Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

A quick and effective MPPT scheme for solar power generation during
dynamic weather and partial shaded conditions
Muralidhar Nayak Bhukya a,⇑, Venkata Reddy Kota b
a
Department of EEE, Institute of Aeronautical Engineering, Hyderabad 500 043, India
b
Department of EEE, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Kakinada, Kakinada 533 003, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 3 April 2018
Revised 23 December 2018
Accepted 29 January 2019
Available online 5 February 2019
Keywords:
Tangent perturbation on P-V characteristics
Global Maximum Power Point (GMPP)
Constant current region (CCR)
Constant voltage region (CVR)
Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) and
Partial shaded condition (PSC)
Photovoltaic (PV) panels are equipped with Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) schemes to extract
utmost available power even during dynamic weather conditions (DWC) and partial shaded conditions
(PSC). Though P-V and I-V characteristics of a PV system are affected by DWC and PSC, they have a con-
stant current region (CCR) and constant voltage region (CVR). To achieve the optimal operating point of a
PV system, the existing conventional MPPT schemes have to pass through CCR and CVR regions which
consume time. Hence, this paper presents a novel MPPT scheme that eliminates perturbation in constant
regions in any condition by projecting tangents over P-V characteristics thereby approaches an estimated
point on the top of the curve quickly. Further, the iterative procedure involved in the proposal achieves
the exact optimal point according to operating conditions of the system. Experimental and simulation
results of the proposed methodology provide enough evidence to prove the superiority of the proposed
method over conventional Perturb and Observe (P&OC) scheme.
Ó 2019 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Around the world, the demand in power generation, depleting
fossil fuels and concern over the environmental issues have drawn
our attention to generate electric power using solar PV system [1].
Abundant available solar irradiance and temperature on the panel
surface are the source of solar power. Power-Voltage (P-V) charac-
teristics of a PV system have an optimal operating point, which is
the Maximum Power Point (MPP) of a PV system and is influenced
by environmental conditions. When PV system is operated at MPP,
maximal solar energy is extracted from the system. Due to period-
ical variations in environment MPP of the system changes and it
has to be tracked continuously using MPPT scheme. In literature,
many MPPT schemes have been reported [2–4] such as traditional
Hill-Climbing method (H-CM), conventional Perturb and Observe
(P&OC), Incremental Conductance (INC) and soft computing
techniques.
In general, PV modules are connected in series and parallel
combination to meet the demand of power generation, where PV
modules are formed by a sequence of series connected PV cells.
Though PV panels are accommodated on rooftops, due to obstacles
such as passing clouds, shadows, dust deposit on panels and bird
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rathode.muralidhar@gmail.com (M.N. Bhukya).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
waste, it is not possible to receive uniform irradiance all over the
system. This phenomenon is usually called as partial shaded condi-
tion (PSC). PSC not only effects system performance but also causes
physical damage by creating hot spots in the panels. To restrict
these damage PV panels are incorporated with bypass diodes. Dur-
ing PSC, series connected PV modules have dissimilar voltages and
in the same way current in parallel connected modules differ from
each other. When the PV system is operated under PSC using
bypass diodes, the P-V characteristics exhibits multiple peaks.
Among these peaks, the highest magnitude peak is treated as Glo-
bal Maximum Power Point (GMPP) and the other peaks are treated
as local peaks. It is the task of the controller to track GMPP during
PSC. Conventional MPPT schemes trap first local peak as the opti-
mal operating point and fail to accomplish GMPP. This behavior
of conventional trackers led to the proposal of a novel MPPT
scheme to optimize the GMPP under PSC of PV system.
Trackers composed of soft computing techniques (SCT) [5]
based on fuzzy logic controller and artificial neural networks are
successfully implemented to track GMPP of a PV system operated
under PSC. The tedious work lies with SCT is, fuzzy consumes much
time to solve computations where huge data is required to train
rules for the neural network. Compared to conventional methods,
Metaheuristic algorithms [6–8] such as genetic algorithm (GA),
cuckoo search (CS), ant colony optimizer (ACO), grey wolf
optimizer (GWO), whale optimizer (WO) and particle swarm opti-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2019.01.015
2215-0986/Ó 2019 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
870 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

Nomenclature

IPh Photo generated current source (A) dP/dV Derivative of power with respect to voltage
IO Leakage current of the diode (A) h Angle between tangent line and V-axis
q Charge of electron (C) VX Point on P-V characteristics at 5% VOC
A Ideality factor of the diode VY Point on P-V characteristics at 95% VOC
k Boltzman constant P1 Intersection point of the two tangents
T Temperature (°C) on the panel surface N1 Estimated MPP on P-V characteristics
RS Series resistances (O) YLT Left tangent line
RP Parallel resistances (O) PI(VX) Slope of the left tangent
I PV system current (A) YRT Right tangent line
V PV system voltage (V) PI(VY) Slope of the right tangent
P PV system power (W) VN1 Voltage at abscissa ‘N01
Y Tangent line equation
PI(VK) Slope of the tangent line

mizers (PSO) tracks GMPP effectively but practical implementation where IPh is photogenerated current source, I0 is leakage current of
involves complexity due to the random nature of population. the diode, q is the charge of electron and numerically given as
Lian et al. [9] and Sundareswaran et al. [10] proposed and 1.6  10219C, A is the ideality factor of the diode ranges in
experimentally enhanced the performance of P&O under PSC by between 1 and 1.8, k is the Boltzman constant and is equivalent
incorporating genetic algorithm in GMPP tracking. In the proposal, to 1.38  10223 J/K, T is temperature (°C) on the panel surface, Rs
the genetic algorithm scans the search space and realizes the high- and RP are the series and parallel resistance in the order of ohms,
est magnitude peak to P&O. Furthermore, P&O guarantees global but for computational simplification Eq. (1) is rewritten as
maximum point of the system. Although P&O performance is
improved it consumes much time to track GMPP. In [11] and
[12] investigated and implemented P&O combined with different
metaheuristic algorithms to optimize GMPP among local peaks.
The drawbacks allied with these combinational MPPT algorithms
are, metaheuristic algorithms go through entire search space to
decide GMPP hence consumes much time. In Kobayashi et al.
[13] presented a two-stage MPPT algorithm under PSC. In the first
stage magnitude of local peaks are recognized and in the second
stage exact GMPP is tracked. This method works pretty well for
partial shading but fails to provide maximum efficiency during
low irradiance level [14–16].
P&OC tracker finds its wide application in both industrial and
commercial sectors due to its simple implementation [17]. The
demerits associated with P&OC are, it operates on a fixed perturba-
tion step size. When P&OC is operated with a large step size it con-
verges quickly to the optimal operating point but the magnitude of
oscillations around MPP are high. In contrast, tiny step size reduces
the magnitude of oscillations and consumes much time to reach
MPP. In order to avoid these complications with P&OC, this paper
presents a novel MPPT scheme based on Tangents perturbation
on P-V characteristics which performs effectively during DWC
and PSC. The CCR and CVR regions are directly eliminated by pro-
jecting two tangents on left and right sides of P-V characteristics.
Abscissa gives the estimated operating point on the PV system,
thereafter reaches the exact optimal operating point. Experimental
and simulation results of the proposed scheme are far superior to
the P&OC method. Complexity in the practical implementation of
the proposed scheme is similar to the conventional one [18].

2. Mathematical modeling of PV system

A PV system is composed of many P-N junction semiconductor

cells, which have the ability to convert solar light energy directly
into electric energy. The electric circuit model consists of photo gen-
erated current source, diode, series resistance and parallel resis-
tance. The current (I) equation of the PV system is given as [19]
   
qV þ IRS V þ IRS
I ¼ IPh  I0 exp 1  ð1Þ Fig. 1. PV module configuration and shading pattern on the panels (a) Two series
AkT RP
(2S), (b) Two Series Two Parallel (2S2P) and (c) Three Series Three Parallel (3S3P).
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884 871

   
qV tion power is compared. The result obtained after comparison
I ¼ IPh  I0 exp 1 ð2Þ
AkT plays a key role in the movement of perturbation. As the procedure
perturbs with a fixed step around MPP, the algorithm is associated
Finally, PV system output power is mathematically expressed as
with oscillations. Oscillations present in the system effects accu-
    
qV racy, tracking speed and overall system efficiency. Yali et al. [22]
P ¼ V IPh  I0 exp 1 ð3Þ
AkT presented an improved MPPT experimentally based on interpola-
tion which improves the drawback associated with traditional
The proposed scheme is tested using three different PV panel
method. Femia et al. [23] presented optimization of P&OC to con-
combinations i.e., Two Series (2S), Two Series Two Parallel (2S2P)
trol oscillations around MPP by customizing MPPT parameters
and Three Series Three Parallel (3S3P). Fig. 1 depicts these three
with respect to behavior of converter. However, the P&OC scheme
configurations and their shading patterns. The P-V and I-V charac-
is slow to reach MPPT.
teristics shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b) clearly represent the configura-
tions ability to deliver maximum power, voltage and current along
with maximum available power during PSC. Solar panel specifica- 3.2. Proposed MPPT scheme
tions and step up converter [20] parameters used in this test are
given in Appendix ‘A’. Fig. 3(a) and (b) depicts P-V characteristics during uniform irra-
diance and partial shaded conditions which clearly specify the con-
stant current region (A) and constant voltage region (B). As shown
3. Proposed MPPT scheme
in Fig. 3(a) draw a tangent line on P-V characteristic, the tangent
line equation Y = P(V) passing through V-axis and P-axis at the
3.1. Brief overview on P&OC
point (VK, P(VK)) is mathematically expressed as [24]
In general, P&OC scheme is widely used among existing MPPT Y ¼ P I ðV K ÞðV  V K Þ þ P ðV K Þ ð4Þ
controllers due to simple implementation and low cost. From panel
current (I) and voltage (V), P&OC generates essential duty cycle (D) where PI(VK) is the slope of the tangent line, from P-V characteris-
according to operating irradiance and temperature on the panel tics the derivative of power with respect to voltage is considered
surface [21]. P&OC perturbs with a fixed step size, at each perturba- as the slope of the tangent line and given as

Fig. 2. (a) P-V characteristics and (b) I-V characteristics of the PV systems considered.
872 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

dP qVI0  qV  3.3. Step-by-step procedure of the proposed MPPT scheme

¼I eAkT ð5Þ
dV AkT
Right angle triangle in Fig. 3(a) making an angle ‘h’ between tan- 1. Consider two points ‘VX’ and ‘VY’ on P-V characteristic at 5% and
gent line and V-axis, where h is 95% of VOC, such that VX belongs to CCR and VY belongs to CVR
regions.
2. Their corresponding points are noted as (VX, P(VX)) and (VY, P
 
qVI0  qV  (VY)) as shown in Fig. 4(a)
h ¼ arctan I  eAkT ð6Þ 3. From Eq. (4), the tangent line equation passing through these
AkT
points are given as
The derivative of arctan (PI(V)) is
Y LT ¼ PI ðV X ÞðV  V X Þ þ P ðV X Þ ð8Þ
  
d qVI0  qV  1
arctan I  eAkT ¼   qV 2 ð7Þ Y RT ¼ PI ðV Y ÞðV  V Y Þ þ P ðV Y Þ ð9Þ
dV AkT qVI0
1 þ I  AkT eAkT
where YLT is the left tangent line and YRT is the right tangent line.
The curve representing [1/(1+(PI(V))2] in Fig. 3(a) clearly portraits Fig. 4 shows the projection of left and right tangents on P-V charac-
that its magnitude is less than 0.1 in A and B regions. Hence, ‘A’ is the teristics along with the position of tangents after the first iteration,
constant current region (CCR) where power depends on voltage and under (a) uniform irradiance and (b) PSC.
‘B’ is the constant voltage region (CVR) where power is a function of
current. In the proposed scheme, perturbations in these two regions 4. As slope of the two tangents PI(VX) and PI(VY) always satisfies
are eliminated by projecting tangents on P-V characteristics at 5% the condition i.e., PI(VX) > 0 and PI(VY) < 0 the two tangents will
and 95% VOC. The initial values of 5% VOC and 95% VOC are chosen intersect at a point P1, and the corresponding point on P-V char-
as the MPP always lies between these points [25]. By eliminating acteristic is N1, which is treated as estimated MPP.
CCR and CVR regions, the proposed MPPT scheme consumes less 5. Due to the projection of linear tangents over non-linear P-V
time to reach the optimal operating point in any environmental con- characteristic, there exists an error between the points P1 and
ditions and results in better efficiency. N1. And the abscissa at point ‘N01 is given as

Fig. 3. Constant current and constant voltage regions using [1/(1 + PI(V)2)] curve during (a) uniform irradiance and (b) PSC.
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884
PðV Y Þ  PðV X Þ þ PI ðV X ÞV X  PI ðV Y ÞV Y
V N1 ¼
PI ðV X Þ  P I ðV Y Þ
6. ‘V0N1 is the estimated MPP voltage on the top of the curve and its
corresponding points are (VN1, P(VN1)).
7. Again from Eq. (4), the tangent line equation passing through
(VN1, P(VN1)) is given as
Y N1 ¼ PI ðV N1 ÞðV  V N1 Þ þ PðV N1 Þ
If the slope of the above tangent, PI(VN1) is greater than zero. Set
VX = VN1, or else VY = VN1. This means that one of the two points
‘VX’ and ‘VY’ is updated to VN1.
8. If, jY Ni ðV Þ  P ðV Ni Þj  e, repeat the procedure by updating inter-
section and estimated MPP points, until the termination condi-
tion is satisfied i.e, jY Ni ðV Þ  P ðV Ni Þj < e, where e > 0.
9. As the error between points ‘Pi’ and ‘Ni’ becomes less than e, the
termination condition is satisfied. The proposed algorithm stops
iterating and maintains the operating voltage constant until
there is a change in irradiance or temperature of the PV system
[26]. Flowchart of the proposed MPPT scheme is depicted in
Fig. 5. The working of the proposed scheme during PSC is sim-
ilar to the one explained under uniform irradiance with little
change in curve and tangent position [27].
Fig. 4. Tangent diagram on P-V characteristics (a) uniform irradiance and (b) PSC.
873
The proposed method misjudges exact MPP of the PV system
ð10Þ
when MPP lies at the rightmost side of the P-V characteristics. Dur-
ing this scenario, one of the points initially chosen (i.e., 0.95VOC)
has to be modified as 0.8VOC. Practically, always it is not possible
to obtain MPP to the right of the P-V characteristics.
3.4. Iteration comparison with P&OC and bisection search methods
In order to establish tracking performance, the proposed
ð11Þ scheme is compared with the Bisection Search Method (BSM)
and P&OC scheme. BSM bisects regularly in the same operating
interval of the proposed scheme which is [5%VOC, 95%VOC], after
bisection, it verifies interval of the operating point. To find the
maximum point in the given interval, BSM divides the interval
as
5%V OC þ 95%V OC
VI ¼ ð12Þ
2
Thereafter P(VI) is determined, depending on the obtained value
of P(VI) next interval is decided, whether the operating point
belongs to [5%VOC, VI] or [VI, 95%VOC] [28–30]. The procedure con-
tinues until the maximum value is reached. BSM takes 10 itera-
tions to reach the optimal operating point of the system, whereas
the proposed scheme consumes only 7 iterations which are clearly
shown in Fig. 6 [31]. Iterations comparative analysis of BSM, P&OC
and proposed scheme is given in Table 1 [32–35]. From Fig. 6, it is
874 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

clear that with large step size, P&O achieves MPP within no time
Start but the magnitude of oscillations around MPP is intolerable. Simi-
larly, with small step size, magnitudes of oscillations are reduced
but fail to achieve MPP within the optimal time. In order to com-
Set ‘VX’ & ‘VY’ on P-V curve at pensate for time response and oscillations around MPP, it is chosen
5%VOC & 95% VOC as 1 V.

4. Simulation results
Calculate ‘YLT’ & ‘YRT’ at
corresponding VX & VY 4.1. Testing at Standard test conditions (STC)

PV system is simulated at Standard Test Conditions (STC) i.e.,

Identify ‘YLT’ & ‘YRT’ intersection
point P1 and corresponding point N1 on
P-V curve
Calculate ‘YN1’ at the point (VN1,
P(VN1)) where PI(VN1) is slope of the
tangent
PI(VN1) > 0
Yes
VX = VN1
Update VX & VY, Repeat the procedure
until algorithm converges
Fig. 5. Flow chart of the proposed MPPT scheme.
solar irradiance (G) of 1000 W/m2 and temperature (T) of 25 °C.
PV system simulation model consists of two PV panels connected
in series, step-up converter, resistive load and MPPT controllers
configured in the MATLAB/Simulink platform. Fig. 7 shows a per-
formance comparison of PV system (a) output power and (b) out-
put voltage using P&OC and proposed MPPT schemes.
In this paper, P&OC MPPT scheme is operated with a fixed step
size reference of 1 V. In Fig. 7(a), zoom in diagram from 0.35 s to
0.36 s clearly shows the magnitude of oscillations caused by the
conventional scheme at steady state which effects output power
of the PV system, whereas the proposed scheme is independent
of step size reference it extracts maximum power with tiny oscil-
lations (tiny oscillations are due to the presence of storage ele-
ments in the PV system). Zoom in diagrams in Fig. 7(a) and (b)
No from 0.015 s to 0.02 s and 0.015 s to 0.03 s depicts the response
time of the proposed scheme. Maximum solar power extracted
VY = VN1 using the two MPPT schemes from low irradiance to high irradi-
ance at constant temperature and static efficiency from the
obtained solar power to actual power at different irradiance are
shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b). Static efficiency is given as
PSolarPowerObtained
staticðgÞ ¼  100% ð13Þ
P ActualPower

As PV system experiences low irradiance i.e.,100 W/m2 pro-

posed scheme posses a maximum efficiency of 90%, whereas
P&OC has 45% efficiency. Correspondingly, as irradiance is
increased to 1000 W/m2 the efficiency of proposed and conven-
tional MPPT schemes are 99.4% and 97.1% respectively.

4.2. Testing at DWC for 8 h duration

In order to prove the robustness of the proposed scheme, PV

Fig. 6. Iteration diagram comparing proposed scheme, BSM and P&OC MPPT
schemes (a) BSM (b) Proposed Scheme (c) P&OC with 2Volt ref. (d) P&OC with 1Volt
ref. and (e) P&OC with 0.5Volt ref.
system is tested under dynamic weather conditions (DWC) using
a meteorological data of solar irradiance and temperature at a lat-
itude and longitude position of 10.7589°N and 78.8132°E for a
duration of 8 h. Using signal builder tool irradiance and tempera-
ture profiles are plotted as shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b). Initially, irra-
diance and temperature values are very low and increase gradually
up to midday thereafter decreases as the day approaches evening.
The shape of the profile is zigzag as irradiance and temperature are
affected by environmental conditions. The PV system output power
extracted using P&OC and proposed MPPT schemes are illustrated

Table 1
Iteration Comparison of MPPT Schemes.

MPPT Scheme P&OC (0.5 V) P&OC (1 V) P&OC (2 V) BSM Proposed Scheme

No. Of Iterations 38 20 10 10 7
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884
Fig. 7. Performance comparison of PV system (a) Output Power and (b) Output Voltage using P&OC and Proposed schemes at STC.
in Fig. 10. It is clearly shown in Fig. 10 that during low irradiance
level P&OC scheme fails to track power locus. At high irradiance
level, conventional scheme traps better but associated with huge
oscillations due to fixed step size reference. Finally, it can be
noticed that the P&OC scheme fails to track continuously and large
oscillations are observed. On the other hand, the proposed scheme
tracks perfectly with little oscillations.
4.3. Testing at PSC using 2S, 2S2P and 3S3P configurations
The proposed MPPT scheme is used to track Global Maximum
Power Point (GMPP) for 2S, 2S2P and 3S3P configurations of the
PV system under partial shaded condition and thereafter global
tracking performance is compared with P&OC MPPT controller.
The shading patterns of PV panels are explained in Section III.
Due to shading, two local peaks are observed in P-V characteristics.
Fig. 11 shows the performance comparison of Two Series (2S) con-
figuration output power using P&OC and proposed MPPT schemes
due to PSC. As PSC occurs at 0.2 s conventional scheme traps and
operates at the first obtained peak and fails to track GMPP. The
proposed scheme converges to the second peak obtained at
108 Watt. Zoom in diagrams in Fig. 11 represents the tracking abil-
ity of P&OC and proposed scheme. Fig. 12 shows the comparison of
875
Two Series Two Parallel (2S2P) configuration output power using
both the MPPT schemes. Shading pattern used in 2S2P
configuration and their P-V and I-V characteristics are illustrated
in Figs. 1(b) and 2(a) and (b). Under uniform irradiance PV system
has the ability to deliver a maximum power of 400Watt due to par-
tial shading its ability is restricted to 280Watt. Hence, it is the task
of the MPPT controller to extract maximum available power. But
P&OC extract 190Watt only, due to its logical problem in operation.
In contrast, the proposed scheme tracks the maximum available
power under PSC i.e., 280Watt as clearly shown in zoom in dia-
gram in Fig. 12.
The last set of simulation is now carried out on the 3S3P config-
uration and their respective shading pattern, P-V and I-V charac-
teristics are depicted in Figs. 1(c) and 2(a) and (b). Due to PSC,
three local peaks are obtained and their magnitudes are 250 Watt,
490 Watt and 580 Watt. As P&OC stucks and operates at the first
250 Watt local peak. Whereas the proposed scheme algorithm iter-
ates until it converges at the global maximum operating point.
3S3P configuration output power using both the MPPT schemes
is depicted in Fig. 13. In all the three configurations the conven-
tional scheme fails to track GMPP and operates at the first obtained
local peak this leads to huge power wastage. The proposed MPPT
scheme converges to the highest magnitude peak or global peak
876 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. (a) Maximum solar power extracted and (b) static efficiency of PV system using both the MPPT schemes.
in all the configurations. Since the proposed scheme operates at
GMPP, maximum energy is extracted from the PV system.
At variable irradiance and temperature the performance of the
proposed MPPT scheme is compared with far most used conven-
tional Perturb and Observe (P&O), Incremental Conductance
(INC), Modified Perturb and Observe (M-P&O) and Proposed MPPT
scheme as shown in Fig. 14 and their performance is evaluated in
Table 2.
5. Experimental validation
In order to validate the performance of the proposed scheme
over conventional P&OC MPPT controller, a prototype is designed
and developed. The test is carried by connecting two RNG-100D
100 W monocrystalline solar panels in series. The parameters of
the solar panels used for both simulation and experimental tests
are same and depicted in Appendix ‘A’. During experimentation,
solar panels are placed on rooftops and exposed to natural irradi-
ance and temperature. As it is well known that irradiance and tem-
perature on the panel surface are uncontrollable and their intensity
changes for every clock second. It is worth mentioning that during
the testing period irradiance (GI) and temperature (T) on the solar
panel surface are continuously recorded using MP-100 silicon cell
pyranometer, on January 10, 2017, at 10.7589°N and 78.8132°E,
India. By creating artificial shading the performance of the pro-
posed scheme is examined under two cases. In the first case, one
of the series connected solar panel is 50% shaded of the first panel
using a cardboard and in the second case, shading is extended to
100%. The designed prototype and solar panel shading patterns
are shown in Fig. 15.
Both the source and load currents are sensed by Hall Effect
LA25-P current sensor, similarly, voltage is sensed by 7840 IC
based voltage sensing circuit. These parameters are prearranged
to PIC microcontroller (DSP 30F4011) through the TL084 integrated
circuit board, which scales down the voltage level between 0 and
5 V. In order to reduce losses between sensing elements and micro-
controller TL082 buffer IC is incorporated. Gate pulses obtained
from the controller is given to 4081 IC based PWM signals genera-
tor circuit, which is further connected to TLP250 opto-isolator. The
output signal is directly given to switching device (IGBT). Overall
voltage and current protection are supervised by 4027 and 4098
flip-flop IC. Details on the experimental set up are included in
Table 3.
Initially, PV system is tested using the P&OC MPPT scheme with
the condition of 50% shaded pattern. During this test, the highest
M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884 877

Fig. 9. (a) Irradiance and (b) temperature profile used to test PV system at DWC for duration of 8 h.

Fig. 10. Comparison of PV system output power at DWC obtained using the two schemes.
878 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 11. Performance comparison of 2S configuration (a) output power using P&OC and proposed schemes, P-V characteristics (b) P&OC and (c) Proposed Scheme.

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 12. Performance comparison of 2S2P configuration (a) output power using P&OC and proposed scheme, P-V characteristics (b) P&OC and (c) Proposed Scheme.
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884 879

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 13. Performance comparison of 3S3P configuration (a) output power using P&OC and proposed scheme, P-V characteristics (b) P&OC and (c) Proposed Scheme.

(VOC, ISC, VM and IM) are 42.8 V, 4.02A, 35.9 V and 3.688A. From
Fig. 16(a) it is evident that at highest GI and T the conventional
scheme fails to track GMPP and attains only 82.6 W. Randomly five
points (A, B, C, D and E) have been chosen on the power graph, GI
and T at that instant is given from pre-recorded information. Actual

Fig. 14. Performance Comparison of the Proposed MPPT scheme with Perturb &
Observe (P&O), Incremental Conductance (INC) and Modified-Perturb & Observe
(M-P&O).

amount of GI and T numerically reordered are 692.566 W/m2 and

31.971 °C at these values PV system has the ability to deliver a
maximum power of 132.4 W and its corresponding parameters Fig. 15. Prototype designed for experimentation.

Table 2
Overall Performance Comparison of the Proposed MPPT Scheme.

MPPT scheme Overall g Speed of Tracking Computational Time Oscillations

P&O 65.8% Slow 0.0040 s/19cycles High Magnitude of oscillations
INC 73.2% Slow 0.0034 s/19cycles High Magnitude of oscillations
M-P&O 91.7% Moderate 0.0023 s/19cycles Moderate oscillations
Proposed MPPT 97.8% High 0.007 s/19cycles Low oscillations
880 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

Table 3
Technical Specifications of the Experimental Set up.

S. No Name Type Range Quantity

1 Solar Panel 100D 100 W 2
2 Pyranometer MP-100 – 1
3 Current Sensor LA25-P 10(0 ± 15)V 2
4 Voltage Circuit 7840IC 10(0 ± 15)V 2
5 Microcontroller DSP 30F4011 16 bit 1
6 Buffer IC TL082 – 1
7 PWM Generator 4081IC – 1
8 Opto-isolator TLP250 – 1
9 IGBT NPT-IGBT 600 V, 40A, 1.5 V 1
10 Flip flop IC 4027/4098 – 2

Fig. 16. Experimental results at 50% shading pattern (a) P&OC and (b) proposed MPPT scheme.
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884 881

Fig. 17. Experimental results at 100% shading pattern (a) P&OC and (b) proposed MPPT scheme.

power and obtained power with their efficiency are well presented
in Table 5.
Practically, it is not possible to test both the MPPT schemes
under the same irradiance and temperature. Thereafter, the
highest amount of GI and T noted during the testing of the pro-
posed scheme for 50% shaded condition are 702.492 W/m2 and
33.28 °C. At these GI and T, PV system delivers a maximum
power of 133.26 W as the proposed scheme succeeds in tracking
GMPP and obtains a maximum power of 132.26 W with the effi-
ciency of 99.5% at point ‘E’ as shown in Fig. 16(b). The perfor-
mance comparison of the proposed scheme at five test points
is given in Table 5.
In the second case, one of the series connected solar panel is
100% shaded. Similar to the above mentioned case the conven-
tional scheme fails to accomplish maximum power, whereas the
proposed scheme achieves global peak at lower isolation levels
also. Fig. 17(a) and (b) shows the graphs obtained during the sec-
ond case for both P&OC and the proposed MPPT schemes and their
performance comparison is also given in Table 5. Experimental
results provide enough support to the statement that the proposed
scheme accomplish GMPP during both the cases effectively and
efficiently compared to conventional schemes.
Fig. 18(a) presents the experimental results of the proposed
MPPT scheme under different shading patterns. The percentage
of shading on the solar panel for the case A are represented individ-
ually as G1 is 40% and G2 is 30% shading respectively. In this partic-
ular case, the proposed MPPT scheme has extracted a maximum
power of 115.1 W, where the available power is 116 W. Similarly,
for case B the percentage of shading on the solar panels are 30%
and 20% in a sequence. The proposed MPPT scheme has harvested
a maximum power of 132.6 W with an efficiency of 99.07%. Simi-
larly, at 20%, 80%, 50%, 70% and 20% the proposed scheme is
depicted in Fig. 18(b) and (c) and their result analysis are given
in Table 4.
882 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884

Fig. 18. Experiment results of the proposed MPPT scheme for (a) Case A – Case B (b) Case C – Case D.
 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884 883

Table 4
Experimental Analysis Cases A, B, C, D and E.

% of Shading Obtained Power (W) Actual Power (W) Ƞ (%)

G1 G2
Case A 40 30 115.1 116 99.2
Case B 30 20 132.16 131.4 99.09
Case C 20 80 85.1 83.9 98.5
Case D 50 70 84.3 81.7 96.9
Case E 20 20 135.16 132.6 97.4

Table 5
Performance comparison.

At GI (W/ T Actual Obtained Computational VOC ISC VM IM Loss %g

point m2) (°C) Power (W) Power (W) Time (Sec) (V) (A) (V) (A)
Case I: One of the solar P&OC A1 583 31.6 111.44 66.08 0.71 42.6 3.38 35.54 3.136 45.36 59.2%
panel 50% shaded B1 637.7 31.5 122.24 74.34 0.84 42.8 3.7 35.67 3.44 47.9 60.8%
C1 692.5 31.9 132.4 82.6 0.89 42.8 4.02 35.9 3.688 49.8 62.3%
D1 689.6 32.5 131.52 79.296 0.93 42.6 3.98 35.9 3.66 52.22 60.2%
E1 556.1 32.5 105.4 57.82 0.69 42.3 3.22 34.2 3.08 47.58 54.8%
Proposed A2 464.6 33.2 86.8 82.6 0.007 41.6 2.69 35.2 2.46 4.2 95.1%
Scheme B2 682.2 33.1 129.52 123.9 0.0068 42.4 3.95 35.5 3.64 5.62 95.6%
C2 626.5 33.8 117.92 115.64 0.0074 42.2 3.62 35.5 3.32 2.28 98.06%
D2 580.9 33 109.88 107.38 0.0081 42.2 3.36 35.4 3.1 2.5 97.7%
E2 702.4 33.2 133.26 132.16 0.0089 42.6 4.08 35.54 3.75 1.1 99.5%
Case II: One of the solar P&OC A3 258.5 29.8 22.94 8.26 0.63 20 1.5 16.62 1.38 14.68 36%
panel 100% shaded B3 311.4 29.8 27.93 16.52 0.74 20.1 1.8 16.62 1.68 11.41 59.14%
C3 511.7 29.9 46.72 24.78 0.81 20.5 3 16.62 2.8 21.94 53.03%
D3 551.5 30.2 50.18 33.04 0.85 20.5 3.2 17.62 2.84 17.14 65.8%
E3 675.4 30.4 61.77 41.3 0.89 20.8 3.9 17.62 3.5 20.47 66.8%
Proposed A4 222.8 33.7 18.91 16.52 0.0052 19.3 1.3 16.62 1.1 2.39 87.3%
Scheme B4 391 33.9 34.56 33.04 0.0067 19.8 2.3 16.67 2.07 1.52 95.6%
C4 591.7 33.4 51.65 49.56 0.0071 20.3 3.45 17.62 2.93 2.09 95.9%
D4 273.9 33 23.84 19.824 0.0047 19.6 1.6 16.62 1.43 4.016 83.15%
E4 435 32.8 38.94 37.996 0.0068 20.1 2.55 16.62 2.34 0.944 97.57%

6. Conclusion References

This paper presents a novel MPPT scheme for PV power generation [1] Y.T. Tan, D.S. Krischen, N. Jenkins, A model of PV generation suitable for
stability analysis, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv. 19 (2004) 748–755.
during partial shaded condition based on perturbation of tangents on [2] Mohamed A. Eltawil, Zhengming Zhao, MPPT techniques for photovoltaic
P-V characteristics. By projecting tangents over P-V characteristics at applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 25 (2013) 793–813.
5% and 95% VOC CCR and CVR regions are eliminated. Hence, MPP is [3] Venkata Reddy Kota, Muralidhar Nayak Bhukya, A simple and efficient MPPT
scheme for PV module using 2-Dimensional Lookup table, IEEE power and
achieved quickly. The intersection point of the two tangents gives energy conference at Illinois, 2016, pp. 1–7. 10.1109/PECI.2016.7459226.
an estimated point on P-V characteristics. Further iterations lead to [4] Emilio Mamarelis, Giovanni Petrone, Giovanni Spagnuolo, A two steps
the exact operating point. The proposed methodology is tested under algorithm improving the P&O steady state MPPT efficiency, Appl. Energy 113
(2014) 414–421.
dynamic weather conditions for a duration of 8 h and partial shaded [5] T. Hiyama, S. Kouzuma, T. Imakubo, Identification of optimal operating point of
condition using three different PV configurations. Simulation and PV modules using neural network for real time maximum power tracking
experimental results guarantee the performance of energy extraction control, Energy Conv., IEEE Trans. 10 (9) (1995) 360–367.
[6] Jubaer Ahmed, Zainal Salam, A critical evaluation on maximum power point
and prove the ability of the proposed scheme to track GMPP with a
tracking methods for partial shading in PV systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy
better response. Eliminating constant current and voltage regions Rev. 47 (2015) 933–953.
in any condition is the main achievement of the proposed scheme [7] A. Messai, A. Mellit, A. Guessoum, S.A. Kalogirou, Maximum power point
tracking using GA optimized fuzzy logic controller and its FPGA
with a maximum efficiency of 99.4%.
implementation, Sol. Energy 85 (2011) 265–277.
[8] R.C. Shubhajit, S. Hiranmay, Maximum power point tracking of partially
Appendix A shaded solar photovoltaic array, Solar Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94 (2010) 1441–
1447.
[9] K.L. Lian, J.H. Jhang, I.S. Tian, A maximum power point tracking method based
on perturb-and-observe combined with particle swarm optimization, IEEE J.
Parameter Symbol Value Photovoltaics 4 (2) (2014) 626–633.
[10] Kinattingal Sundareswaran, PeddapatiSankar, P.S.R. Nayak, Sishaj P. Simon,
Maximum Power PMax 100 W Sankaran Palani, Enhanced energy output from a PV system under partial
shaded conditions through artificial bee colony, IEEE Trans. on Sustainable
Maximum Voltage VMax 18.9 V
Energy (2014) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1109/TST E.2014.2363521.
Maximum Current IMax 5.29A [11] H. SaadNaggar, A. El-sattar Ahmed, M. Mansour Abd El-Aziz, ‘‘Improved
Open Circuit Voltage VOC 22.5 V particle swarm optimization for photovoltaic system connected to the grid
with low voltage ride through capability, Renew. Energy 85 (2016) 181–194.
Short Circuit Current ISC 5.75A
[12] P. Bhatnagar, R.K. Nema, Maximum power point tracking control techniques:
Filter Inductor LIN 0.6mH state-of-the-art in photovoltaic applications, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
Filter Capacitor CIN 2mF (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.11, pp. 224-241.
DC Capacitor COut 330mF [13] K. Kobayashi, I. Takano, Y. Sawada, ‘‘A study of a two stage maximum power
point tracking control of a photovoltaic system under partially shaded
insolation conditions,”, Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells 90 (2006) 2975–2988.
884 M.N. Bhukya, V.R. Kota / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 22 (2019) 869–884
[14] Kok Soon Tey et al., Improved differential evolution based MPPT algorithm
using SEPIC for PV systems under Partial shading condition and load variation,
IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2793210.
[15] Kok Soon Tey, Saad Mekhilef, A fast converging MPPT technique for
photovoltaic system under fast varying solar irradiation and load resistance,
IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 11 (1) (2015) 176–186.
[16] M. Seyedmahmoudian, B. Horan, T. Kok Soon, R. Rahmani, A. Maung Than Oo,
S. Mekhilef, A. Stojcevski, State of the art artificial intelligence-based MPPT
techniques for mitigating partial shading effects on PV systems – a review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64 (2016) 435–455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.06.053.
[17] Kok Soon Tey, Saad Mekhilef, Modified incremental conductance algorithm for
photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions and load variation, IEEE
Trans. Industr. Electr. 61 (10) (2014) 5384–5392.
[18] Tawfik Radjai, Lazhar Rahmani, Sa.ad. Mekhilef, Jean Paul Gaubert,
Implementation of a modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm
with direct control based on a fuzzy duty cycle change estimator using
dSPACE,‘‘, Sol. Energy 110 (2014) 325–337.
[19] Sangram Bana, R.P. Saini, A mathematical modeling framework to evaluate the
performance of single diode and double diode based SPV systems, Energy Rep.
2 (2016) 171–187.
[20] R. Rajesh, M. Carolin Mabel, A comprehensive review of photovoltaic systems,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015) 231–248.
[21] T. Esram, P.L. Chapman, Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power
point tracking techniques, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 22 (2) (2007) 439–449.
[22] Yali Liu, Xu. Ming Li, Xi Luo Ji, Meidi Wang, Yng Zhang, A compartive study of
the maximum power point tracking methods for PV systems, Energy Convers.
Manage. 01 (2014) 049.
[23] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, M. Vitelli, Optimization of perturb and
observe maximum power point tracking method, IEEE Trans. Power Electron.
20 (2005) 963–973.
[24] Xu Wei, Mu Chaoxu, Jianxun Jin, Novel linear iteration maximum power point
tracking algorithm for photovoltaic power generation, IEEE Trans. Appl. Super
Conduct. 24 (5) (2014).
[25] D. Poponi, Analysis of diffusion paths for photovoltaic technology based on
experience curves, Sol. Energy 1 (74) (2003) 331–349.
[26] Venkata Reddy Kota, Muralidhar Nayak Bhukya, A novel linear tangents based
P&O scheme for MPPT of a PV system. Reneawable and sustainable, Energy
Rev. (2017).
[27] B. Subudhi, R. Pradhan, A comparative study on maximum power point
tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems, IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy 4 (1) (2013) 89–98.
[28] P. Sharama, V. Agarwal, Exact maximum power point tracking of grid-
connected partially shaded PV source using current compensation concept,
IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 29 (9) (Sep. 2014) 4684–4692.
[29] M.Z.S. EL-Dein, M. Kazerani, M.M.A. Salama, Optimal photovoltaic array
reconfiguration to reduce partial shading losses, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
Jan. 4 (1) (2013) 145–153.
[30] K. Sundareswaran, S. Peddapati, S. Palani, MPPT of PV systems under partial
shaded conditions through a colony of flashing fireflies, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 29 (2) (Jun. 2014) 463–472.
[31] Venkata Reddy Kota, Muralidhar Nayak Bhukya, ‘‘A novel P&OT-Neville’s
interpolation MPPT scheme for maximum PV system energy extraction.”, Int. J.
Renew. Energy Dev. 7 (3) (2018) 251–260. 10.14710 /ijred.7.3.251-260.
[32] Moshe Sitbon, Simon Lineykin, Shmuel Schacham, Teuvo Suntio, Alon
Kuperman, Online dynamic conductance estimation based maximum power
point tracking of photovoltaic generators, Energy Convers. Manage. 166 (2018)
687–696.
[33] Ahmad Ghamrawi, Jean-Paul Gaubert, Driss Mehdi, A new dual-mode
maximum power point tracking algorithm based on the perturb and observe
algorithm used on solar energy system, Sol. Energy 174 (2018) 508–514.
[34] Venkata Reddy Kota, Muralidhar Nayak Bhukya, ‘‘DCA-TR based MPP tracking
scheme for photovoltaic power enhacement under dynamic weather
conditions”, Electr. Eng. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-018-0710-z.
[35] Mohamed Lasheen, Mazen Abdel-Salam, Maximum power point tracking
using Hill Climbing and ANFIS techniques for PV applications: a review and a
novel hybrid approach, Energy Convers. Manage. 171 (2018) 1002–1019.