Improvement of Conventional MPPT

Techniques P&O and INC by Integration of

Fuzzy Logic
Mohammed Zerouali*, Salaheddine Zouirech, Abdelghani El Ougli, Belkassem Tidhaf, Hafida Zrouri
Laboratory of Embedded Electronic Systems and Renewable Energies
ENSAO, Mohammed First University
Oujda, Morocco
zerouali1438@gmail.com, zouirechsalaheddine@gmail.com, a.elougli@yahoo.fr, tidhaf@yahoo.com, zrouri@yahoo.fr

Abstract— This paper presents the most popular techniques generator" energy source, the second block is a "boost" static
used to track and extract maximum power point for a converter, the third represents the load and the fourth block is
photovoltaic system as traditional ones: Perturb and Observe the MPPT control.
‘P&O’, Increment of the conductance ’INC’ or intelligent using
Fuzzy logic FL. And by combining two techniques, P&O with Connecting the photovoltaic panel directly with the load
the Fuzzy logic (Fuzzy-P&O) and the INC with the fuzzy (Fuzzy- does not guarantee optimal operation especially when
INC), the proposed system allows us to generate more power and meteorological parameters change this is why the main role of
reduce the voltage ripple which guarantees a stable system.
the static converter is to function as impedance matching so
All modeling and simulations of different MPPT techniques
are done under Matlab Simulink environment. Therefore, the that the panel provides the maximum energy [2].
simulation results show the performance and limitations of each
algorithm and the efficiency of the combined techniques.
Keywords- MPPT, Perturb and Observe P&O, Increment of
the conductance INC, Fuzzy logic, Fuzzy-P&O, Fuzzy-INC.
I. INTRODUCTION
Renewable energies, especially solar energy, are
promising energies, especially concerning the increasing
demand for energy and the depletion of fossil fuels. Solar
energy has the advantage of being free and inexhaustible, but Figure 1. The PV system structure
like other means of producing renewable energy, photovoltaic
panels offer highly fluctuating energy and are highly Solar panel:
dependent on weather conditions. To overcome these Generally, a PV module comprises a number of PV cells
problems, we can monitor energy efficiency through MPPT connected in either series or parallel, this latter can be
algorithms to ensure maximum power output over time. represented by a single diode equivalent circuit model shown
Several works have focused on photovoltaic systems. in Fig. 2 [1], [3].
They have tried to develop algorithms allowing to extract the
maximum energy converted by the panel and then which
allows the optimal operation of the photovoltaic system. In
literature, we can found a wide variety of MPPT algorithm,
we quote as an example: Perturb and Observe and Increment
of conductance belonging to classical techniques; [1]
However, there are also so-called smart commands such as
fuzzy logic, neural network ANN... etc.
Taking into account the advantages of the use of fuzzy
logic, which is based on reasoning close to humans that will Figure 2. Equivalent scheme of PV cell
make it possible to manipulate knowledge in natural language.
Our work is interested in the study of MPPT control
techniques and has a goal of integrating this intelligent The electrical current Iph is given by the following
technique into classical methods to improve MPP tracking. equation:
G
I ph  [ I sc  K I (Tc  Tref )] (1)
II. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM Gref
Fig. 1 represents the photovoltaic system which consists of where Isc is the short-circuit current [A], Ki is the temperature
four blocks. The first part represents the "photovoltaic coefficient of the short-circuit current [%/K], Tc is the module
temperature [K], G is the irradiation [W/m²], Tref = 298 K and
Gref = 1000 W/m² [4].

978-1-7281-5152-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

The expression of the current at the junction is given as
follows:
q.(V  Rs I )
I d  I s (exp(  1) (2)
N .K .T
The current in the resistance Rsh is equal to:
(V R s I )
I sh  (3)
Rsh
The equation describing the current I is:
I  I ph  I d  I sh (4) Figure 3. Characteristic P-V with irradiation change
Whence:
In Fig. 4, the photovoltaic generator GPV is subjected to
I  [ I sc  K I (Tc  Tref )]
G 
 I s exp(
q.(V  Rs I )  (V  R s I )
 1 
(5) temperature variations under constant irradiation. Here again,
Gref  N .K .T  Rsh
the maximum power point MPP changes.
with:
Iph is the short circuit current,
Is is the reverse saturation current of the diode (A),
q is the electron charge (1.602×10-19 C),
V is the voltage across the diode (V),
K is the Boltzmann’s constant (1.381×10-23 J/K),
T is the junction temperature in Kelvin (K),
N Ideality factor of the diode,
Rs is the serie resistance of diode,
Rsh is the shunt resistance of diode,
The panel modeled in this paper is the MSX-60 from Figure 4. Characteristic P-V with temperature change
Solarex, whose characteristics are in table I.
III. STATIC CONVERTER:
TABLE I. TYPICAL ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MSX-60 PANEL The second block containing the static converter which is
Typical peak power (Pp) 60W a DC-DC converter. In this section a DC-DC converter, a
Boost one was chosen on which the electrical circuit is shown
Voltage peak power (Vmpp) 17.1 V
in Fig. 5.
Current peak power (Impp) 3.5 A
Guaranteed minimum peak power 57W
Short-circuit current Isc 3.8A
Open-circuit voltage Voc 21.1V
Temperature Coefficient of open-circuit
-(80±10)mV/°C
voltage
Temperature Coefficient of short-circuit
(0.065±0.015)%/°C
current
Approximate effect of temperature on power -(0.5±0.05)%/°C
Figure 5. Boost converter

The mathematical model of the parallel chopper is

The GPV is strongly influenced by variation in irradiation
obtained by the application of the Kirchhoff laws on the basic
and temperature. Indeed, in Fig. 3 the GPV is subject to
schematic of the converter, shown in Fig. 5. Following the
variations in brightness where it clearly appears the decrease
in power and the change of the maximum power point MPP. state of the switch S, we write:

For t 0, DT  :

di V dV0 V
 ;  0 (6)
dt L dt RC
For t   DT , T  :
 di V  V0 dV0 i V0
 ;   (7)
dt L dt C RC
The equation describing the voltage transfer gain for a
boost converter, it is written as follows: [5],[6]

1
V0  V (8)
1 D
I 0  (1  D) I (9)

The value of the inductor influenced in the performance of

the boost converter. During the state TON: the value of the
inductance can be given as follows: [6],[11]

V .D
L (10)
I L . f Figure 6. Flow chart perturb and observe

With:
B. Algorithm increment the conductance 'INC'
I L : estimated inductor ripple current The principle of this algorithm is based on the
knowledge of the value of the conductance G=I/V and the
f: switching frequency in Hz incision of the conductance to deduce the position of the
D: duty cycle operating point relative to the point of maximum power. If
the conductance increment is greater than the opposite of the
The choice of the value of the capacity depends on the conductance, the duty cycle should decrease. On the other
output voltage and can be written as follows: [6],[11] hand, if the increment of conductance is lower than the
opposite of the conductance the duty ratio is increased. This
I 0 .D
C (11) process is repeated until the point of maximum power is
V0 . f reached (Fig. 7) [7].

V0 : estimated output ripple voltage.

f: switching frequency in Hz
D: duty cycle

IV. MPPT COMMAND:

The principle of the MPPT command is to pursue the
optimum operating point. The idea can be summarized in the
change of the impedance seen at the terminal of the panel,
by adjusting the duty cycle D of the converter and then
bringing it to the desired point. In this chapter, we will present
and study the command algorithms the most popular.

A. Algorithm Perturb and Observe ‘P&O’

The P & O algorithm is one of the popular algorithms, its
principle is to disrupt the voltage of the photovoltaic panel
while acting on the duty cycle. Suite to this disturbance, the Figure 7. Flow chart increment the conductance 'INC’
power provided by the PV panel is calculated at time k, then
compared to the previous one of the instant (k-1). C. Algorithm Perturb and Observe 'P&O' by integrating
the fuzzy logic 'FL'
If the power increases, we approach the point of
maximum power and the variation of the duty cycle is 1) Overview of fuzzy logic
maintained in the same direction. Fuzzy logic control has been introduced in several
industrial applications, this command is more suitable for
On the contrary, if the power decreases, we move away
nonlinear systems. The operation of this algorithm is done in
from the point of maximum power, then we have to reverse
three blocks: Fuzzification, inference and defuzzification, as
the work cycle change [12].
shown in the following Fig. 8 [2], [8], [9].
Fig. 6 presents the flow chart of the P&O algorithm. .
 The Table below gives the inference rules of different
combination between the variables linguistics deltaP, deltaV
with the output S [10].
TABLE II: INFERENCE RULES FOR THE PO-FLOUEAND IC-FLOUE

deltaV
NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
deltaP
NB NB NB NB NM NM NS ZE
Figure 8. Fuzzy logic control bloc NM NB NB NM NM NS ZE PS
 Fuzzification: NS NB NM NM NS ZE PS PM
At this stage, we transform the numerical variables into ZE NM ZE NS ZE PS PM PM
linguistic variables. To each physical variable corresponds a PS NM NS ZE PS PM PM PB
degree of belonging of a variable linguistic [3]. PM NS ZE PS PM PM PB PB
 Rules of inference: PB ZE PS PM PM PB PB PB
These rules make it possible to determine the output signal
of the controller according to the input signals; they are
expressed as "IF THEN" condition. In the fuzzy rules the D. Algorithm increment the conductance ‘INC’ by
operators "AND" and "OR" intervene. The operator "AND" integrating the fuzzy logic 'FL'
applies to variables within a rule, while the "OR" operator For the Fuzzy-INC algorithm, we keep the same structure
binds the different rules. There are many possibilities to with a change in the second fuzzy bloc input by replacing
interpret these two operators. The method of inference max- delta in place of deltaV. Then the inputs equations become:
min realizes, at the level of the condition, the operator "AND"
by the formulation of the minimum. The conclusion in each deltaP  P(k )  P(k  1)
(13)
rule, introduced by "THEN", binds the factor of belonging of deltaI  I (k )  I (k  1)
the premise with the function belonging to the output variable, In this command, the membership functions of inputs, the
realized by the formation of the minimum. Finally, the output and the rules bases proposed before remain functional.
operator "OR", which links different rules are achieved by the In the simulation step, the difference appears only in input
formation of the maximum. gain for each command algorithm.
 Defuzzification:
Defuzzification makes it possible to convert fuzzy output V. SIMULATION RESULTS
sets into numerical variables suitable for such a process. The photovoltaic system with the proposed MPPT
Several strategies of defuzzification exist, we chose the most algorithms, are modeled under Matlab Simulink environment,
used method the 'center of gravity'. Fig. 10 gives an overview of all blocks
2) Optimization of Perturb and Observe by the fuzzy
logic method:
In this part, we will present a concept of a fuzzy controller
based on the principle of perturbation and observation. The
fuzzy block input variables will be deltaP and deltaV defined
by the following equation:
deltaP  P(k )  P(k  1)
(12)
deltaV  V (k )  V (k  1)

Figure 10. The general modeling bloc of the studied system

Before launching the Simulation, different components of

the converter must be well sizing. Table III gives values and
the choices of these components with the chosen switching
frequency of the command signal.
Delta P Delta V

S
Figure 9. Inputs and output membership function
 TABLE III: BOOST SIZING COMPONENTS

K switch MOSFET TABLE IV: THE PRODUCED POWER FOR EACH MPP ALGORITHMS
(WITH FIXED TEMPRATURE).
BOOST D Junction diode
Converter MPPT Measured power (W) at
L 3mH
algorithms 1000 W/m² 800 W/m² 500 W/m²
Cs 150uF
P&O 57.051 44.75 26.97
Load R=50Ω
Fuzzy-P&O 57.08 44.84 27.01
Switching frequency fsw= 10Khz INC 57.06 44.8 26.8
Fuzzy-INC 57.08 44.85 27.01

Fig. 11 shows a comparison between P&O and Fuzzy-

P&O for variable irradiation under time with a fixed
In order to track the maximum power point with a reduced
temperature.
rise time at the moment of irradiation level change, the system
should track the MPP as quickly as possible. From Fig. 13
and 14 we can extract the response time as shown in table V.
800W/m²
1000W/m²
TABLE V: RISE TIME OF DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS
500W/m² Response Time (s)
MPPT algorithms
0 to 1000 W/m²

P&O 0.035
Fuzzy-P&O 0.029
INC 0.033
Fuzzy-INC 0.023
Figure11. Evolution of the power under time with an irradiation variable for
P&O and Fuzzy-P&O algorithms
The next simulation takes into account the case of an
Fig. 12 shows a comparison between INC and Fuzzy-INC irradiation fixe (1000W/m²) and a change in temperature from
for variable irradiation under time with a fixed temperature. 25°C to 45°C.

25°C 35°C 45°C

800W/m²
1000W/m²

500W/m²

Figure 13. Evolution of the power under time with a temperature variable for
P&O and Fuzzy-P&O algorithms

Figure 12. Evolution of the power under time with an irradiation variable for
INC and Fuzzy-INC algorithms

From the simulation results of both the MPPT algorithm, 25°C 35°C 45
the table below presents a summary of the produced power for °C
different irradiation transitions.
The temperature cell was taken as 25°C.

Figure 14. Evolution of the power under time with a temperature variable for
INC and Fuzzy-INC algorithms
 The results put in table V gives values of the reached MATLAB/Simulink," 2018 IEEE International Energy Conference
(ENERGYCON), Limassol, 2018, pp. 1-6.
power for different temperature and each algorithm.
[10] H. Othmani, H. chaouali, D. Mezghani, A. Mami, "Optimisation de la
Technique de Perturbation et Observation par la logique floue," 3ème
TABLE V: THE PRODUCED POWER FOR EACH MPP ALGORITHMS (WITH conférence Internationale des énergies renouvelables CIER-2015.
FIXED IRRADIATION)
[11] U. Yilmaz, A. Kircay,& S. Borekci ,"PV system fuzzy logic MPPT
MPPT Measured power (W) at method and PI control as a charge controller. Renewable and
algorithms Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, vol. 81, p. 994-1001.
25°C 35°C 45°C
[12] N. Priyadarshi, A. K.Sharma, A. K.Bhoi, S. N. Ahmad, F. Azam, &
P&O 57.051 55.5 54.3 S.Priyam,"Mat lab/simulink based fault analysis of pv grid with
intelligent fuzzy logic control mppt". International Journal of
Fuzzy-P&O 57.08 55.51 54.32 Engineering & Technology, 2018, vol. 7, no 2.12, p. 198-204.
INC 57.06 55.5 54.3
Fuzzy-INC 57.08 55.51 54.31

From all simulations results, we can deduce the good

behavior of the Fuzzy-PO and the IC-Fuzzy against those of
the conventional techniques P&O and INC. These new
techniques give more extracted power and have less response
time to reach the next MPP.

VI. CONCLUSION
To improve the efficiency of the systems photovoltaic, we
have optimized the classical structure P&O and INC by
integrating an intelligent technique called Fuzzy logic to these
commands. The Fuzzy-P&O and the Fuzzy-INC as shown in
simulations results have proved the ability to get more power
and minimize the response time to track the maximum power
point.

REFERENCES
[1] Motahhir, S., El Hammoumi, A., & A. El Ghzizal, "Photovoltaic system
with quantitative comparative between an improved MPPT and existing
INC and P&O methods under fast varying of solar irradiation”. Energy
Reports, 2018, vol. 4, p. 341-350.
[2] M. Boutouba, S. Assahout, A. El Ougli and B. Tidhaf, "Improved
Maximum Power Point Tracking using Fuzzy Logic Control with SEPIC
Converter for Photovoltaic Systems," 2018 6th International Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC), Rabat, Morocco, 2018,
pp. 1-8.
[3] Miqoi, A. El Ougli, M. Boutouba, & Tidhaf, B. Fuzzy sliding mode
control for maximum power point tracking of a photovoltaic pumping
system. Journal of Electrical Systems, vol. 13, no 1.pp.95-114,March
2017.
[4] S. Nemsi , L. Barazane , S. Diaf and A. Malek, " Comparative study
between two maximum power point tracking (MPPT) techniques for
photovoltaic system ", Revue des Energies Renouvelables(2013), Vol.
16, no. 4, 773 – 782. 2013.
[5] B. Boukezata, A. Chaoui1, J-P. Gaubert, and Mabrouk Hachemi, "An
improved fuzzy logic control MPPT based P&O method to solve fast
irradiation change problem ". Journal Of Renewable And Sustainable
Energy, Vol. 8, no. 4, 2016.
[6] S. Motahhir, A. El Ghzizal, S. Sebti, & A. Derouich, "Modeling of
photovoltaic system with modified incremental conductance algorithm
for fast changes of irradiance". International Journal of Photo energy,
2018, vol. 2018.
[7] H. Abbes , H. Abid , K. Loukil, A. Toumi et M. Abid, "Etude
comparative de cinq algorithmes de commande MPPT pour un système
photovoltaïque". Revue des Energies Renouvelables (2014) Vol. 17, no.
3,. pp 435-445, 30 Septembre 2014.
[8] M. Ajaamoum, M. Kourchi, B. Bouachrine, A. Ihlal, and L. Bouhouch.
"Comparison of Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy controller and the command
"P&O" for extracting the maximum power from a photovoltaic system ".
International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, Vol. 10, no. 1,
pp. 192-206, Jan. 2015.
[9] M. C. Argyrou, P. Christodoulides and S. A. Kalogirou, "Modeling of a
photovoltaic system with different MPPT techniques using