15EE306M-MULTI DISCIPLINARY DESIGN REPORT

A FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL OPTIMIZED P&O MPPT

METHOD TO SOLVE RAPID IRRADIATION
VARIATION PROBLEM

Academic Year – 2017-18 (Even Semester)

SUBMITTED BY: MD TUFAIL SAFDAR

Register number :RA1511005010308[EEE dept]

Name of the student :MD TUFAIL SAFDAR

Semester & year : VI SEM, 3rd YEAR

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

SRM Nagar, Kattankulathur – 603 203

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude towards all the people who have contributed their precious

time and efforts to help me in completing this project, without whom it would not have been

possible for me to understand and analyze the project.

I would like to thank Prof. Mr.R.Sridhar, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,

my Project Supervisor, for his guidance, support, motivation and encouragement throughout

the period this work was carried out. His readiness for consultation at all times, his educative

comments, his concern and assistance have been invaluable.

ABSTRACT

This report introduces a fuzzy control optimized or enhanced P&O method for tracking

maximum power point in PV system in order to solve the rapid irradiation variation problem.

Perturb and Observe (P&O) method is known as a very simple MPP (Maximum Power Point)

tracking technique and is extensively used. The proposed technique combines both fuzzy logic

and P&O merits. The new controller improves maximum power trackers search method by

fuzzification rules.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6

2 PROBLEM FORMULATION ........................................................................................... 7

2.1 INDIRECT METHOD ................................................................................................ 7

2.2 DIRECT METHOD .................................................................................................... 8

2.3 HYBRID METHOD ................................................................................................... 8

3 OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................... 9

4 ALGORITHM TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED ................................................................... 9

4.1 DIRECT METHOD – PERTURB AND OBSERVE (P&O) ALGORITHM ............ 9

4.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BASED INDIRECT METHOD- FUZZY LOGIC

CONTROL........................................................................................................................... 10

5 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 11

5.1 PV ARRAY MODELLING ...................................................................................... 11

6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ......................................................................................... 15

7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 17

8 References ........................................................................................................................ 18
List of Figures

Figure 4-1 Flow chart of the P&O algorithm........................................................................... 10

Figure 4-2 The basic structure of FLC. .................................................................................... 10

Figure 5-1 Circuit diagram of the proposed system................................................................. 12

Figure 5-2 Membership function of the FLC MPPT ............................................................... 12

Figure 5-3 Fuzzification of the modified P&O rules .............................................................. 15

Figure 6-1 Power, current, and voltage under constant radiation ............................................ 16

Figure 6-2 Power, current, and voltage under varying radiation ............................................. 17
1 INTRODUCTION

In the recent decades, growing energy demands, together with the increased price of fossil fuels

and the attention paid to the environment, have progressively increased the interest in

renewable energy sources. (Rizzo, 2010) (A.Loukriz, 2015)Photovoltaic (PV) energy source is

a promising renewable energy source since it emits no noise, is clean, environmental friendly,

inexhaustible and free to harvest. (Y.-H. Liu, 2013) However, there are a few main drawbacks

of PV systems, in particular, the high installation cost and the low conversion efficiency of the

PV array. The highest efficiency of a commercially available PV panel is about 10%-19%.

(Shireen, 2015)Besides that, a PV panel gives a nonlinear relationship between its output

current and voltage characteristic, from which it can be observed that there is a unique point in

the PV curve characteristic under uniform irradiation, called the Maximum Power Point (MPP).

Thus, Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) control techniques without additional costs are

essential in order to extract the MPP from the PV array as well as to maximize the efficiency

of the PV system.

Various algorithms for tracking MPP have been reported in Refs (Salam, 2013) (Pradhan,

2013) (Haque, 2015). Among the more popular ones is Perturb and Observe (P&O). The P&O

algorithm is mostly used, due to its ease of implementation, low computational demand, and

low cost. (N. Femia, 2005) However, when atmospheric conditions change slowly, the P&O

algorithm oscillates close to the MPP. In contrast, when these change rapidly, this algorithm

moves away from the MPP and gives rise to a wasted part of the available energy. In this case,

the algorithm is not able to distinguish between the output power variations due to its own
voltage perturbations and those of rapid irradiation changes. So improvements have been made

to overcome these issues.

2 PROBLEM FORMULATION

In this section, a comparative study of advantages and disadvantages of both indirect and direct

methods has been recorded. In order to solve the problem of removing the demerit parts and

combining the advantageous sections of both methods, a new Hybrid MPPT (Maximum Power

Point Tracking) technique called “A FUZZY CONTROL OPTIMIMIZED OR ENHANCED

P&O method) has been proposed.

2.1 INDIRECT METHOD

Several MPPT control algorithms were developed, reviewed, implemented and reported in the

literature. On the basis of the complexity, hardware requirement and speed of convergence,

MPPT methods are classified into direct, indirect and hybrid methods.

The indirect methods generate the control signal depending on the prior evaluation of physical

data model of PV panel and these methods are not able to track the MPP truly as they operate

under the assumption that any variations of PV panel temperature and irradiation have

insignificant effect on MPP. (De Brito, 2013) (Subudhi, 2013)

Indirect MPPT methods are further classified into conventional and artificial intelligence (AI)

methods.

Open circuit voltage (OCV) method and short-circuit current (SC) method are the popular

conventional indirect MPPT algorithms and artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic
techniques are most successfully implemented AI-based indirect MPPT methods. (Ali-Reza,

2013)

2.2 DIRECT METHOD

On the other hand, direct methods employ the instantaneous values of PV current and voltage

to generate control signals which track the MPP of PV panel. Direct methods provide more

accurate tracking and reach the MPP by periodically perturbing PV voltage (VPV) or duty ratio

(D) in steps. The perturb & observe (P&O) method and incremental conductance (INC) are the

most commonly used and commercially available direct MPPT algorithms in PV market. (Sera,

2013) (Femia, 2005)

Also, the choice of perturbation step size (SS) determines the MPPT performance such that the

smaller SS exhibits slow response and larger SS makes the system oscillate around MPP.

(Kakosimos, 2011)So, variable SS (VSS) algorithms are introduced as they provide a faster

dynamic response and better steady-state performance . (Qiang, 2011)

However, the direct MPPT methods are less effective at lower irradiation as the change in PV

power (dP) or change in PV current (dI) becomes very small and the perturbation direction

cannot be decided. On the contrary, the indirect methods present poor performance at higher

irradiation as the accurate MPPT depends on environmental conditions. Hence to track MPP

effectively at all irradiations, the hybrid MPPT (HMPPT) methods are developed as the

combination of indirect and direct MPPT methods.

2.3 HYBRID METHOD

Here in hybrid method, we are combining indirect and direct method. In implementation of

indirect method,we are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based Fuzzy Logic method because
of its high power application.In direct method, P&O (Perturb and Observe) and INC

(Incremental Conductance) methods can be used to track MPP. Here P&O direct method is

used because of its simplicity.

3 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is now clear as to introduce a Fuzzy Control optimized P&O method

in order to solve the fast irradiation variation problem. The aim is to propose a new MPPT

algorithm combining both fuzzy logic and P&O merits. The new controller improves maximum

power trackers search method by fuzzification rules.

4 ALGORITHM TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED

4.1 DIRECT METHOD – PERTURB AND OBSERVE (P&O)

ALGORITHM

Perturb & Observe (P&O) is the easiest method. In this we use only one sensor, that is the

voltage sensor, to take the output the PV array voltage and so the cost of implementation is less

and hence easy to apply. The time complexity of this algorithm is very less but on reaching

very close to the MPP it doesn’t stop at the MPP and keeps on perturbing on both the directions.

When this happens the algorithm has reached very close to the MPP and we can set an suitable

error limit or can use a wait function which ends up increasing the time complexity of the

algorithm.

Though the method does not take account of the fast variation of irradiation level (the reason

due to which MPPT changes) and considers it as a change in MPP due to perturbation and

finishes up calculating the incorrect MPP. To avoid this problem we are combining AI

(Artificial Intelligence) based fuzzy logic control to P&O method to enhance its output.
 Figure 4-1 Flow chart of the P&O algorithm.

4.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BASED INDIRECT METHOD-

FUZZY LOGIC CONTROL

Microcontrollers have made using fuzzy logic control common and prevalent for MPPT over

last few years. Fuzzy logic controllers have the advantages of working with rough and random

inputs, not requiring an precise mathematical model, and handling or managing nonlinearity.

Figure 4-2 The basic structure of FLC (Fuzzy Logic Control).

5 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The schematic diagram of the proposed photovoltaic (PV) system is shown in Figure 6-1. The

system consists of a PV array, SEPIC dc-dc converter, and a resistive load. A block scheme of

MPPT algorithm is used to optimize power as well as to generate signal control for the dc-dc

converter. The voltage gain of the boost converter can be calculated as

𝑽𝒐 𝟏
= Equation 5-1
𝑽𝒑𝒗 𝟏−𝑫

where Vpv is the input voltage of PV array, Vo is the output voltage and D the duty cycle of

the dc-dc converter.

5.1 PV ARRAY MODELLING

In Fig. 5-1, circuit diagram has been given of the SEPIC DC-DC converter along with the

MPPT fuzzy controller. The design of fuzzy controller was prepared using Mamdani method.

The PWM varies its duty cycle according to the control signal, taking a feedback from the

output voltage signal. The input variables of the Fuzzy Logic Control are divided into 4 fuzzy

subsets for two input variables which can generate 16 fuzzy logic rules. The fuzzy rules imitate

the behavior of P&O method. The fuzzy subset partitions and shapes of the membership

function in both input and output given in Fig.5-2 are dependent on the behavior of the

controller output and input signals.

 Figure 5-1 Circuit diagram of the proposed system.

Figure 5-2 Membership function of the FLC MPPT

FLC consists of four elements: fuzzification, fuzzy rule-base, the inference producer, and

defuzzification. The fuzzy rule-base is a collection of rules, which are combined in the

inference producer to produce a fuzzy output.

In fuzzy logic controller design, main control variables should be identified and sets that

describe the values of each linguistic variable should be determined. The proposed P&O

searching algorithm is designed in order to achieve the advantage of P&O simple

implementation . The variation in PV array output power and the change in PV array output

voltage are the inputs of the FLC. The increment of the reference voltage is the output of the

FLC where the increment is added to the previous reference voltage to produce the new

reference voltage.

The inputs and the outputs of the FLC are shown in the equations below

∆P = P(k) – P(k-1) Equation 5-2

∆V = V(k) – V(k-1) Equation 5-3

∆Vref = Vref(k) – Vref(k-1) Equation 5-4

The benefit of this modification in P&O is that the output of the FLC varies the reference

voltage only. Therefore, the duty cycle of the SEPIC converter can additionally be controlled

using specific controller. Moreover, the application of SEPIC controller makes sure that the

PV output power will not deviate from the maximum power point during variable load or

changing weather conditions.

The input variables of the FLC are divided to 4 fuzzy subsets which are:positive small (PS),

positive big (PB), negative small (NS), and negative big (NB). These four fuzzy subsets for

two input variables can generate 16 fuzzy logic control rules. Also, the membership functions

of the output variables are four-term fuzzy sets, positive small (PS), and positive big (PB),

negative small (NS), negative big (NB).Mamdani fuzzy method is used here, whereas for the

inference, the maximum of minimum composition technique is used and the center-of-gravity
method is implemented for the defuzzification process to convert the fuzzy subset reference

voltage changes to real numbers as presented in equation 5-5.

∑𝒏
𝒊 ∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒊)
∆Vref = Equation 5-5
∑𝒏
𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒊)

where ∆Vref is the fuzzy output and ∆Vrefi is the output membership function center of max-

min inference composition. ∆Vref is a monotonic increasing function with respect to Vref..

The left most point VrefL and the right most point VrefR can be expressed as follow:

∑𝒏
𝒊 ∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑳𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑳𝒊)
∆VrefL = Equation 5-6
∑𝒏
𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑳𝒊)

∑𝒏
𝒊 ∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑹𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑹𝒊)
∆VrefR = Equation 5-7
∑𝒏
𝒊 𝝁(∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑹𝒊)

Referring to (Q. Liang, 2000), the defuzzified crisp output from the interval fuzzy system is

the average of VrefL and VrefR which is:

∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑹+ ∆𝑽𝒓𝒆𝒇𝑳
∆Vref = Equation 5-8
𝟐
The fuzzy rules mimic the behavior of P&O method. The fuzzification of the P&O technique

with the rules is shown in Fig.5-3. The shapes and fuzzy subset partitions of the membership

function in both input and output shown in Fig. 5-2 depend on the behavior of the controller

output and input signals.

 Figure 5-3 Fuzzification of the modified P&O rules

The new introduced Hybrid FLC method deals with variable step size (VSS) to increase or

decrease the reference voltage, therefore the tracking time reduces considerably and the system

performance during steady-state conditions is much better than with conventional P&O

technique.

6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The results introduced in Fig. 6-1 belong to power, current and voltage respectively under

constant radiation. It becomes clear that the drawback of the conventional P&O method appears

where the reference loses the maximum point at sudden radiation variation. Because of sudden
changing of radiations, frequent oscillations could be seen. Likewise, at gradually radiation

varying condition under the FLC method , we could see in Fig. 6-2 that unlike the conventional

P&O method where it loses the optimum point and cause oscillations in the steady state , these

drawbacks have been removed and solved for the proposed FLC based MPPT technique. In

both previous cases, the proposed FLC based MPPT shows faster response in the stable steady

state and transient response. Furthermore the oscillations disappear as compared to the

conventional P&O method.

Figure 6-1 Power, current, and voltage under constant radiation

Figure 6-2 Power, current, and voltage under varying radiation

7 CONCLUSION

In this paper, a new FLC MPPT algorithm based on classical P&O theory has been developed.

An improved FLC method uses variations in power and voltage of the PV array as inputs in

order to enhance the tracking under wrong irradiation conditions, without any requirement for

additional solar irradiation sensors and for reducing the steady state oscillations. Simulation

and experimental results confirm that the new method provides accurate tracking, high

efficiency, and low oscillation even under fast changing irradiation. Moreover, comparison

between FLC and P&O algorithms is carried out and the proposed method provides superior

performance against P&O results in the speed of tracking, power fluctuation minimization, and

high efficiency. Therefore, future work trends to the development of a new FLC for tracking

the MPP under nonuniform irradiation. (Boualem Boukezata, 2016)

8 References

A.Loukriz, M. a. (2015). "Simulation and Experimental design of a new advanced variable step

size Incremental Conductance MPPT Algorithm for PV Systems. ISA Trans., 62,30.

Ali-Reza, R. M. (2013). ‘Classification and comparison of maximum power point tracking

techniques for photovoltaic system: A review’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 19, pp.

433–443 .

Boualem Boukezata, A. C.-P. (2016). An improved fuzzy logic control MPPT based P&O

method to solve fast irradiation change problem. AIP Publishing, 14.

De Brito, M. G. (2013). ‘Evaluation of the main MPPT techniques for photovoltaic

applications’. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 60, (3), pp. 1156–1167 .

Femia, N. P. (2005). ‘Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking

method’. IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 20, (4), pp. 963–997 .

Haque, S. L. (2015). “Maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems: A

comprehensive review and comparative analysis. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.,

52,1504.

Kakosimos, P. K. (2011). ‘Implementation of photovoltaic array MPPT through fixed step

predictive control technique’. Renew. Energy, 36, (9), pp. 2508–2514.

N. Femia, G. P. (2005). “Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking

method". IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 20,963.

Pradhan, B. S. (2013). “A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for

photovoltaic power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy , 4,89.

Qiang, M. M. (2011). ‘A novel improved variable stepsize incremental-resistance MPPT

method for PV systems’. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., , 58, (6), pp. 2427–2434 .

Rizzo, L. a. (2010). "Adaptive Perturb and Observe Algorithm for Photovoltaic maximum

power point tracking". IET Renewable Power Genre, 4,137.

Salam, K. I. (2013). “A review of maximum power point tracking techniques of PV system for

uniform insolation and partial shading condition,” . Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.

, 19,475.

Sera, D. M. (2013). ‘On the perturb-and-observe and incremental conductance MPPT methods

for PV systems’. IEEE J. Photovolt., 3, (3), pp. 1070–1078 .

Shireen, R. K. (2015). Efficient MPPT control for PV systems adaptive to fast changing

irradiation and partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy , 397.

Subudhi, B. P. (2013). ‘A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for

photovoltaic power systems’. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, 4, (1), pp. 89–98 .

Y.-H. Liu, C.-L. L.-W.-H. (2013). Neural-network-based maximum power point tracking

methods for photovoltaic systems operating under fast changing environments. Sol.

Energy, 89,42.