ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research article

Asymmetrical interval type-2 fuzzy logic control based MPPT tuning

for PV system under partial shading condition
∗
Pallavi Verma , Rachana Garg, Priya Mahajan
Electrical Engineering Department, Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The conventional maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm shows best performance under
Received 3 May 2019 uniform insolation but when photovoltaic (PV) array is partially irradiated, the Power vs Voltage (P–
Received in revised form 21 November 2019 V) plot consists of multiple local maxima power point (LMPP) and one global maxima power point
Accepted 3 January 2020
(GMPP). The conventional MPPT algorithm may track local peak and fluctuate around it, resulting
Available online 11 January 2020
in lower power tracking. To eradicate this drawback of conventional algorithm, the solar PV system
Keywords: requires the synthesis of modified controller which is able to discriminate between local and global
Photovoltaic system peak point. Along with implementing modified MPPT controller, to minimise the adverse effect of
Partial shading condition partial shading on PV system, different PV array arrangements like series-parallel (SP), honey comb
Perturb & observe (HC), total cross tied (TCT) etc. may be used. Author(s) in the present study, has proposed asymmetrical
Type-1 FLC interval type-2 fuzzy logic control (IT-2 AFLC) based MPP algorithm for tracking global peak in partial
IT-2 FLC shading condition (PSC) with different PV array arrangements. The presented algorithm has been
compared with other approaches viz. perturb & observe (P&O) and type-1(T-1) FLC for GMPP tracking,
fill factor, shading losses, mismatch loss and efficiency to establish its superiority. For evaluating the
efficiency of different algorithms, the EN50530 MPPT efficiency test has been performed under dynamic
condition. The proposed algorithm has been developed under MATLAB/Simulink environment.
© 2020 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In literature, different PV array arrangement schemes are pre-

sented to address the adverse effect of PSC [5–8]. Neha et al. [9]
Energy production from renewable resources are gaining implemented a novel structure of PV array under different shad-
widespread acceptance. Among various available non- ing scenarios. The novel structure of PV array structure was build
conventional energy resources, PV is one of the solutions. PV cell using MATLAB/Simulink. It has minimum power losses with im-
is an electrical transducer, which converts photon energy into proved fill factor but the implemented technique requires exten-
electrical energy [1]. PV cells are connected in series to make sive calculations. Authors in [10] presented and experimentally
PV module, further PV module’s series and parallel connection validated a new technique by implementing P&O algorithm for
makes PV array [1,2]. MPPT techniques are used to locate global tracking GMPP under uniform and non-uniform insolation con-
peak point of PV array. But under partial shading conditions, PV ditions. The proposed technique estimates maximum PV power
array exhibits multiple peaks. Partial shading is a condition where in pre-planned sections by measuring the PV curve slope. Seg-
the entire PV array is not uniformly irradiated and is caused mentation of PV array curve for variable temperature and ir-
because of dense clouds, shadow of nearby tall tower/building radiations requires more points to track maximum power by
and big trees etc. This causes difference in current-voltage and P&O algorithm. In [11] authors implemented electrical array re-
complex power–voltage curve exhibiting multiple peak with one configuration method on PV generator under PSC. The available
global peak point having maximum power and many local peaks PV modules are reconnected through controllable switching ma-
resulting in power loss and reduced efficiency [3,4]. To min- trix between PV generator and inverter. Although, it improves
imise power loss, different PV array arrangements like honey the capacity of the system but this switching matrix increases
comb, series–parallel, bridge linked, zig-zag, sudoku etc. can be the complexity and cost of the system. Indu Rani et al. in [12]
configured. presented Su Do Ku puzzle pattern for uniform distribution of
shadow on the entire PV module. This arrangement minimises
∗ Corresponding author. the effect of shading, so generated PV power is enhanced. In [13],
E-mail addresses: pallaviverma_phd2k16@dtu.ac.in (P. Verma),
authors proposed technique to enhance power output of PV sys-
rachana16100@yahoo.co.in (R. Garg), priyamahajan.eed@gmail.com tem by utilising Futoshiki puzzle scheme. In this scheme, total
(P. Mahajan). cross tied arrangement is rearranged without making any new

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2020.01.009
0019-0578/© 2020 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
252 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

electrical connection. Mismatch loss caused by partial shading are does not require professional expertise in comparison with above
minimised and generated power is enhanced. Braun et al. [14] intelligent control techniques. T-2 FLC was introduced which is
optimised the PV array rearrangement for different weather con- capable to cover all phases of its design. Unlike type-1 fuzzy, in-
ditions. Overall, 4%–5% gain in power was achieved using op- terval type 2 fuzzy logic controller is represented by two bounded
timisation technique under partial shading. This technique suf- membership functions, a lower and upper membership function.
fers from poor performance when modules exceed the size of Footprint of uncertainty (FOU) is the new dimension of IT-2
adaptive bank under huge and moderate shading. FLC. Interval type-2 FLC has output processing stage which has
Various literature is available on MPPT algorithms but, most type-reducer followed by defuzzifier. In [40,41] Altin proposes
of the presented algorithm works well under uniform weather interval T-2 FLC based MPPT algorithm for PV system but the
condition, as PV system exhibits only one peak point under such presented techniques were not tested for SPV system under par-
condition. But under partial shading condition or changing en- tially shaded conditions. In [42] authors have developed adaptive
vironmental condition, PV array output exhibits multiple peaks estimator for unstable output error system. The measurement of
i.e. LMPP and GMPP. MPPT algorithm may lurch around LMPP. The noisy system has been used to approximate the optimal control
conventional MPPT algorithms like P&O, Fractional Open Voltage policy. In [43] authors have designed model free adaptive control
(FOCV), Incremental Conductance (I&C) etc. were tested under which can take into accounts internal-external parametric and
uniform shading condition in [15–19] although these techniques non-parametric uncertainties.
were easy to understand and implement but the conventional In this paper, the authors have proposed a novel, intelli-
algorithms may lags behind in tracking global peak under PSC’s gent asymmetrical interval type-2 FLC based MPPT algorithm
and also show ripple. Advancement in control strategy leads to for stand-alone PV system under PSC. The conventional MPPT
the better tracking of GMPP [20–25]. Many MPPT techniques algorithm works on P&O steps and uses hill-incrementing method
based on intelligent, adaptive, genetic algorithms were intro- for successive iterations. These techniques continuously compare
duced in research articles. Authors in [26] presented new control present and previous power and voltage values. The conventional
and optimisation techniques such as sliding mode control, par- algorithm iteration step is based on pre-determined voltage step
ticle swarm optimisation, predictive control, cuckoo search algo- size ∆V. So, when conventional algorithms reach first peak of PV
rithm, etc. for control and better performance of grid connected array i.e. mostly local peak, it lurches around and stops searching
PV system. The presented strategies not only improve the effi- in the forward direction. Conventional methods tracks global
ciency but also reduces the power generated cost. A. Menadi [27] peak power under uniform irradiation as PV array depicts only
implemented fuzzy logic controller based MPPT algorithm on one peak [44]. But under other conditions it track local peak point
PV system connected to grid. The MATLAB/Simulink results are with less power. This also reduces the efficiency of PV system.
conformed with hardware results that shows MPPT algorithm This drawback of conventional algorithms can be overcome by the
tracks maximum power but the MPPT performance has been intelligent asymmetrical IT-2 FLC based MPPT algorithm. Mem-
tested under STC, weather change has not been considered in bership functions of the proposed asymmetrical IT-2 FLC based
the presented studies. Fuzzy Logic and P&O based MPPT track- algorithm are optimised to track global peak under transient
ing algorithm was presented in [28]. The presented technique conditions. Performance assessment of proposed asymmetrical
takes advantages of both the algorithms, utilising slow and fast interval type-2 FLC with other approaches viz. P&O, T-1 FLC in
change in insolation of P&O and fast-tracking ability of fuzzy terms of GMPP tracking, shading losses, mismatch loss, fill factor,
but it suffers from drift problem under rapidly changing irradi- EN50530 MPPT efficiency test has been performed under dynamic
ance level. In [29] applications of enhanced versions of FLC viz. condition establish its superiority.
modified hill climbing and adaptive P&O fuzzy logic based maxi- Although, the interval type-2 fuzzy based MPPT for PV sys-
mum power point tracking has been presented by the authors. tem under uniform insolation has already been implemented
All the improved version of FLC’s were compared for simula- but asymmetrical interval type-2 FLC under PSC with various
tion and hardware results. Asymmetrical type-1 FLC based MPPT PV array arrangements is still not available in literature. The
algorithm was implemented in [30] under both uniform and non- technique shall be helpful for the system designers for designing
uniform insolation condition . The implemented asymmetrical stand-alone solar PV system.
FLC improves the steady state as well as transient response of A 1.28 kW stand-alone solar PV system has been designed and
the system. In [31] authors presented novel Beta-Parameter based simulated for the proposed studies. Fig. 1 shows the schematic
type-1 FLC where a third input, a variable beta parameter is diagram of the proposed stand-alone PV system under PSC. The
introduced. The presented MPPT technique has been used for system is composed of PV array, boost converter, MPPT con-
rapidly changing environmental situations i.e. transient condition troller to locate highest peak and load. The methodology involves
using T-1 FLC. It has been found in the literature [29–31] that Simulink modelling of stand-alone PV system with various PV
the authors have used type 1 FLC for GMPP tracking under PSC array arrangements. SimPower/Simulink software is used for the
but the different PV array arrangement were not considered simulation studies. The mathematical modelling and design of the
and MPPT efficiency test under transient condition has not been components of proposed system are explained in the following
performed. The algorithm in [32] presented adaptive neuro fuzzy sections.
inference system based MPPT algorithm. The ANFIS model for
tracking MPP takes temperature and insolation as input and duty 2. PV array
cycle as the output. Further, artificial neural network [33], genetic
algorithm [34], grey wolf optimisation [35], ant-colony optimi- PV cell, is a basic unit of PV array, acts as an electrical trans-
sation [36], simulated annealing [37] were introduced for MPPT. ducer which converts light (photon) energy into electrical energy.
But these methods of MPPT need expert knowledge and huge The ideal solar cell circuit have current source with an anti-
data [31,38,39]. Conventional methods, called hard computing parallel diode. Shunt and series resistance are incorporated due
methods, need readjustment of controller parameters frequently to ohmic resistances and leakage current [45]. Fig. 2 presents
and cannot take into account the uncertainty and vagueness in circuit diagram of one diode model of PV cell with shunt and
measurands. If the data have uncertainties as in case of partial series resistance to make practical PV cell. PV cells are connected
shading condition, interval type-2 fuzzy method provides bet- in series/parallel combination to make PV modules, which are
ter solutions. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic based MPPT algorithm further connected to make PV array of desired output.
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 253

Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram of the proposed stand-alone PV system under PSC.

Table 1
Maximum Power obtained from 4 × 4 PV array under various arrangements.
PV array arrangement Pnom (W) Vm (V) Im (A)
S 1280 283.2 4.52
SP 1280 70.8 18.08
TCT 1280 70.8 18.08

where, Io/p and Vo/p is the output current and voltage of PV array,
Isat indicates reverse saturation current of diode, s and p are the
number of cell in series and parallel, q is the elementary charge
(1.602*10−19 C), A indicates ideal factor, K stands for Boltzmann
Fig. 2. Equivalent circuit of one diode model of PV cell.
constant (1.38*10−23 J), Tac indicates actual temperature.
In the present study, various 4 × 4 PV array arrangement viz.
S, SP and TCT of 1.28 kW has been considered. The specification
The output current of solar PV cell Io/p(cell) is given by using of the PV array is given in Appendix 1. Fig. 3 shows the various
Kirchhoff’s law: arrangements of PV array.
In Table 1, the maximum power obtained for the various PV
Io/p(PVCell) = Iphc − Id − Ish (1) array arrangements are listed.
[ ( ( )) ]
q Vo/p(cell) + Io/p(cell) ∗ Rs 3. Boost converter
Io/p(PVcell) = Iphc − Isat ∗ exp −1
AkTac
Boost converter converts variable dc from PV array into stable
Vo/p(cell) + Io/p(cell) Rs fixed dc. The boost converter circuit has IGBT switch, inductor,
− (2)
Rsh shunt capacitor and diode. Fig. 4 shows the circuit diagram of dc–
dc boost converter. The values of inductance, capacitance, duty
The output current for the PV array Io/p is given as ratio and resistive load can be obtained as:
( )
[ ( ( )) ] Vi/p ∗ Vo/p − Vi/p
q Vo/p + Io/p ∗ Rs (s/p) L= (4)
Io/p = p.Iphc − p.Isat ∗ exp −1 (∆I fsw Vo/p )
sAkTac
(3)
Vo/p + Io/p Rs (s/p)
( )
Vi/p
− α =1− (5)
Rsh (s/p) Vo/p

Fig. 3. Configuration of various PV array arrangements.

254 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

into the controller. The fuzzy logic consists of (i) fuzzification,

(ii) inferencing and (iii) defuzzification. The fuzzification trans-
forms uncertain parametric value into a set of fuzzified values,
assuming a suitable transformation function. In the present study,
we have considered triangular fuzzy functions. Although, these
functions can be any number, higher the number of functions
considered, better accuracy can be achieved but it will take more
processing time and require more memory while with smaller
number of functions accuracy level is reduced. To overcome these
drawbacks, five membership functions have been selected to
have good accuracy without making the system complex. Further,
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the boost converter. the fuzzified set of values called fuzzy membership, are definite
values. In practical problems, such as partial shading application
the fuzzified values are not crisp, they generally lie in the band
Ia α of interval called footprint of uncertainty and such problems can
C = (6)
(Vo/p ∆Vfsw ) be dealt with interval type-2 fuzzy system for better accuracy.
The interval type-2 FLC has greater sensitivity at the centre of the
Rin = (1 − α)2 Rl (7)
membership function. It overcome the disadvantages of type-1
Where, Vo/p is the output voltage of inductance, α is the duty FLC, provide more flexibility in data uncertainties like ambiguous
ratio, ∆I indicates ripple in output current and which is 10% of weather condition.
the input current, fsw is the switching frequency, ∆V indicates The interval type-2 FLC set, represented by Ã, is defined by
ripple in peak voltage, Ia indicates average output current and it a type-2 membership function µÃ (x, u) , where x ∈ X (X is
is considered as 3% of the output voltage, Vi/p is input voltage, Rin universe of discourse) and u ∈ Jx ⊆ [0, 1] , i.e., [47]
is the input resistance.
(x, u) , µÃ (x, u) | ∀x ∈ X , Jx ⊆ [0, 1]
{( ) }
à = (8)
4. Interval type-2 FLC MPPT algorithm
Set à can also be defined as,
Zadeh [46] introduced fuzzy set theory, which has broad ap- µÃ (x, u)
∫ ∫
plication especially in control theory. FLC eradicates the need à = Jx ⊆ [0, 1] (9)
x∈X u∈Jx (x, u)
of accurate mathematical model of a system as well as it is
nonlinear, adaptive and robust under parametric variation as well
∫
where represents union. Set à (discrete) can also be defined as,
as non-parametric variation. Fuzzy logic controller mimics the
human thought process for control action and converts the lin- ∑ ∑ µ (x, u)
guistic control data into numerical control data. Fuzzy controller à = Ã
Jx ⊆ [0, 1] (10)
has a decision-making capability, allowing expertise knowledge (x, u)
x∈X u∈Jx

Fig. 5. (a) Type-1 FLC and (b) Blurring of type-1 membership function.

Fig. 6. Proposed Interval type-2 fuzzy logic based MPPT algorithm under PSC.
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 255

Fig. 7. Input variable (a) Error membership functions (b) Change in Error membership functions.

the knowledge base which is further defuzzified using output

processing block.
The interval type-2 FLC is used to regulate the duty ratio of
boost converter in order to track GMPP. The total power gen-
erated from PV array is determined through sensed voltage and
current. Input to fuzzifier are error (Er ) and change in error (dE r ),
which are given by,
Po/p (n) − Po/p (n − 1)
Fig. 8. Two input variable (a) Error and (b) Change in Error. Er (n) = (11)
Io/p (n) − Io/p (n − 1)
dEr (n) = Er (n) − Er (n − 1) (12)
The interval type-2 fuzzy membership function is 3-D fuzzy set. where Po/p(n) indicates power output of SPV array at nth instant,
The blurred type-1 membership function represents footprint of Po/p(n−1) is the power output of SPV array at n − 1th instant.
uncertainty (FOU) and it has two bounded membership functions Similarly, Er(n) and Er(n−1) is the error at instant (n) and (n − 1)
i.e. called as lower membership function (LMF) and upper mem- respectively.
bership function (UMF). The IT-2 FLC are expansion of type-1 The interval T-2 type FLC has two input (power and current)
fuzzy control. Fig. 5(a) represents the type-1 fuzzy control and and one output (duty ratio). Input variable and output variable
(b) blurring of type-1 membership function. Blurred membership fuzzy set consist of five membership functions as shown in Fig. 7.
function is 3-D, having UMF, LMF along with footprint of uncer- The membership functions are labelled as; −B: negative big, −S:
tainty (third dimension of T-2 FLC). Blurring of type-1 FLC by negative small, ZO: zero, +S: positive small and +B: positive big.
moving the points on left and right of the membership function The training of fuzzy system to set the span of membership
achieves T-2 FLC. Assuming this is repeated for all x ∈ X, the functions is done with proportional–integral (PI) controller. The
type-2 3-D membership function of fuzzy set will be created. FOU maximum allowable error is ±283 V, the maximum voltage of PV
provides degree of freedom and it is also capable of handling array under STC. So, the range for error (Er ) span is [−283, +283
uncertainties. V]. Similarly, span for change in error (dEr ) is between [−1, +1].
The reasoning methodology of interval T-2 FLC has been ex- Membership value for each function is allocated between {0,
pressed by ‘‘IF-THEN’’ rules or commands. The IT-2 FLC inputs 1}. Error and change in error membership functions are nor-
are mapped as type-1 fuzzy are known as type-1 non-singleton malised, and appropriate tuning gains matches the inputs to their
type-2 FLC and those inputs are mapped as interval type-2 are respective universe of discourse.
known as type-2 non-singleton type-2 FLC. The IT-2 FLC, like T- For inferencing, the fuzzy input set are processed according
1 FLC, has same logical system except output processing stage to the developed rule base. 25 rules are made as per change in
which has type-reducer followed by defuzzifier. T-2 FLC has five action of input membership functions. The action is based on the
stages: fuzzifier, fuzzy rules, inference engine, type-reducer and error and change in error.
defuzzifier. In the interval type-2 fuzzy set, Takagi-Sugeno (TS) For example: mth rule of IT-2 is given below:
FLC architecture is used. The antecedent and consequent of rule Rule mth: IF x1 is F̃1m and xd is F̃dm THEN y is G̃1
base are linguistic term and mathematical function of the input where, ‘∼’ denotes the rules belong to IT-2 FLC.
respectively. Fig. 6 shows the block diagram of the interval type- Fig. 8 shows the rule base matrix. Control action is changed
2 FLC. The sensed outputs of PV array are given to fuzzifier. according to the active state of input membership function. Au-
The output from fuzzifier is fed to inference engine based on thor’s in the present work used Mamdani’s MAX–MIN method for

Fig. 9. Various shading scenarios under STC and PSC.

256 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

similar to type-1 defuzzification, fuzzy inferred output is con-

verted to crisp output and which is given by:

zo = defuzzifier (x) (13)

where, x indicates combined output.

There are number of methods for type reducer and defuzzifica-
tion viz. Karnik–Mendel (KM) method, enhanced Karnik Mendel
(EKM), enhanced iterative algorithm with stopping condition
(EIASC) etc., In the proposed system authors have done output
processing by Karnik–Mendel (KM) method.

Fig. 10. Power vs voltage plot under various shading scenarios. 5. Simulation results

Table 2 A 1.28 kW stand-alone PV system is tested for various shading

Individual maximum power (Pmpi (W)) under different shading scenarios.
scenarios with different PV array arrangements. The shading sce-
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 narios considered for all the PV array arrangements are shown
1255 1054 592 857 in Fig. 9. The various shading scenarios has been tested with
proposed algorithm and compared with other algorithms viz.
P&O, T-1 FLC for different PV array arrangements. Fig. 10 shows
inferencing. Minimum operator gives each rule output member- the Power vs voltage plot under various shading scenarios for the
system under study.
ship function whereas maximum operator gives combined fuzzy
Case1 (STC): In this case, the proposed system has been tested
output. under STC with different PV array arrangements. In Fig. 11, the
proposed algorithm has been compared with other algorithms for
For output processing, type-2 fuzzy sets are reduced to type-
different PV array arrangements under STC. In this case, the global
1 fuzzy sets by centroid calculation in type reducer block. Then, maximum peak power i.e. 1028 W has been tracked by interval

Fig. 11. (a)–(c) Power vs. Time plot for various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 1 (STC).
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 257

Fig. 12. Comparative Analysis of Maximum power tracked using various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 1(STC).

Table 3 Table 6
Shading loss (W) in various MPPT techniques under study with different PV Efficiency (%) of various MPPT techniques under study with different PV array
array arrangements. arrangements.
MPPT techniques Series Series-Parallel Total cross tied MPPT techniques Series Series-Parallel Total cross tied
P&O 302 297 253 P&O 77.90 78.32 81.83
Case 1 T-1 287 254.5 252 Case 1 T-1 79.12 81.71 81.91
IT-2 282 252 252 IT-2 79.52 81.91 81.91
P&O 342 345 321.5 P&O 88.99 88.70 90.93
Case 2 T-1 339 328 310 Case 2 T-1 89.21 90.23 92.03
IT-2 330 326 305 IT-2 90.13 90.51 92.50
P&O 766 762 763.5 P&O 86.82 87.50 87.24
Case 3 T-1 765 761.5 748.5 Case 3 T-1 86.94 87.58 89.78
IT-2 752 747 716.5 IT-2 89.18 90.33 95.18
P&O 574 561 453 P&O 82.38 83.89 96.49
Case 4 T-1 574 559 439 Case 4 T-1 82.38 84.13 98.13
IT-2 555 555 435 IT-2 84.39 84.59 98.59

Table 4
type-2 fuzzy algorithm under TCT arrangement. On the other side,
Fill Factor in various MPPT techniques under study with different PV array
arrangements.
series PV array arrangement gives the lowest maximum power.
MPPT techniques Series Series-Parallel Total cross tied
To express these results more clearly, the same results has been
presented on bar chart in Fig. 12 for case 1.
P&O 0.558 0.561 0.586
Case 1 T-1 0.566 0.585 0.586 Case 2 (Left corner shading): In this case, the system has been
IT-2 0.569 0.586 0586 tested with left corner shading with different PV array arrange-
P&O 0.535 0.533 0.547 ments. The PV panels were irradiated with 650 W/m2 at left
Case 2 T-1 0537 0.543 0.553
corner. In Fig. 13, the IT-2 FLC algorithm has been compared with
IT-2 0.542 0.544 0.556
other algorithms for different PV array arrangements under left
P&O 0.301 0.310 0.309
corner shading. In this case, the global maximum peak power
Case 3 T-1 0.301 0.311 0.319
IT-2 0.309 0.319 0.338 i.e. 975 W has been tracked by interval type-2 fuzzy algorithm
under TCT arrangement. To express these results more clearly,
P&O 0.412 0.426 0.491
Case 4 T-1 0.412 0.428 0.499 the same results has been presented on bar chart in Fig. 14 for
IT-2 0.423 0.430 0.501 case 2.
Case 3 (Top shading): In this case, the system has been tested
with top PV panels shaded with different PV array arrangements.
Table 5 The PV panels were irradiated with 400 W/m2 at top. In Fig. 15,
Mismatch losses (%) in various MPPT techniques under study with different PV
the IT-2 FLC has been compared with other algorithms for dif-
array arrangements.
ferent PV array arrangements under top shading. In this case,
MPPT techniques Series Series-Parallel Total cross tied
the global maximum peak power i.e. 563.5 W has been tracked
P&O 22.07 21.6 18.16
by interval type-2 fuzzy algorithm under TCT arrangement. On
Case 1 T-1 20.8 18.2 18.0
IT-2 20.4 18.0 18.0 the other side, series PV array arrangement gives the lowest
maximum power. To express these results more clearly, the same
P&O 11.0 11.2 9.06
Case 2 T-1 10.72 9.67 7.7 results has been presented on bar chart in Fig. 16 for case 3.
IT-2 9.86 9.48 7.4
Case 4 (Patch Shading): In this case, the system has been tested
P&O 13.1 12.5 12.7 with patch shading with different PV array arrangements. The PV
Case 3 T-1 13.0 12.0 10.2
panels were irradiated with 300 W/m2 at centre. In Figs. 15 and
IT-2 10.8 9.9 4.8
17, the IT-2 FLC has been compared with other algorithms for
P&O 17.6 16.1 3.5
different PV array arrangements under patch shading. In this case,
Case 4 T-1 17.6 15.8 1.8
IT-2 15.4 15.4 1.4 the global maximum peak power i.e. 845 W has been tracked
by interval type-2 fuzzy algorithm under TCT arrangement. On
the other side, series PV array arrangement gives the lowest
maximum power tracked by P&O. To express these results more
clearly, the same results has been presented on bar chart in Fig. 18
for case 4.
258 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

Fig. 13. (a)–(c) Power vs. Time plot for various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 2 (Left corner shading).

Fig. 14. Comparative Analysis of Maximum power tracked using various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 2 (Left corner shading).

Further, simulation results of the proposed MPPT algorithm the given PV array. It can be given by:
has been compared with other algorithms viz. conventional P&O
PMP = VMP ∗ IMP (14)
and Intelligent T-1 FLC under various shading scenarios along
with different PV arrangements for GMPP tracking, shading (b) Shading Losses: The power loss due to shading is called
losses, mismatch loss, fill factor and the EN 50530 MPPT efficiency shading loss. Shading loss is the difference in power be-
test. tween the maximum power obtained from an array un-
der STC (PMP ,withoutshading ) and the total maximum available
(a) GMPP Tracking: Under partially shaded condition, the non- power under PSC (PMP ,shading ) [48]. It can be represented as:
linear P–V characteristic exhibits multiple peaks. These
multiple peaks contain many LMPPs and single GMPP. The
point at which voltage and current value is maximum for PMP ,shadinglosses = PMP ,withoutshading − PMP ,shading (15)
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 259

Fig. 15. (a)–(c) Power vs. Time plot for various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 3 (Top shading).

Fig. 16. Comparative Analysis of Maximum power tracked using various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 3 (Top shading).

(c) Mismatch Losses: It can be defined as, the difference of value of fill factor is equivalent to unity, then the system is
individual maximum power (Pmpi ) of PV array and global more efficient.
maximum power (PGMPP ). Table 2 shows the individual PGMPP
maximum powers under different shading scenarios. Mis- FF = (17)
Voc ∗ Isc
match loss (Pmml ) is given by:
(e) MPPT Efficiency test EN50530: Under dynamic weather
Pmml = Pmpi − PGMPP (16)
condition, the assessment of the proposed algorithm is
(d) Fill Factor (FF): It can be defined as the ratio of maximum done with EN 50530 MPPT efficiency test. EN 50530 effi-
global power (PGMPP ) to the product of open circuit voltage ciency test is to supply the solar insolation in trapezoidal
(Voc )and short circuit current (Isc ) of the PV system. If the waveform with different ramp inclination. MPPT average
260 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

Fig. 17. (a)–(c) Power vs. Time plot for various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 4 (Patch Shading).

Fig. 18. Comparative Analysis of Maximum power tracked using various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements for case 4 (Patch Shading).

tracking efficiency of the proposed controller is evaluated be seen that the performance of TCT PV array arrangement is
using the given formula [49]: better than any other configuration. Also, the proposed asymmet-
rical interval type-2 FLC algorithm has minimum shading losses,
Po/pPV improved fill factor and minimum mismatch losses as compared
ηMPPT = (18)
to the other algorithm. Table 6 shows the efficiency of proposed
Ptheo PV
MPPT algorithm compared with other algorithms. From Table 6, it
Tables 3–5 represents shading loss, fill factor and mismatch can be seen that IT-2 based AFLC with TCT PV array arrangement
loss (%) respectively in various MPPT algorithms under study with has highest efficiency.
Dynamic Results: The proposed asymmetrical interval type-2
different PV array arrangements. The proposed algorithm has
FLC MPPT algorithm has been tested under dynamic condition.
been compared with other control algorithm in terms of tracked Authors(s) have tested the proposed algorithm with EN 50530
GMPP, shading losses, fill factor and mismatch losses. Also, the MPPT efficiency standard. Fig. 19 shows two trapezoidal wave-
efficiency of the proposed algorithm has been evaluated. It can form representing slow and fast change at insolation level of
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 261

Fig. 19. Dynamic change in insolation level for EN 50530 standard MPPT efficiency test.

Fig. 20. Power vs. Time plot for various MPPT techniques with different PV array arrangements under dynamic condition.

400 W/m2 /s and 800 W/m2 /s respectively. The insolation level Table 7 shows the dynamic response of various MPPT tech-
changes slowly from 1–6 s and the insolation level change is niques. The proposed MPPT algorithm tracks the maximum global
faster from 7–10 s. power i.e. 1028 W (1–6 s) when PV array is configured in total
Fig. 20 shows the Power Vs. Time plot of the proposed algo- cross tied manner which is highest in comparison with other
rithm compared with other algorithms under dynamic condition. PV array arrangements. Also, the settling time is minimum for
Fig. 20(a), (b) and (c) shows the comparative analysis when PV the proposed algorithm. Hence, it can be concluded that TCT
array are connected in S, SP and TCT respectively. configuration gives better results.
262 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263

Table 7
Dynamic response of various MPPT techniques under study.
0–1 (s) 1–06 (s)
PV array arrangement MPPT techniques
Power (W) Settling time (s) Power (W) Settling time (s)
P&O 84 0.62 975 3.33
SERIES T-1 86 0.60 993 3.33
IT-2 86 0.60 998 3.33
P&O 85 0.62 983 3.4
SERIES-PARALLEL
T-1 96 0.20 1025 3.15
IT-2 96 0.20 1028 3.15
P&O 85 0.55 1022 3.26
TOTAL CROSS TIED
T-1 96 0.20 1024 3.10
IT-2 96 0.20 1028 3.10

6. Conclusion [11] Velasco-Quesada G, Guinjoan-Gispert F, Piqué-López R, Román-

Lumbreras M, Conesa-Roca A. Electrical PV array reconfiguration strategy
for energy extraction improvement in grid-connected PV systems. IEEE
In the present study, author(s) have presented novel asymmet- Trans Ind Electron 2009;56:4319–31.
rical interval type-2 fuzzy logic control based maximum power [12] Rani BI, Ilango GS, Nagamani C. Enhanced power generation from PV array
point tracking algorithm under PSC. The presented MPPT algo- under partial shading conditions by shade dispersion using Su Do Ku
rithm has been tested for various shading scenarios under steady configuration. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2013;4:594–601.
state condition. The performance of proposed intelligent asym- [13] Sahu HS, Nayak SK, Mishra S. Maximizing the power generation of
a partially shaded PV array. IEEE J Emerg Sel Top Power Electron
metrical interval type-2 FLC algorithm has been compared with 2016;4:626–37.
other approaches viz. conventional P&O and type-1 FLC in terms [14] Braun H, Buddha ST, Krishnan V, Tepedelenlioglu C, Spanias A, Banavar M,
of GMPP tracking, shading losses, fill factor, mismatch loss (%) and et al. Topology reconfiguration for optimization of photovoltaic array
efficiency to establish its superiority. The MPPT algorithm has also output. Sustain Energy Grids Netw 2016;6:58–69.
[15] Lokanadham M, Bhaskar KV. Incremental conductance based maxi-
been tested under dynamic condition by performing EN50530
mum power point tracking (MPPT) for photovoltaic system. Int J Eng
MPPT efficiency test. The simulation results show that the pro- 2012;2:1420–4.
posed asymmetrical interval type-2 based MPPT algorithm with [16] Nedumgatt JJ, Jayakrishnan KB, Umashankar S, Vijayakumar D, Kothari DP.
TCT PV array arrangement has highest power output under all the Perturb and observe MPPT algorithm for solar PV systems-modeling and
shading scenarios with improved fill factor. Also, it has higher simulation. In: Proc - 2011 Annu IEEE India Conf eng sustain solut
INDICON-2011, vol. 19. 2011. p. 1–6.
tracking efficiency with minimum shading loss and mismatch
[17] Chandwani A, Kothari A. Design, simulation and implementation of Maxi-
loss. mum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for solar based renewable systems. In:
Int conf electr power energy syst ICEPES 2016. 2017. p. 539–44.
Declaration of competing interest [18] Ahmad J. A fractional open circuit voltage based maximum power point
tracker for photovoltaic arrays. In: ICSTE 2010-2010 2nd int conf softw
technol eng proc, vol. 1. 2010. p. V1-247-V1-250.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [19] Esram T, Chapman PL. Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2007;22:439–49.
to influence the work reported in this paper. [20] Abdelsalam AK, Massoud AM, Ahmed S, Enjeti PN. High-performance
adaptive perturb and observe MPPT technique for photovoltaic-based
microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2011;26:1010–21.
References [21] Femia N, Petrone G, Spagnuolo G, Vitelli M. Optimization of perturb
and observe maximum power point tracking method. IEEE Trans Power
[1] Solangi KH, Islam MR, Saidur R, Rahim NA, Fayaz H. A review on global Electron 2005;20:963–73.
solar energy policy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2149–63. [22] Elgendy MA, Zahawi B, Atkinson DJ. Evaluation of incremental conductance
[2] Singh GK. Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) technology: A MPPT algorithm at low perturbation rates. In: 7th IET int conf power
review. Energy 2013;53:1–13. electron mach drives. 2014.
[3] Syafaruddin E, Karatepe T, Hiyama. Artificial neural network-polar coordi- [23] Alonso R, Ibaez P, Martinez V, Roman E, Sanz A. An innovative perturb,
nated fuzzy controller based maximum power point tracking control under observe and check algorithm for partially shaded PV systems. In: 2009
partially shaded condition. IET Renew Power Gener 2009;3(2):239–53. 13th Eur conf power electron appl. 2009. p. 1–8.
[4] Mao M, Zhou L, Yang Z, Zhang Q, Zheng C, Xie B, et al. A hybrid [24] Yang B, Yu T, Shu H, Zhu D, An N, Sang Y, et al. Perturbation observer
intelligent GMPPT algorithm for partial shading PV system. Control Eng based fractional-order sliding-mode controller for MPPT of grid-connected
Pract 2019;83:108–15. PV inverters: Design and real-time implementation. Control Eng Pract
[5] Jazayeri M, Uysal S, Jazayeri K. A comparative study on different photo- 2018;79:105–25.
voltaic array topologies under partial shading conditions. In: 2014 IEEE [25] Javed MY, Murtaza AF, Ling Q, Qamar S, Gulzar MM. A novel MPPT
PES T & D conf expo. 2014. p. 1–5. design using generalized pattern search for partial shading. Energy Build
[6] Vijayalekshmy S, Bindu GR, Rama Iyer S. Analysis of various photovoltaic 2016;133:59–69.
array configurations under shade dispersion by Su Do Ku arrangement [26] Precup RE, Kamal T, Hassan SZ. Solar photovoltaic power plants: advanced
during passing cloud conditions. Indian J Sci Technol 2015;8. control and optimization techniques. Springer Singapore; 2019.
[7] Srinivasa Rao P, Saravana Ilango G, Nagamani C. Maximum power from [27] Menadi A, Abdeddaim S, Betka A, Benchouia MT. Real time implementation
PV arrays using a fixed configuration under different shading conditions. of a fuzzy logic based MPPT Controller for Grid Connected Photovoltaic
IEEE J Photovolt 2014;4:679–86. System. 2015, p. 5.
[8] Pendem SR, Mikkili S. Modelling and performance assessment of PV array [28] Al-Majidi SD, Abbod MF, Al-Raweshidy HS. A novel maximum power point
topologies under partial shading conditions to mitigate the mismatching tracking technique based on fuzzy logic for photovoltaic systems. Int J
power losses. Sol Energy 2018;160:303–21. Hydrog Energy 2018;43:14158–71.
[9] Mishra N, Yadav AS, Pachauri R, Chauhan YK, Yadav VK. Performance [29] Boukenoui R, Mellit A. Applications of improved versions of fuzzy logic
enhancement of PV system using proposed array topologies under various based maximum power point tracking for controlling photovoltaic systems.
shadow patterns. Sol Energy 2017;157:641–56. Springer Singapore; 2019.
[10] Balasankar R, Arasu GT, Christy Mano Raj JS. A global MPPT technique [30] Verma P, Garg R, Mahajan P. Asymmetrical fuzzy logic control based MPPT
invoking partitioned estimation and strategic deployment of P & O to algorithm for stand-alone PV system under partially shaded conditions. Int
tackle partial shading conditions. Sol Energy 2017;143:73–85. J Sci Technol 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/SCI.2019.51737.2338.
 P. Verma, R. Garg and P. Mahajan / ISA Transactions 100 (2020) 251–263 263

[31] Li X, Wen H, Hu Y, Jiang L. A novel beta parameter based fuzzy- [40] Altin N. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller based maximum power point
logic controller for photovoltaic MPPT application. Renew Energy tracking in photovoltaic systems. Adv Electr Comput Eng 2013;13:65–70.
2019;130:416–27. [41] Altin N. The type-2 fuzzy logic controller-based maximum power point
[32] Kharb RK, Shimi SL, Chatterji S, Ansari MF. Modeling of solar PV module tracking algorithm and the quadratic boost converter for Pv system. J
and maximum power point tracking using ANFIS. Renew Sustain Energy Electron Mater 2018;47:4475–85.
Rev 2014;33:602–12. [42] Tutsoy O, Colak S. Adaptive estimator design for unstable output error sys-
[33] Rizzo SA, Scelba G. ANN based MPPT method for rapidly variable shading tems: A test problem and traditional system identification based analysis
conditions. Appl Energy 2015;145:124–32. 2015;229:902–16.
[34] Daraban S, Petreus D, Morel C. A novel MPPT (maximum power point [43] Tutsoy O, Erol D, Tugal H. Design of a completely model free adaptive
tracking) algorithm based on a modified genetic algorithm specialized on control in the presence of parametric, non-parametric uncertainties and
tracking the global maximum power point in photovoltaic systems affected random control signal delay. ISA Trans 2018;76:67–77.
by partial shading. Energy 2014;74:374–88. [44] Miyatake M, Veerachary M, Toriumi F, Fujii N, Ko H. Maximum power
[35] Mohanty S, Subudhi B, Member S, Ray PK. A new MPPT design using grey point tracking of multiple photovoltaic arrays: A PSO approach. IEEE Trans
wolf optimization technique for photovoltaic system under partial shading Aerosp Electron Syst 2011;47:367–80.
conditions 2015;7:1–8. [45] Bellia H, Youcef R, Fatima M. A detailed modeling of photovoltaic module
[36] Sundareswaran K, Vigneshkumar V, Sankar P, Simon SP, Srinivasa Rao using MATLAB. NRIAG J Astron Geophys 2014;3:53–61.
Nayak P, Palani S. Development of an improved P & O algorithm assisted [46] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965;8:338–53.
through a colony of foraging ants for MPPT in PV system. IEEE Trans Ind [47] Zadeh LA. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
Informatics 2016;12:187–200. approximate reasoning-I. Inform Sci 1975;8:199–249.
[37] Lyden S, Haque ME. A simulated annealing global maximum power point [48] Bingöl O, Özkaya B. Analysis and comparison of different PV array config-
tracking approach for PV modules under partial shading conditions. IEEE urations under partial shading conditions. Sol Energy 2018;160:336–43.
Trans Power Electron 2016;31:4171–81. [49] Mara W, Piotrowicz M. Calculation of dynamic MPP-tracking efficiency of
[38] Seyedmahmoudian M, Horan B, Rahmani R, Oo AMT, Stojcevski A. Effi- PV-inverter using recorded irradiance. In: Proc 20th int conf mix des integr
cient photovoltaic system maximum power point tracking using a new circuits syst - mix 2013. 2013. p. 431–4.
technique. Energies 2016;9:1–18.
[39] Gosumbonggot J, Fujita G. Partial shading detection and global maximum
power point tracking algorithm for photovoltaic with the variation of
irradiation and temperature. Energies 2019;12:202.