1

MPPT techniques for PV Systems: energetic and cost comparison

R. Faranda, Member, IEEE, S. Leva, Member, IEEE and V. Maugeri.
electric power generation is very low (916%), especially under low irradiation conditions, and the amount of electric power generated by solar arrays changes continuously with weather conditions. Moreover, the solar cell V-I characteristic is nonlinear and changes with irradiation and temperature. In general, there is a unique point on the V-I or V-P curve, called the Maximum Power Point (MPP), at which the entire PV system (array, inverter, etc) operates with maximum efficiency and produces its maximum output power. The location of the MPP is not known, but can be located, either through calculation models or by search algorithms. Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) techniques are used to maintain the PV arrays operating point at the MPP. Many MPPT techniques have been proposed in the literature; examples are the Perturb and Observe (P&O) method [2-5], the Incremental Conductance (IC) method [26], the Artificial Neural Network method [7], the Fuzzy Logic method [8], etc. The P&O and IC techniques, as well as variants thereof, are the most widely used. In this paper, ten MPPT algorithms are considered: P&O, modified P&O, Three Point Weight Comparison [10], Constant Voltage (CV) [11], IC, IC and CV combined [11], Short Current Pulse [12], Open Circuit Voltage [13], the Temperature Method [14] and methods derived from it [15]. These techniques are quite easily implemented and have been widely adopted for low-cost applications. Algorithms such as Fuzzy Logic, Sliding Mode [9], etc, are beyond the scope of this paper, because they are more complex and less often used. We will focus our attention on a grid-connected PV system constructed by connecting a dc/dc SEPIC converter between the solar panel and the grid. The MPPT techniques will be tested on solar panels with different types of insulation. The partially shaded condition will not be considered; thus irradiation is assumed to be uniformly spread over the PV array. Analysis was carried out using the Matlab tool Simulink, created by MathWorks. The PV system implementation takes into account the mathematical model of each component, as well as actual component specifications. II. PV ARRAY
R. Faranda S. Leva and V. Maugeri are with the Electrical Engineering Department of Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milano, Italy (email: roberto.faranda@polimi.it, sonia.leva@polimi.it and vincenzo.maugeri@mail.polimi.it).

AbstractIn the future solar energy will be very important energy source. More than 45% of necessary energy in the world will be generated by photovoltaic array. Therefore it is necessary to concentrate our forces in order to reduce the application costs and to increment their performances. In order to reach this last aspect, it is important to note that the output characteristic of a photovoltaic array is nonlinear and changes with solar irradiation and the cells temperature. Therefore a Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) technique is needed to draw peak power from the solar array in order to maximize the produced energy. This paper presents a comparative study of ten widelyadopted MPPT algorithms; their performance is evaluated using the simulation tool Simulink. In particular, this study compares the behaviors of each technique in presence of solar irradiation variations. Index TermsMaximum power point (MPP), maximum power point tracking (MPPT), photovoltaic (PV).

I. INTRODUCTION

he main applications of photovoltaic (PV) systems are in either stand-alone (water pumping, domestic and street lighting, electric vehicles, military and space applications) or grid-connected configurations (hybrid systems, power plants) [1]. Today these applications cover only 0.5% of world energy consumption, but solar energy will be one of the most important renewable energy sources in the future, as reported in Fig.1 where it is shown the result of an International Energy Agency study about world energy consumption.

Fig. 1. World energy consumption

Indeed, as opposed to conventional unrenewable resources such as gasoline, coal, etc..., solar energy is clean, inexhaustible and free. Unfortunately, PV generation systems have two major problems: the conversion efficiency of

A mathematical model was developed in order to simulate a PV array. Fig. 2 gives the equivalent circuit of a single solar cell, where IPV and VPV are the PV arrays current and voltage,

2008 IEEE.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

2 respectively, Iph is the cells photocurrent, Rj represents the nonlinear resistance of the p-n junction, and Rsh and Rs are the intrinsic shunt and series resistances of the cell.
Power [W] 50 45 40 35 T=300K T=330K T=360K data4 data5 data6

Rs

I PV

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 Voltage [V] 15 20

I ph

Rj

Rsh

VPV

Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of PV cell

Since Rsh is very large and Rs is very small, these terms can be neglected in order to simplify the electrical model. The following equation then describes the PV panel [6]:
I PV = n p I ph n p I rs exp

Fig. 4. V-P PV panel characteristics for three different temperature levels.

V q PV 1 k T A ns

(1)

III. MPPT CONTROL ALGORITHM The daily solar irradiation diagram has abrupt variations during the day. Under these conditions, the MPP of the PV array changes continuously; consequently the PV systems operation point must change to maximize the energy produced. An MPPT technique is therefore used to maintain the PV arrays operating point at its MPP. There are many MPPT methods available in the literature; the most widely-used techniques are described in the following sections, starting with the simplest method. A. Constant Voltage Method The Constant Voltage (CV) algorithm is the simplest MPPT control method. The operating point of the PV array is kept near the MPP by regulating the array voltage and matching it to a fixed reference voltage equal to the VMPP of the characteristic PV module (see Table I) or another prevaluated best voltage value [16]. The CV method assumes that insulation and temperature variations on the array are insignificant, and that the constant reference voltage is an adequate approximation of the true MPP. Therefore, the operating point is never exactly at the MPP and different data have to be adopted for different geographical regions. The CV method does not require any input. However, measurement of the PV array voltage VPV is necessary in order to set up the duty-cycle of the dc/dc SEPIC converter by PI regulator. It is important to observe that when the PV panel is in low insulation conditions, the CV technique is more effective than either the P&O method or the IC method (analyzed below), as shown in [11]. Thanks to this characteristic, the CV method is often combined together with other MPPT techniques. B. Short-Current Pulse Method The Short-Current Pulse (SC) method achieves the MPP by giving a current command I*=Iop to a current-controlled power converter. In fact, the optimum operating current Iop for maximum output power is proportional to the short-circuit current Isc under various conditions of irradiance level S as follows [12]: I op ( S ) = k I sc ( S ) (2) where k is a proportional constant. Eq. (2) shows that Iop can

where ns=36 and np=1 are the number of cells connected in series and then in parallel, q=1.602 10-19 C is the electron charge, k=1.3806 10-23 J K-1 is Boltzmans constant, A=2 is the p-n junctions ideality factor, T is the single cells temperature (K), Iph is the cells photocurrent (it depends on the solar irradiation and temperature), and Irs is the single cells reverse saturation current (it depends on temperature). The PV panel considered is a typical 50W PV module and it has 36 series-connected polycrystalline cells (ns=36). Its main specifications are shown in Table I.
TABLE I MAIN ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF PV PANEL Symbol PMPP VMPP IMPP Isc Vov TSC TOC Quantity Maximum Power Voltage at PMPP Voltage at IMPP Short-Circuit Current Open-Circuit Voltage Temperature coefficient of ISC Temperature coefficient of VOC Value 50 W 17.3 V 2.89 A 3.17 A 21.8 V (0.0650.015) %/C -(8010) mV/C

The PV array is composed of three strings in parallel, each string consisting of 31 PV panels in series. The total power installed is 4650W. Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the power output characteristics of each PV panel considered as functions of irradiance and temperature, respectively. These curves are nonlinear and are crucially influenced by solar irradiation and temperature.
50 45 40 35 Power [W] 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 Voltage [V] 15 20 S=1000W/m2 S=600W/m2 S=300W/m2 data5 data6

Fig. 3. V-P PV panel characteristics for three different irradiance levels.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

3 be determined instantaneously by detecting Isc. This control algorithm requires the measurement of the current Isc. To obtain this measurement, it is necessary to introduce a static switch in parallel with the PV array, in order to create the short-circuit condition. It is important to note that when VPV=0 no power is supplied by the PV system and consequently no energy is generated. As in the previous technique, measurement of the PV array voltage VPV is required for the PI regulator. C. Open Voltage Method The Open Voltage (OV) method is based on the observation that the voltage of the maximum power point VMPP is always close to a fixed percentage of the open-circuit voltage Vov. Production spread, temperature, and solar insulation levels change the position of the maximum power point within a 2% tolerance band. This technique uses 76% of Vov as value of the operating voltage Vop (at which the maximum output power can be obtained), in general, this value is very close to VMPP. This control algorithm requires measurements of the voltage Vov when the circuit is opened. Here again it is necessary to introduce a static switch into the PV system; for the OV method, the switch must be connected in series to open the circuit. When IPV=0 no power is supplied by the PV system and consequently no energy is generated. Also in this method measurement of the PV array voltage VPV is required for the PI regulator. D. Perturb and Observe Methods The P&O algorithms operate by periodically perturbing (i.e. incrementing or decrementing) the array terminal voltage and comparing the PV output power with that of the previous perturbation cycle. If the PV array operating voltage changes and power increases (dP/dVPV>0), the control system moves the PV array operating point in that direction; otherwise the operating point is moved in the opposite direction. In the next perturbation cycle the algorithm continues in the same way. A common problem in P&O algorithms is that the array terminal voltage is perturbed every MPPT cycle; therefore when the MPP is reached, the output power oscillates around the maximum, resulting in power loss in the PV system. This is especially true in constant or slowly-varying atmospheric conditions but also under rapidly changing atmospheric conditions [17]. There are many different P&O methods available in the literature. In this paper we consider the classic, the optimized and the three-points P&O algorithms. In the classic P&O technique (P&Oa), the perturbations of the PV operating point have a fixed magnitude. In our analysis, the magnitude of perturbation is 0.37% of Vov of PV array. In the optimized P&O technique (P&Ob), an average of several samples of the array power is used to dynamically adjust the magnitude of the perturbation of the PV operating point. In the three-point weight comparison method (P&Oc), the perturbation direction is decided by comparing the PV output power on three points of the P-V curve. These three points are the current operation point A, a point B perturbed from point A, and a point C doubly perturbed in the opposite direction from point B. All the three algorithms require the measurement of the PV array voltage VPV and of the PV array current IPV. E. Incremental Conductance Methods The Incremental Conductance (IC) algorithm is based on the observation that the following equation holds at the MPP [2]: (dIPV/dVPV)+(IPV/VPV)=0 (3) where IPV and VPV are the PV array current and voltage, respectively. When the operating point in the P-V plane is to the right of the MPP, (dIPV/dVPV)+(IPV/VPV)<0. Whereas when the operating point is to the left of the MPP, (dIPV/dVPV)+(IPV/VPV)>0. The MPP can thus be tracked by comparing the instantaneous conductance IPV/VPV to the incremental conductance dIPV/dVPV. Therefore the sign of the quantity (dIPV/dVPV)+(IPV/VPV) indicates the correct direction of perturbation leading to the MPP. Once MPP has been reached, the operation of PV array is maintained at this point and the perturbation stopped unless a change in dIPV is noted. In this case, the algorithm decrements or increments the PV array voltage VPV to track a new MPP. The increment size determines how fast the MPP is tracked. The IC method offers good performance under rapidly changing atmospheric conditions. There are two main different IC methods available in the literature: the classic IC algorithm (ICa), that requires the measurement of the PV array voltage VPV and of the PV array current IPV in order to determine the perturbation direction, and the Two-Model MPPT Control (ICb) algorithm, that combines the CV and the ICa methods: if the irradiation is lower than 30% of the nominal irradiance level the CV method is used, other way the ICa method is adopted. This last method requires an additional measurement, the solar irradiation S. F. Temperature Methods The open-circuit voltage Vov of the solar cell, that varies with the cell temperature as reported in Fig. 4 (whereas the short-circuit current is directly proportional to the irradiance level and relatively steady over cell temperature changes), can be described through the following equation [14]: Vov VovSTC + ( T TSTC ) dVov / dT (4) where VovSTC=21.8V (see Table I) is the open-circuit voltage under Standard Test Conditions (STC), (dVov/dT)=-0.08V/K is the temperature gradient, T is the cell temperature (K), and TSTC is the cell temperature under STC. On the other hand, the optimal voltage is described through the following equation: Vop ( u + S v ) T ( w + S y ) (5) Table II shows each of the parameters of the optimal voltage equation (5) in relation to the irradiance level S.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

4
TABLE II PARAMETERS OF THE OPTIMAL VOLTAGE EQUATION S [W/m2] 100200 200300 300400 400500 500600 600700 700800 800900 9001000 u 0.43404 0.45404 0.46604 0.46964 0.47969 0.48563 0.49270 0.49190 0.49073 v 0.1621 0.0621 0.0221 0.0131 -0.0070 -0.0169 -0.0270 -0.0260 -0.0247 w 0.00235 0.00237 0.00228 0.00224 0.00224 0.00218 0.00239 0.00223 0.00205 y -6e-4 -7e-4 -4e-4 -3e-4 -3e-4 -2e-4 -5e-4 -3e-4 -1e-4

where S is the solar irradiation, T is the temperature, R=0.0435m2K/W and C=15.71 10-3J/m2K are the thermal resistance and capacitance respectively.

Fig. 5. PV array equivalent thermal circuit.

There are two different temperature methods available in the literature, both of which require at least the same measurements of the temperature T and of the PV array voltage VPV for a PI regulator. The Temperature Gradient (TG) algorithm uses the temperature T to determine the open-circuit voltage Vov from equation (4). The optimum operating voltage Vop is then determined as in the OV technique, avoiding power losses due to the open-circuit operations. The Temperature Parametric (TP) method determines the operating voltage Vop instantaneously by (5), measuring T and S. Therefore it requires also the measurement of solar irradiance S. IV. SIMULATION AND NUMERICAL RESULTS Abrupt variations of solar irradiation can occur over short time intervals, for this reason, the analysis presented in this paper assumes that solar irradiation changes according to the Table III. For each case, the irradiance level and the direction of irradiation changing ( =step up and down, =ramp up and down) when it occurs are reported in Table III
TABLE III SOLAR IRRADIATION CHANGES S [W/m2] 0.0s 0.1s 0.2s 0.3s 1000 1000 800 1000 800 1000 600 1000 800 1000 600 800 400 1000 1000 800 1000 600 1000 800 1000 600 800 400 1000 1000 800 1000

CASE Sigle step (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l)

0.4s 800 1000 600 1000 800 1000 600 1000 1000 100 0 600

0.5s 800 1000 600 1000 800 1000 600 1000 800 400 1000 800

1000 600 1000 900 900 800 800 1000 100 0 600

For each MPPT technique and for each input, the energy supplied by the PV system was calculated over a time interval of 0.5s. The results are shown in Table IV. For each input, the minimum (underlined) and maximum (bolded) obtained energy values are also indicated. It is also reported the theoretical energy that the PV system could produce with an ideal MPPT technique. From the data in Table IV, we note that the P&O and IC algorithms have very similar performance and energetic production, and that they are superior to the other methods. This is confirmed by their widespread use in commercial implementations. The ICb technique provides the greatest energy supply for ten of the twelve inputs considered. Comparing the two different IC techniques for very low irradiance values, it can be observed that the ICb method is more advantageous than the ICa method when the solar insulation has a value less than 300W/m2 (for the case input (j), EICb(j) is 503J while EICa(j) is 469J). The behaviour of the P&Oc technique is very different from that of the other two P&O techniques. Its energy supply is lower than those of the other P&O algorithms. This result is explained by the fact that an additional MPPT cycle is needed to choose the perturbation direction. The OV and SC techniques require an additional static switch, yet they provide low energy supply with respect to the P&O and IC algorithms. This is mainly due to power annulment during electronic switching (Fig. 6 clearly shows the switching effect).
4000 3500 3000 Power Supply [W] 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0

Double step Sigle ramp

The inputs in Table III simulate the irradiance time variation on a PV array on a train roof during its run, for example, or on a house roof on a cloudy day. In order to analyze the Temperature Methods, we must describe the variation of temperature on a PV array. Our temperature model uses the equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 5. The following differential equation holds if the temperature is uniformly distributed: S = T / R + C dT / dt (6)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

600 1000 800 1000 600 800 400 1000 1000

0.1

0.2 Time[s]

0.3

0.4

0.5

Fig. 6. Power generated by the PV array in the case input (c): SC (solid line) and ideal (dashed line) MPPT method.

Furthermore, the OV and SC algorithms do not follow the instantaneous time trend of the case input (c), because the step in the irradiance variation occurs between two consecutive electronic switching. These techniques cannot calculate the new MPP, until the new level of solar irradiation

5
TABLE IV ENERGY GENERATED AS FUNCTION OF MPPT TECHNIQUE AND IRRADIANCE INPUT Input IDEAL [J] (a) 1711 (b) 1785 (c) 1481 (d) 1633 (e) 1785 (f) 1711 (g) 1633 (h) 1482 (i) 1711 (j) 540 (k) 1160 (l) 1558 Total 18189 % 100 Classification CV [J] 1359 1410 1192 1290 1403 1363 1298 1204 1360 459 888 1248 14465 79.5 10 SC [J] 1539 1687 1337 1492 1659 1636 1351 1397 1519 427 893 1388 16324 89.7 8 OV [J] 1627 1700 1403 1552 1699 1630 1552 1409 1630 479 872 1478 17031 93.6 6 P&Oa [J] 1695 1774 1465 1625 1769 1692 1617 1441 1701 524 1126 1542 17971 98.8 4 P&Ob [J] 1707 1781 1476 1628 1780 1697 1627 1431 1708 525 1150 1553 18063 99.3 2 P&Oc [J] 1490 1558 1301 1416 1543 1508 1432 1311 1491 515 986 1370 15921 87.5 9 ICa [J] 1708 1782 1478 1628 1782 1709 1630 1479 1708 469 1116 1555 18044 99.2 3 ICb [J] 1708 1782 1478 1628 1782 1709 1630 1479 1708 503 1126 1555 18088 99.4 1 TG [J] 1562 1643 1311 1476 1643 1563 1477 1314 1563 397 1078 1395 16422 90.3 7 TP [J] 1681 1761 1424 1589 1762 1683 1593 1429 1682 444 1146 1510 17704 97.3 5

is measured. Consequently, the method initially achieves an incorrect MPP because it moves toward the previous MPP instead of the current one. When the new measurement is available, the correct MPP is achieved. Moreover, the choice of sampling period is very critical for these techniques; if the period is too short, energy production will be very low because of the increased number of electronic switching. If the period is too long, on the other hand, the MPP cannot be closely followed when rapid irradiance variation occurs. The efficiency of the OV and SC techniques could be improved by adding the static switch only to several PV panels instead of the complete PV array. On the other hand, this solution is disadvantageous if the selected PV panels are shadowed. Unlike the other MPPT algorithms, which cyclically perturb the system, the temperature methods continuously calculate and update the correct voltage reference. In particular, the TP method provides only slightly less energy than the P&O and IC techniques. The TG method does not have the same efficiency, since equation (4) calculates the open-circuit voltage rather than the actual optimal voltage. Therefore the error introduced through the open-circuit voltage calculation (absent in the TP algorithm) must be summed with the error introduced in the voltage reference computation.
4000 3500

the MPP, but instead fixes the reference voltage to the optimal voltage under STC, holding it constant under any operating condition. Fig. 7 shows the PV array power supply using the CV technique, with the case input (l). With respect to the instantaneous time trend (Fig. 7), very low power is generated. In the last row of Table IV a ranking is proposed of the different MPPT techniques analysed based on the sum of the energy generated in the different irradiance conditions. This ranking is only qualitative; in fact the energy contents differ for the various irradiance inputs. Nevertheless, the rankings obtained considering single inputs are substantially comparable to the total energy rankings. V. COSTS COMPARISON To complete our analysis a simple discussion about the cost of the MPPT technique is presented [17]. A satisfactory MPPT costs comparison can be carried out by knowing the technique (analogical or digital) adopted in the control device, the number of sensors, and the use of additional power component, considering the other costs (power components, electronic components, boards, etc) equal for all the devices. The MPPT implementation typology greatly depends on the end-users knowledge, with analogical circuit, SC, OV, or CV are good options, otherwise with digital circuit that require the use of microcontroller, P&O, IC, and temperature methods are easily to implement. Moreover it is important to underline that analogical implementations are generally cheaper than digital (the microcontroller and relative program are expensive). To make all the cost comparable between them, the computation cost comparison is formulated taking into account the present spread of MPPT methods. The number of sensors required to implement the MPPT technique also affects the final costs. Most of the time, it is easier and more reliable to measure voltage than current and the current sensors are usually more expensive and bulky. The irradiance or temperature sensors are very expensive and uncommon.

Power Supply [W]

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 0

0.1

0.2 Time [s]

0.3

0.4

0.5

Fig. 7. Power generated by the PV array in the case input (l): CV (solid line) and ideal (dashed line) MPPT method.

Finally, the CV technique is the worst of the ten MPPT methods analysed here. In fact, this technique does not follow

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

6 After these considerations, Table V proposes a simplified classification considering the costs of sensors, microcontroller and the additional power components.
TABLE V COST EVALUATION COST MPPT CV SC OV P&Oa P&Ob P&Oc ICa ICb TG TP Additional power component absent high high absent absent absent absent absent absent absent Sensor low medium low/medium medium medium medium medium high medium/high high Microcontroller computation absent/low absent/low absent/low low low medium medium medium/high medium medium/high Total low medium low/medium low/medium low/medium medium medium high medium/high high

inconveniences: variations in the Table II parameters create errors in the optimal voltage Vop evaluation; the measured temperature may be affected by phenomena unrelated to the solar irradiation. Further research on this subject should focus on experimental comparisons between these techniques, especially under shadow conditions. REFERENCES
[1] J.Schaefer, Review of Photovoltaic Power Plant Performance and Economics, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. EC-5, pp. 232-238, June, 1990. N.Femia, D.Granozio, G.Petrone, G.Spaguuolo and M.Vitelli, Optimized One-Cycle Control in Photovoltaic Grid Connected Applications, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. 2, no 3, July 2006. W. Wu, N. Pongratananukul, W. Qiu, K. Rustom, T. Kasparis and I. Batarseh, DSP-based Multiple Peack Power Tracking for Expandable Power System, in Proc. APEC, 2003, pp. 525-530. C. Hua and C. Shen, Comparative Study of Peak Power Tracking Techniques for Solar Storage System, in Proc. APEC, 1998, pp. 679-685. D.P.Hohm and M.E.Ropp, Comparative Study of Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithms Using an Experimental, Programmable, Maximum Power Point Tracking Test Bed, in Proc. Photovoltaic Specialist Conference ,2000, pp. 1699-1702. K.H.Hussein, I.Muta, T.Hoshino and M.osakada Maximum Power Point Tracking: an Algorithm for Rapidly Chancing Atmospheric Conditions, IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 142, no.1, pp. 59-64, January, 1995. X.Sun, W.Wu, Xin Li and Q.Zhao, A Research on Photovoltaic Energy Controlling System with Maximum Power Point Tracking, in Power Conversion Conference , 2002, pp. 822-826. T.L. Kottas, Y.S.Boutalis and A. D. Karlis, New Maximum Power Point Tracker for PV Arrays Using Fuzzy Controller in Close Cooperation with Fuzzy Cognitive Network, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol.21, no.3, September, 2006. I.S.Kim, M.B.Kim and M.Y.Youn, New Maximum Power Point Tracking Using Slinding-Mode Observe for Estimation of Solar Array Current in the Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.53, no.4, pp. 1027-1035, August, 2006. Y.T.Hsiao and C.H.Chen, Maximum Power Tracking for Photovoltaic Power System, in Proc. Industry Application Conference , 2002, pp. 1035-1040. G.J.Yu, Y.S.Jung, J.Y.Choi, I.Choy, J.H.Song and G.S.Kim, A Novel Two-Mode MPPT Control Algorithm Based on Comparative Study of Existing Algorithms, in Proc. Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2002, pp. 1531-1534. T.Noguchi, S.Togashi and R.Nakamoto, Short-Current Pulse-Based Maximum-Power-Point Tracking Method for Multiple Photovoltaic-andConverter Module System, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol.49, no.1, pp. 217-223, February, 2002. D.Y. Lee, H.J. Noh, D.S. Hyun and I.Choy, An Improved MPPT Converter Using Current Compensation Method for Small Scaled PVApplications, in Proc. APEC, 2003, pp.540-545. M.Park and I.K. Yu, A Study on Optimal Voltage for MPPT Obtained by Surface Temperature of Solar Cell, in Proc. IECON, 2004, pp. 20402045. T. Takashima, T. Tanaka, M. Amano, and Y. Ando, Maximum output control of photovoltaic (PV) array, in Proc. 35th Intersociety Energy Convers. Eng. Conf. Exhib., 2000, pp. 380383 P. C. M. de Carvalho, R. S. T. Pontes, D. S. Oliveira, Jr., D. B. Riffel, R. G. V. de Oliveira, and S. B. Mesquita, Control method of a photovoltaic powered reverse osmosis plant without batteries based on maximum power point tracking, in Proc. IEEE/PES Transmiss. Distrib. Conf. Expo.: Latin America, 2004, pp. 137142. T. Esram, and P. L. Chapman, Comparison of Photovoltaic Array Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques, IEEE Trans. Energy Conv., vol.22, no.2, June, 2007, pp.439-449

[2]

[3]

VI. CONCLUSION This paper has presented a comparison among ten different Maximum Power Point Tracking techniques in relation to their performance and implementation costs. In particular, twelve different types of solar insulation were considered, and the energy supplied by a complete PV array was calculated; furthermore, regarding the MPPT implementation costs, a cost comparison is proposed taking into consideration the costs of sensors, microcontroller and additional power components. A ranking of the ten methods has been proposed. Taking into account the analysis results along with hardware and computational costs, the P&Ob and ICa methods receive the best rankings.

[4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Fig. 8. Synthesis of the result of Tables IV and V.

[13]

The results, reassumed in Fig. 8, indicate that the P&O and IC algorithms are in general the most efficient of the analysed MPPT techniques. Furthermore, P&O and ICa methods do not require additional static switches, as opposed to the SC and OV techniques, therefore the relative costs are not high. The P&Oc method, unlike other P&O methods, has low efficiency because of its lack of speed in tracking the MPP. Although the ICb method has the greatest efficiency, this does not justify the cost of using one more sensor than the ICa method. In fact, the two IC techniques have very similar efficiency but ICb have e higher implementation cost respect to ICa. The TP temperature technique presents two

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. Downloaded on October 21, 2009 at 01:36 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.