii) all the currents, ksc low ISC to
ksc up ISC , of (6) are considered while calculating operating
current. Based on these two conditions, optimal proportionality
constant (ksc opt ) is determined by equating the lower current
limit of (2) and lower MPP current of (6) as given
2IMPP  ISC ksc
Substituting (6) and ksc ksc

ACA always tries to keep the operating point within the

operating range as given in (2). Once MPP is reached, then
VMPP and IMPP oscillate around MPP depending on the perturbation size. If the operating point violates (2) due to sudden
change in irradiance, then Ipv is to be controlled such that the
operating point satises (2). This can be performed by obtaining
the short circuit current. Different methods are available for
obtaining the short circuit current as mentioned in the FSCC
method. But these methods will give power losses and increase
additional component cost. To avoid these, a generalized expression is derived in this paper to estimate the short circuit
current for changes in irradiance and temperature.
The variation in short circuit current with irradiance and
temperature given in [4] is modied as follows:
(3)

(6)

ksc

opt

opt

low ISC :

in (7) gives

1 ksc
2

low

(8)

Therefore, the reference current is given as

Iref ksc

opt ISC

1 ksc
2

low

mS:

KT 1 ISC T  Tnom

(4)

ISC is current temperature coefcient, KA is correction factor

accounting for ambient temperature and PV panel aging. The
terms Snom , Tnom , and ISC Snom ; Tnom are irradiance, temperature, and short circuit current of PV panel at standard test
conditions (STCs), respectively. The term S is variable irradiance, and T is variable temperature. The variation in short circuit
current with temperature is much less as compared to irradiance
[3]. Thus, KT in (4) can be approximated to unity. This approximation will save the memory, computation time, and temperature
sensor cost. Therefore, the short circuit current is approximated
as given
ISC 

S
Snom

ISC Snom ; Tnom KA  mS

; Tnom KA
.
where m ISC SnomSnom

(5)

(9)

2) Determination of Operating Current Limits: From (2) and

(5), the upper operating current limit for a given irradiance S is
dened as
Iup ISC mS:

(10)

Similarly, from (2), the lower operating current limit for a given
irradiance S is dened as
Ilow 2IMPP  ISC :

where

(7)

Substituting (5), (6), and ksc ksc

Ilow ksc

opt

(11)

in (11) gives

low mS:

(12)

3) Determination of S: Let us consider that S1 ; S0 ,

and S2 are three irradiance levels with S1 > S0 > S2 . The
corresponding operating ranges for which the current
perturbation alone gives satisfactory response are dened as
2IMPP1  ISC1  Ipv k  ISC1
2IMPP0  ISC0  Ipv k  ISC0

(13)
(14)

2IMPP2  ISC2  Ipv k  ISC2 :

(15)

Let us assume that the PV panel is operating at S0 . Suddenly the

irradiance is increased to S1 such that the lower limit of (13) is
equal to the upper limit of (14) as given
2IMPP1  ISC1 ISC0 :

(16)

KOLLIMALLA AND MISHRA: VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM

721

Solving (16) using (5), (6), and ksc ksc opt gives S1
1
2ksc opt 1 S0 . Therefore, the incremental limit of S is dened as
SINC S1  S0

21  ksc opt
S0 :
2ksc opt  1

(17)

Similarly, assume that irradiance is suddenly decreased from S0

to S2 such that the lower limit of (14) is equal to the upper limit of
(15) as given
2IMPP0  ISC0 ISC2 :

(18)

Solving (18) using (5), (6), and ksc ksc opt gives S2
2ksc opt  1S0 . Therefore, the decremental limit of S is
dened as
SDEC S2  S0 2ksc

opt

 1S0 :

(19)

Fig. 3. Different cases of operating point movement.

DYNAMICS

TABLE I
PERTURBATION SIZE

OF

4) Determination of IC : The threshold current range ITH

for a given irradiance S is dened as
ITH Iup  Ilow :

(20)

Substituting (10) and (12) in (20) gives

ITH 1  ksc

low mS:

(21)

Assuming N as the maximum number of iterations required to

determine MPP in the ITH range from any extreme limit of (2),
the coarse perturbation size IC is dened as
ITH
N
1  ksc

IC

low

mS:

(22)

From the above equation, it is clear that IC varies linearly with
irradiance. This value sets the coarse tuning of variable
perturbation size.
C. Variable Perturbation Algorithm
The ne perturbation size (IF ) is dened as


jMj
IF m1 m2
Ik
2

(23)

where m1 is the reduction factor of perturbation size and

m2 1  m1 . The variable M accounts for oscillations of
operating point around MPP and dened as
M signPpv1 signPpv0

(24)

Ppv1 Ppv k  Ppv k  1

Ppv0 Ppv k Ppv k  1:

(25)
(26)

where

If the operating point is moving away from the MPP, then

signPpv1 or signPpv0 in (24) is equal to 1, otherwise 1.

Depending on the movement of operating point as shown in

Fig. 3, the variable M assumes 2 or 0 or 2 as explained below.
Case 1) If the operating point is moving toward MPP for two
consecutive iterations, then signPpv1 and
signPpv0 are equal to 1 and M 2.
Case 2) If the operating point crosses the MPP from LHS to RHS
or vice versa, then signPpv1 and signPpv0 will
have opposite polarity and M 0.
Case 3) If the operating point is moving away from MPP and in
the next iteration if it moves toward MPP, then
signPpv1 and signPpv0 will have opposite polarity and M 0.
Case 4) If the operating point is moving away from MPP for two
consecutive iterations, then signPpv1 and
signPpv0 are equal to 1 and M 2.
Therefore, whenever the power oscillations occur, the perturbation size is reduced by factor m1 as shown in Table I.
After repeated oscillations around MPP, IF  0 and hence
the oscillations become negligible. If m1 1, then VPA is
absent; similarly, if m1 0, then IF 0. Therefore, the
operating range for m1 is given as
0 < m1 < 1:

(27)

Finally, if there is a signicant change in irradiance S or

violation of current limits specied in (2), then the ACA block
in Fig. 1 sets the operating current Ipv k equal to Iref as given in
(9) and resets the current perturbation size Ik to IC .
Otherwise, this block sets Ipv k to Iref as given in (1) and
Ik to IF as given in (23).
III. REALIZATION

PROPOSED MPPT ALGORITHM USING

BOOST CONVERTER

OF

TheproposedMPPTalgorithmisrealizedusingaboostconverter.
The PV panel is connected to the boost converter as shown in Fig. 4.

722

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

TABLE II
NOMINAL PARAMETERS OF BOOST CONVERTER

Fig. 4. Circuit diagram of PV system with MPPT controller.

It is assumed that the boost converter is operating in continuous current mode (CCM). According to the state space averaging
method [17], the system dynamics are described by the following
equations:
dipv
1  d
vpv
vo

L
dt
L
dvo 1  d
1
ipv 
vo

C
RC
dt

(28)
(29)

where ipv , vpv , and vo are input current, input voltage, and output
voltage of boost converter, respectively, and d is duty ratio.
A. Design of Current Control Loop
Fig. 4 shows that vpv and ipv are given to the MPPT controller
that generates the reference inductor current Iref . This reference
current is given to the current control loop. The transfer function
of control to inductor current is given as [18]
Gid s

Vo Cs 2 VRo
i~pv

d~
LCs2 RL s 1  D2

(30)

where v~pv ; i~pv ; v~o , and d~ are small perturbations in vpv ; ipv ; vo ,
and d, respectively.
The transfer function of proportional integral (PI) controller
is given by
Gc s Kp

Ki
:
s

(31)

The open-loop transfer function of current loop is given by

GOL s Gid sGc s:

(32)

The parameters of boost converter considered for experimental

study are given in Table II. The nominal switching frequency of
the boost converter considered is 20 kHz. Fig. 5(a) shows the
Bode plot of the open-loop transfer function GOL s for these
nominal values. It shows that the open-loop transfer function
without compensator has a phase margin of 89:6 at 12.9 krad/s.
The MPPT algorithm is executed at every 50 cycles of the
switching frequency. Therefore, the PI controller is designed to

Fig. 5. (a) Bode plot and (b) root locus of current control loop.

TABLE III
SPECIFICATIONS OF PV PANEL AT STC

achieve a phase margin of 60 at 2.51 krad/s. The parameters

calculated are Kp 0:169 and Ki 226:6. Fig. 5(b) shows the
root locus diagram of compensated and uncompensated system.
The root locus shows that the closed-loop poles for designed
phase margin occur at p1 177 ( 1, !n 177 krad/s)
and p2;3 1:05e3  j1:38e3 ( 0:607, !n 1:74 krad/s)
ensuring the system stability.
IV. SIMULATION STUDIES
The proposed MPPT algorithm is veried for sudden changes
in irradiance through digital simulations. The PV module considered for simulation is HHV Solar 240 Watt multicrystalline
PV panel. The specications of the PV panel are given in Table III.

KOLLIMALLA AND MISHRA: VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM

723

Fig. 6. Comparison of proposed algorithm with (a) conventional P&O, (b) adaptive P&O, and (c) variable perturbation size.

A PV array is formed by connecting seven modules in series and

two modules in parallel. The PV array is simulated to determine
ksc , in the range of S 10 to 1000 W=m2 and T 10  C to
100  C. From the simulation results, it was found that
ksc low 0:78 and ksc up 0:95. Substituting ksc low in (8) gives
ksc opt 0:89.
The proposed algorithm is compared with two algorithms,
namely conventional P&O [19] and adaptive P&O [20]. The
voltage perturbation size (V ) is chosen such that the conventional P&O algorithm and proposed algorithm with N 10 and
m1 1 give the same dynamic performance in terms of oscillations at STC. The parameters considered in this study are
m 0:0166, N 10, m1 0:9, and V 2:5 V.
In this study, the PV array is simulated for sudden changes in
irradiance assuming a constant temperature of 25 C. Initially,
the PV array is simulated at S 800 W/m2 . At the 50th
iteration, the irradiance is suddenly decreased to 400 W/m2 .
At the 100th iteration, the irradiance is suddenly increased to
800 W/m2 . Fig. 6(a) and (b) shows the comparison of the
proposed algorithm with conventional P&O and adaptive
P&O algorithms, respectively. To observe the performance of
the proposed algorithm, the simulation results are zoomed in the
iterations of (5185) and (101135). From the simulation results,
it is observed that the proposed algorithm is taking fewer
iterations to reach MPP when compared with the two algorithms.
It is further observed that the oscillations are reduced signicantly when compared with the two algorithms. Fig. 6(c) shows
the variation in I, corresponding to the sudden changes in
irradiance and power oscillations determined using (22) and (23),
respectively, as shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b).
From the above simulation study, it is observed that the
proposed MPPT algorithm effectively reduces the sustained
oscillations and tracks the MPP faster, irrespective of increase
or decrease in irradiance.
V. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
The realization of the proposed MPPT algorithm is carried out
by dSPACE real-time control. The laboratory prototype used to

Fig. 7. Experimental setup.

verify the performance of the proposed MPPT algorithm is

shown in Fig. 7. Data acquisition and the control system
are implemented by using dSPACE 1104 software with a digital
signal processor module in the PCI slot of the host PC.
The specications of the boost converter are given in Table II.
The Semikron SKM 75GB128D is used as a control switch in the
boost converter circuit. In this experiment, HHV Solar 240 Watt
multicrystalline PV panel is used. The specications of the PV
panel are given in Table III. Currents and voltages are measured
by LEM transducers.
A. Determination of m, KA , IC , and Operating Limits
The short circuit current is estimated using (5) for different
values of KA and S as shown in Fig. 8(a). Similarly, ISC is
measured for different values of S by shorting the PV panel.
These measured currents are superimposed on estimated currents
as shown in Fig. 8(a). From the graph, it was observed that for
KA 0:5542, the measured ISC and estimated ISC are approximately equal. Therefore, using KA 0:5542, it was found that
m 0:0046 A/W/m2 in (5).
As S increases, the maximum power will also increase
accordingly. In order to track MPP faster, perturbation size has
to be changed according to S. Fig. 8(b) shows the variation in the
perturbation size calculated using (22). From the results, it is

724

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

Fig. 8. Variation in current and operating limits with irradiance.

observed that as S is increased, the perturbation size is also

increased in proportion. Further, the perturbation size is also
customized by choosing N.
The variations in upper and lower current limits for different
values of S are calculated using (10) and (12), respectively, as
shown in Fig. 8(c). If the PV current is not lying between these
curves, then ACA gets activated. Similarly, the variations in
incremental and decremental limits of S are calculated using
(17) and (19), respectively, as shown in Fig. 8(d). If the change in
irradiance is not lying between these curves, then ACA gets
activated.
B. Effect of m1 on Proposed Algorithm
In this study, the effect of m1 on the proposed algorithm is
studied. Fig. 9(a) shows the current, power, and voltages of the
PV system. Initially, the boost converter switch is OFF, so that the
PV panel is directly connected to load resistance of 25 . At t1 ,
t3 , and t5 instants, the proposed algorithm is activated with
m1 0:95, 0.9, and 0.85, respectively, at constant N 2. The
proposed algorithm is deactivated at t2 and t4 instants, so that the
PV panel is directly connected to the load. The irradiance
measured is varying around 500 W/m2 . To analyze the effect
of m1 , the powers are zoomed at t1 , t3 , and t5 instants, as shown
in Fig. 9(b). From the results, it is observed that the steady-state
response time to reach MPP, tss 0:3, 0.08, and 0.04 s for
m1 0:95, 0.9, and 0.85, respectively. Therefore, as m1 is
decreasing, the oscillations around MPP are also reducing
rapidly, and hence the PV panel reaches steady state rapidly.
Fig. 9(c) shows the variation in I, corresponding to changes in
m1 determined by (22) and (23).
C. Effect of N on Proposed Algorithm
In this study, the effect of N on the proposed algorithm is
studied. Fig. 10(a) shows the current, power, and voltages of the
PV system. Initially, the boost converter switch is OFF, so that the
PV panel is directly connected to load resistance of 25 . At t1 ,
t3 , and t5 instants, the proposed algorithm is activated with
N 1, 3, and 10, respectively, at constant m1 1 (i.e., VPA is
absent). The proposed algorithm is deactivated at t2 and t4
instants, so that the PV panel is directly connected to the load.

Fig. 9. Experimental results for m1 0:95, 0.9, and 0.85 at N 2: (a) output
voltage, PV power, voltage, and current; (b) powers; and (c) variable perturbation
size.

The irradiance measured is varying around 490 W/m2 . The

perturbation sizes corresponding to N 1, 3, and 10 are determined using (22); these values are I 0:496, 0.165, and
0.049 A, respectively. To analyze the effect of N, the powers
are zoomed at t1 , t3 , and t5 instants, as shown in Fig. 10(b). From
the results, it is observed that for N 1, the PV panel reaches
MPP faster with signicant oscillations around MPP, when
compared with N 3 and 10. For N 10, the PV panel reaches
MPP relatively slowly with reduced oscillations. The magnitude
of oscillations around MPP (Pmag osc ) is 14, 4, and 0.5 W for
N 1, 3, and 10, respectively. Therefore, as N is increasing, the
PV panel reaches MPP relatively slowly with reduction in
magnitude of oscillations.
VI. COMPARISON OF MPPT ALGORITHMS
The proposed algorithm is evaluated for 1) operating current
limit violation, 2) sudden decrease in irradiance, and 3) sudden
increase in irradiance. In this study, sudden changes in irradiance
are articially created by shading the PV panel. The parameters
considered are m1 0:9 and N 10. In this study, the lower
limit of I is kept at 0.01 A.
The proposed algorithm is compared with three algorithms
namely 1) voltage-based P&O (algorithm 1) [19], 2) current-

KOLLIMALLA AND MISHRA: VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM

725

Fig. 10. Experimental results for N 1, 3, and 10 at m1 1: (a) output voltage,

PV power, voltage, and current, and (b) powers.

based P&O (algorithm 2) [21], and 3) duty ratio-based INC

(algorithm 3) [22].
There is a tradeoff between response speed and oscillations
around MPP in the conventional MPPT algorithms. To compare
the algorithms, voltage perturbation (VP&O ), current perturbation (IP&O ), and duty ratio perturbation (DINC ) of algorithms
1, 2, and 3 are determined, respectively, by xing the oscillations
around MPP approximately equal to the oscillations obtained by
proposed algorithm. Therefore, the performance is evaluated
based on response speed to reach MPP, for the same amount of
oscillations.
Figs. 11(a), 12(a), and 13(a) show the variation in irradiance
pattern considered in this study. It shows that the irradiance is
suddenly decreased at t2 and t6 instants and suddenly increased at
t3 and t7 instants. Figs. 11(b), 12(b), and 13(b) show the voltage
(vpv ), current (ipv ), and power (ppv ) of PV panel and output
voltage (vo ) of boost converter. Figs. 11(c)(e), 12(c)(e), and
13(c)(e) show the zoomed powers of the proposed and conventional algorithms at (t1 , t5 ), (t2 , t6 ), and (t3 , t7 ) instants corresponding to operating current limit violation, sudden decrease in
irradiance, and sudden increase in irradiance, respectively.
To demonstrate the performance of the proposed algorithm,
the boost converter is operated in three modes: 1) inactive mode,
2) proposed algorithm mode (t1  t4 ), and 3) conventional algorithm mode (t5  t8 ). In inactive mode, the control switch is OFF so
that the PV panel is directly connected to the load. The operating
point of PV panel is decided by the load resistance. In the proposed
and conventional algorithm modes, switching pulses are given to
the control switch according to the individual control logic.

Fig. 11. Experimental results of proposed algorithm and algorithm 1:

(a) irradiance; (b) output voltage, PV power, voltage, and current; and
(c)(e) powers.

A. Comparison of Proposed Algorithm With Voltage-Based

P&O Algorithm (Algorithm 1) [19]
Initially, the boost converter is operated in inactive mode.
Therefore, the PV panel is directly connected to the load resistance of 25 . The corresponding PV panel operating voltage
and current are 27.5 V and 1.1 A, respectively.
At t1 instant, the proposed algorithm is activated. The irradiance measured at this instant is 535 W/m2 . According to (12),
Ilow 1:91 A for S 535 W/m2 . But ipv 1:1 A, which is
less than Ilow . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets Iref
to 2.19 A and I to 0.0541 A using (9) and (22), respectively.
The current perturbation algorithm takes these values as inputs
and drives the operating point to MPP, as shown in Fig. 11(b).

726

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

As the operating point oscillates around MPP, VPA gets activated and continuously reduces the I using (23). The CPA
drives the operating point to MPP in less than 60 ms, as shown in
Fig. 11(c).
At t2 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased from 535 to
410 W/m2 . According to (19), SDEC 117 W/m2 . But the
irradiance is decreased by 125 410  535 W/m2 , which is
less than SDEC . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets the Iref
to 1.678 A and I to 0.0415 A using (9) and (22), respectively.
The CPA drives the operating point to MPP in less than 40 ms, as
shown in Fig. 11(d).
At t3 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased from 412
to 537 W/m2 . According to (17), SINC 116 W/m2 . But
the irradiance is increased by 125 537  412 W/m2 ,
which is greater than SINC . Therefore, ACA gets activated
and sets the Iref to 2.198 A and I to 0.0543 A using (9) and
(22), respectively. The CPA drives the operating point to MPP
in less than 70 ms as shown in Fig. 11(e).
At t4 instant, the boost converter is brought back to inactive
mode. Therefore, the PV panel is directly connected to the load.
At t5 instant, algorithm 1 is activated with VP&O 0:1 V. At
t6 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased to 418 W/m2 . At
t7 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased to 515 W/m2 .
The results are shown in Fig. 11(b).
From Fig. 11(c)(e), it is observed that the steady-state
response time to reach MPP (tss ) for proposed algorithm is
60, 40, and 70 ms, respectively, whereas for algorithm 1 is 350,
180, and 160 ms, respectively.
B. Comparison of Proposed Algorithm With Current Based
P&O Algorithm (Algorithm 2) [21]
Initially, the boost converter is operated in inactive mode.
At t1 instant, the proposed algorithm is activated. At this
instant, vpv , ipv , S, and Ilow are 25 V, 1 A, 525 W=m2 , and
1.88 A, respectively. As ipv is less than Ilow , ACA gets
activated and sets Iref to 2.14 A and I to 0.0531 A. The
current perturbation algorithm takes these values as inputs
and drives the operating point to MPP, as shown in
Fig. 12(b).
At t2 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased from 525 to
374 W/m2 . According to (19), SDEC 115 W/m2 . But the
irradiance is decreased by 151 374  525 W/m2 , which is
less than SDEC . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets the Iref
to 1.531 A and I to 0.0378 A.
At t3 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased from 374 to
523 W/m2 . According to (17), SINC 105 W/m2 . But the
irradiance is increased by 149 523  374 W/m2 , which is
greater than SINC . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets the
Iref to 2.141 A and I to 0.0529 A.
At t4 instant, the boost converter is brought back to inactive
mode. At t5 instant, algorithm 2 is activated with IP&O
0:01 A. At t6 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased to
375 W/m2 . At t7 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased
to 535 W/m2 .
From Fig. 12(c)(e), it is observed that tss for proposed
algorithm is 80, 60, and 70 ms, respectively, whereas for algorithm 2 is 750, 190, and 340 ms, respectively.

Fig. 12. Experimental results of proposed algorithm and algorithm 2: (a) irradiance; (b) output voltage, PV power, voltage, and current; and (c)(e) powers.

C. Comparison of Proposed Algorithm With Duty Ratio-Based

INC Algorithm (Algorithm 3) [22]
Initially, the boost converter is operated in inactive mode. At t1
instant, the proposed algorithm is activated. At this instant, vpv ,
ipv , S, and Ilow are 22.5 V, 0.9 A, 508 W/m2 , and 1.82 A,
respectively. As ipv is less than Ilow , ACA gets activated and sets
Iref to 2.079 A and I to 0.0514 A. The current perturbation
algorithm takes these values as inputs and drives the operating
point to MPP, as shown in Fig. 13(b).
At t2 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased from 510 to
364 W/m2 . According to (19), SDEC 112 W/m2 . But the
irradiance is decreased by 146 364  510 W/m2 , which is
less than SDEC . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets the Iref
to 1.49 A and I to 0.0368.

KOLLIMALLA AND MISHRA: VARIABLE PERTURBATION SIZE ADAPTIVE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM

727

effectively works for operating current limit violation and sudden

changes in irradiance.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a two-stage variable perturbation size algorithm
was proposed for sudden changes in irradiance and PV current
limit violation. The proposed method has the following three
features: 1) steadily tracks the MPP under normal conditions,
2) speeds up the dynamic performance under sudden operating
limits violation, and 3) provides variable perturbation to reduce
the oscillations around MPP. These three features are accomplished using three algorithms namely CPA, ACA, and VPA,
respectively. Unlike the conventional P&O, the proposed algorithm has faster response with reduced oscillations around MPP.
The computational efforts caused due to the derivatives as
explained in INC method are absent. It tracks true maximum
power, unlike the fractional open circuit voltage and FSCC
methods. Also, it does not require a large amount of data
(storage) for training and extensive computation to deal various
stages, as required by FLC and NN. The simulation and experimental studies show that the proposed algorithm gives faster
response than the conventional algorithms.
REFERENCES

Fig. 13. Experimental results of proposed algorithm and algorithm 3: (a) irradiance; (b) output voltage, PV power, voltage, and current; and (c)(e) powers.

At t3 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased from 366 to

516 W/m2 . According to (17), SINC 103 W/m2 . But the
irradiance is increased by 150 516  366 W/m2 , which is
greater than SINC . Therefore, ACA gets activated and sets the
Iref to 2.112 A and I to 0.0522 A.
At t4 instant, the boost converter is brought back to inactive
mode. At t5 instant, algorithm 3 is activated with DINC
0:005. At t6 instant, the irradiance is suddenly decreased to
370 W/m2 . At t7 instant, the irradiance is suddenly increased to
537 W/m2 . The results are shown in Fig. 13(b).
From Fig. 13(c)(e), it is observed that tss for the proposed
algorithm is 60, 40, and 40 ms, respectively, whereas for algorithm 3 is 290, 120, and 160 ms, respectively.
From the above results, it is observed that the proposed
algorithm reaches MPP relatively faster when compared with
algorithms 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, the proposed MPPT algorithm

[1] T. Esram and P. L. Chapman, Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum

power point tracking techniques, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 439449, Jun. 2007.
[2] B. Subudhi and R. Pradhan, A comparative study on maximum power
point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems, IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 8998, Jan. 2013.
[3] A. K. Abdelsalam, A. M. Massoud, S. Ahmed, and P. Enjeti, Highperformance adaptive perturb and observe MPPT technique for
photovoltaic-based microgrids, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 26,
no. 4, pp. 10101021, Apr. 2011.
[4] S. B. Kjaer, Evaluation of the hill climbing and the incremental
conductance maximum power point trackers for photovoltaic power systems, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 922929,
Dec. 2012.
[5] F. Liu, S. Duan, F. Liu, B. Liu, and Y. Kang, A variable step size INC
MPPT method for PV systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 7,
pp. 26222628, Jul. 2008.
[6] C. W. Tan, T. C. Green, and C. A. Hernandez-Aramburo, An improved
maximum power point tracking algorithm with current-mode control for
photovoltaic applications, in Proc. Int. Conf. Power Electron. Drives Syst.,
vol. 1, 2005, pp. 489494.
[7] H. Patel and V. Agarwal, MPPT scheme for a PV-fed single-phase singlestage grid-connected inverter operating in CCM with only one current
sensor, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 256263,
Mar. 2009.
[8] L. Piegari and R. Rizzo, Adaptive perturb and observe algorithm for
photovoltaic maximum power point tracking, IET Renew. Power Gen.,
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 317328, Jul. 2010.
[9] N. Fermia, D. Granozio, G. Petrone, and M. Vitelli, Predictive & adaptive
MPPT perturb and observe method, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.,
vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 934950, Jul. 2007.
[10] Y. C. Kuo, T. J. Liang, and J. F. Chen, Novel maximum-power-pointtracking controller for photovoltaic energy conversion system, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 594601, Jun. 2001.
[11] Y. H. Ji, D. Y. Jung, J. G. Kim, J. H. Kim, T. W. Lee, and C. Y. Won, A real
maximum power point tracking method for mismatching compensation in
pv array under partially shaded conditions, IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 10011009, Apr. 2011.
[12] M. A. S. Masoum, H. Dehbonei, and E. F. Fuchs, Theoretical and
experimental analyses of photovoltaic systems with voltage and currentbased maximum power-point tracking, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 514522, Dec. 2002.

728

[13] S. Yuvarajan and S. Xu, Photovoltaic power converter with a simple

maximum power point tracker, in Proc. Int. Symp. Circuits Syst., vol. 3,
2003, pp. III (399402).
[14] D. P. Quoc, Q. N. Nhat, N. T. D. Vu, A. N. Bao, H. H. Lee et al., The new
combined maximum power point tracking algorithm using fractional
estimation in photovoltaic systems, in Proc. IEEE 9th Int. Conf. Power
Electron. Drive Syst., 2011, pp. 919923.
[15] A. K. Rai, N. D. Kaushika, B. Singh, and N. Agarwal, Simulation model of
ANN based maximum power point tracking controller for solar PV system,
Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 773778, Feb. 2011.
[16] B. Alajmi, K. Ahmed, S. Finney, and B. Williams, Fuzzy logic control
approach of a modied hill-climbing method for maximum power point in
microgrid stand alone photovoltaic system, IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 10221030, Apr. 2011.
[17] R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of Power Electronics.
Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer, 2001.
[18] Y. Jin, J. Xu, G. Zhou, and C. Mi, Small-signal modeling and analysis of
improved digital peak current control of boost converter, in Proc. IEEE 6th
Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., 2009, pp. 326330.
[19] Y. T. Tan, D. Kirschen, and N. Jenkins, A model of PV generation suitable
for stability analysis, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 19, no. 4,
pp. 748755, Dec. 2004.
[20] W.-S. Jwo, C.-C. Tong, and C.-J. Chao, Firmware implementation of an
adaptive solar cell maximum power point tracking based on PSOC,
in Proc. 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., 2010, pp. 407411.
[21] I. Houssamo, F. Locment, and M. Sechilariu, Maximum power tracking
for photovoltaic power system: Development and experimental comparison
of two algorithms, Renew. Energy, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 23812387,
Oct. 2010.
[22] A. Safari and S. Mekhilef, Simulation and hardware implementation of
incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method using Cuk
converter, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 11541161,
Apr. 2011.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 5, NO. 3, JULY 2014

Sathish Kumar Kollimalla (S12) received the

Bachelor degree from VITAM College of Engineering, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, in 2003,
and the Master of Engineering degree from Andhra
University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India,
in 2006. Currently, he is pursuing the Ph.D. degree
from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
His research interests include power electronics
applications in power systems, microgrid, renewable
energy systems, and power quality.

Mahesh Kumar Mishra (S00M02SM10) received the B.Tech. degree from the College of Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India, in 1991,
the M.E. degree from the University of Roorkee,
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India, in 1993, and the Ph.
D. degree in electrical engineering from the Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar
Pradesh, India, in 2002.
He has teaching and research experience of about
20 years. For about 10 years, he was with the Electrical
Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India. Currently, he is a Professor with the
Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. His interests are in the areas of power distribution
systems, power electronic applications in microgrid, and renewable energy
systems.
Dr. Mahesh is a life member of the Indian Society of Technical Education
(ISTE).