sustainability

Article
A Novel Hybrid Approach for Maximizing the
Extracted Photovoltaic Power under Complex Partial
Shading Conditions
Altwallbah Neda Mahmod Mohammad 1,2, * , Mohd Amran Mohd Radzi 1,2, * ,
Norhafiz Azis 1,2 , Suhaidi Shafie 1 and Muhammad Ammirrul Atiqi Mohd Zainuri 3
1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia;
norhafiz@upm.edu.my (N.A.); suhaidi@upm.edu.my (S.S.)
2 Advanced Lightning, Power and Energy Research (ALPER) Centre, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Selangor 43400, Malaysia
3 Department of Electrical, Electronic and Systems Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Selangor 43400, Malaysia; ammirrulatiqi@ukm.edu.my
* Correspondence: nedaaltawalbeh@yahoo.com (A.N.M.M.); amranmr@upm.edu.my (M.A.M.R.)




Received: 11 June 2020; Accepted: 27 June 2020; Published: 18 July 2020


Abstract: The convenient design of a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controller is key to
the success of photovoltaic (PV) system performance in order to maximize the extracted power,
which is affected significantly by weather fluctuations, particularly partial shading condition (PSC).
This paper proposes a novel hybrid MPPT approach based on a modified Perturb and Observe
(P&O) assisted by the Extremum Seeking Control (ESC) strategy, combining the benefits of these
simple algorithms and, meanwhile, eliminating their drawbacks. The proposed algorithm is able
to track the maximum possible power under any level of weather fluctuation, with comprehensive
enhancement on all aspects of high performance, boosting the PV array efficiency to 100%, reducing
the convergence time to less than 100 ms, completely eradicating the oscillations around the achieved
power, and maintaining the simplicity levels of both involved strategies. More importantly, this
algorithm is applicable for any PV array configuration, which enhances the robustness and novelty
of the algorithm. The performance is verified using MATLAB/Simulink. A boost converter is used for
controlling DC to DC (direct current to direct current) power. The proposed algorithm’s performance
is compared with the conventional P&O and incremental conductance (IC) algorithms under four
different cases of weather conditions. The shortcomings of these algorithms are illustrated and the
analysis confirms the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm accordingly.

Keywords: photovoltaic (PV); partial shading conditions (PSC); maximum power point tracking
(MPPT); global maximum power point (GMPP); Perturb and Observe (P&O); Extremum Seeking
Control (ESC); incremental conductance (IC)

1. Introduction
Increased demands of electrical power threaten traditional power sources, which are no longer
sufficient. Therefore, renewable energy sources have gained significant importance for electrical power
generation throughout the world. In addition to the permanence of renewable energy sources, they also
have very beneficial advantages, such that they do not cause any kind of environmental pollution,
are inexpensive and clean, require little maintenance, and emit no noise. Solar photovoltaic (PV)
array is the most popular renewable energy source due to solar illumination availability being normal
and continual. PV panel performance is highly sensitive to weather variations and environmental
parameters, such as the irradiation level and temperature. Therefore, efficient control schemes are

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786; doi:10.3390/su12145786 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 2 of 24

desired in order to extract the maximum available power under full sun illumination and also under
the presence of any atmospheric fluctuations. Therefore, using a maximum power point tracking
(MPPT) controller is the proper approach to derive the PV array at the maximum power point (MPP).
Unique MPP occurs in the power - voltage (P-V) curve of the PV array under uniform weather condition,
while under partial shading condition (PSC) numerous power peaks exist, which are known as the
local maximum power points (LMPPs), except for the one with the highest power, which is called
the global maximum power point (GMPP), which expands the challenge for the MPPT system to
locate the right global power peak point [1]. The common target is to maximize the efficiency of the PV
system by keeping the PV module at its maximum power operation [2].
Many MPPT techniques have been proposed by researchers during the last decades, and these
techniques can be classified based on the implementation methods into two categories—conventional
MPPT algorithms and intelligence computing algorithms. The conventional algorithms, such as Perturb
and Observe (P&O) [3] and incremental conductance (IC) [4–6] are considered economical and easy to
implement but with non-steady efficiency [7]. On the other hand, the intelligence computing algorithms,
for example fuzzy logic control [8], artificial neural networks [9], particle swarm optimization [10],
genetic algorithms [11], hybrid BAT-Fuzzy [12], and Cuckoo Search (CS) [13] are complicated methods
and have long computational time and weak convergence speed but with high efficiency [14]. In the case
of uniform irradiation, the previous research works have confirmed that conventional MPPT methods
can track the MPP efficiently, while under PSC these techniques fail to guarantee effective and accurate
tracking of the GMPP [15]. Therefore, the challenges in implementing MPPT can be summarized by
the algorithm complexity, cost, tracking time, power loss due to oscillation occurrence, and failure
while operating under shading conditions [7]. During the past years, the researchers’ attention has
been concentrated on the accurate tracking of the global power peak under PSC. Each proposed
tracking algorithm attempted to overcome the aforementioned performance challenges [16], but the
achievements were different from one algorithm to the other.
Two main categories were followed for the previous MPPT algorithms’ propositions under PSC;
the first one was based on creating particular modifications to the existing conventional tracking
algorithms, and the second category was established based on intelligence computing methods.
Among the conventional techniques, P&O is the most extensively used due to its simplicity, low cost,
and faster response compared to other conventional approaches [17]. Nevertheless, the high oscillation
occurrence around the MPP, which aids to considerable energy loss, and its inability to extract the
correct maximum power from the partially shaded PV array are considered as the two main drawbacks
of this algorithm. Therefore, many researchers have made some modifications to P&O to overcome
these drawbacks.
A newly formulated P&O method for MPPT was proposed in [18], and this algorithm aims to
minimize the steady-state oscillation occurrence around the extracted MPP during the tracking process.
In addition, this algorithm considers the irradiation level as an additional input beside the output
voltage of the module for controlling the duty cycle of the boost converter. Two sensors are employed
for this procedure; one is for measuring the output voltage, and another sensor is for measuring the
irradiation level instead of the current sensor in the conventional method. The simulation results
illustrate that the proposed method outperforms the conventional P&O method in tracking the MPP
in the case of the unique maximum power peak, but the work does not provide any guarantee that
the proposed newly formulated P&O method is able to track the GMPP with the presence of more
than one power peak. Another enhanced P&O algorithm with variable step size was proposed in [19],
which employs a fuzzy logic control to supply variable step-size convergence in order to boost the
efficiency of the PV system. The MPPT process in [20] was introduced in order to solve the problem of
the drift caused in the case of a rapid increase in radiation. The suggested solution was by integrating
the information of the change in current, voltage, and power in the decision procedure, and the
authors implied that in the case of high insolation, the simple P&O algorithm may experience the drift
issue due to the inaccurate decision-making ability of the algorithm. [19] and [20] are costly, complex,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 3 of 24

and need previous knowledge to be handled. An improved P&O algorithm was presented by [21],
in which the improvement can be summarized by considering the variation in the PV current as a
third test in its flowcharts, and this is the difference between this algorithm and the conventional
one. Moreover, the authors investigated eight cases of the operating point perturbation as follows;
four of them were the same as the original algorithm with fixed irradiation, and the others were
applied to provide an indication about the states of the fast changing of the irradiation level, either
increasing or decreasing, based on comparing the changes of voltage signs with the current and
accordingly changing the converter duty cycle. The results confirm that the proposed controller is
able to track MPPs effectively with a minimized ability of diverging from the correct tracking path
under uniform conditions. However, for effective performance under PSC, this algorithm has to be
modified majorly. In addition, another novel adapted variable step-size P&O MPPT strategy of a
PV system was introduced by [1]. The proposed adaption is based on a famous geometric theorem
idea, known as Pythagorean theorem, which assists in perfectly overcoming the weaknesses and
restrictions of the conventional P&O MPPT, such as the oscillations around the detected MPP with
a maintained high speed convergence. However, the performance is still not efficient under PSC.
Another intelligent modification on a variable step-size P&O procedure was proposed by [22] in
order to boost the performance ability to work under PSC. The modification is based on deliberate
comparison sequences, which are able to lead the process to track the GMPP efficiently, with enhanced
tracking speed. The study in [23] proposed an improved cuckoo search (ICS) MPPT method in order to
track the GMPP efficiently under PSC, and the improvement can be outlined by removing the random
step from the original CS algorithm and further introducing the ideation of low-power, high-power,
ordinary, and marked zones with adaptive step adjustment based on the diverse stages of the nest place.
This algorithm was able to precisely track the actual maximum power under PSC with higher efficiency
than the original CS algorithm. Another MPPT approach based on soft computing algorithms was
proposed by [24]: a hybrid MPPT controller, which combines fuzzy logic control and the P&O method
in order to track the MPP of the PV under PSC. The proposed approach provides a clear enhancement
of the steady and dynamic performance under PSC. On the other hand, the algorithms proposed
by [23,24] suffer from the same major drawbacks, such as the high cost, low convergence speed, and the
difficulty of implementing a stable, efficient controller. Besides, with the evolution of MPPT techniques,
several researchers have given their attention to the Extremum Seeking Control (ESC) technique,
which is performed to seek the maximum or the minimum of a non-linear map [25]. Sinusoidal ESC
was proposed in [25] which is efficiently able to track the MPP of PV systems. This technique employs
a sinusoidal perturbation to estimate the gradient of the P-V curve. Using this gradient function,
ESC leads the PV system to the MPP. The main advantages of the ESC method are simplicity, the high
convergence speed, and the independence of PV array characteristics, which can significantly benefit
the system performance [26].
Based on the proposed MPPT algorithms from the literature papers, we can observe that one of
the performance aspects is improved at the expense of the other, and these aspects can be classified
as an algorithm’s complexity, tracking speed, the required computation time, stability, oscillations
around the maximum extracted power, array dependency, and steady-state accuracy under uniform
illumination or under any level of partial shading conditions. In this paper we propose a novel
approach for maximum power extraction from PV array under any shading condition, in which the
proposed algorithm combines the benefits of the ESC and P&O algorithms aiming to offer considerable
enhancement to all the aforementioned performance aspects. In other words, the proposed algorithm
should be able to track the global MPP accurately with high convergence speed during less than
100ms, with guaranteed stability over a wide range of weather fluctuations, having nil oscillations
around the actual extracted power and also without any extra cost and complexity compared to the
conventional algorithms.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 4 of 24

The electrical characteristics of PV cells can be modeled precisely using a single diode of PV cell
[27], which is
2. Modelling ofconsidered as theUniform
Solar PV under basic unitIrradiation
for converting and the
PSCsunlight energy into electrical energy by
the PV effect, hence, acting as a DC current source. The schematic of an ideal PV cell is shown in
The 1.
Figure electrical characteristics
The magnitude of PV cells
of the output can Ibe
current is modeled
affected byprecisely using
the level a single
of the diode and
temperature of PVthe
cell [27], which is considered as the basic unit for converting the sunlight energy into electrical
intensity of the experienced irradiation [28]. By applying Kirchhoff’s current law, the output equation energy
byofthe
thePVPVeffect, hence, is
cell current acting
givenasby
a DC current
Equation 1. source. The schematic of an ideal PV cell is shown in
Figure 1. The magnitude of the output current I is affected by the level of the temperature and the

intensity of the experienced irradiation [28]. Byapplying
    current
 V  IRS Kirchhoff’s

V 
law, the output equation
IR 
of the PV cell current is given byEquation (1).   T S 
 1   
  
I  N P Ipv  I O  e
V N

S
(1)
 " V+IR #! 
V +IRS P
R 
I = NP Ipv − IO ×  e α×VT ×NS − 1 − 
S )

(
(1)
RP
N S T  K
VT  N ×T×K (2)
VT = S (2)
qq
where
where I output
I output current,
current, VV output
output voltage,
voltage, Ipv
Ipv cell
cell current
current produced
produced byby actual
actual solar
solar arrays,
arrays, RSRseries
S series

resistance,RPRparallel
resistance, P parallel resistance,IOIOreverse
resistance, reversesaturation
saturationcurrent,
current,VVTT thermal voltage of PVPV module,
module, T
temperatureof
T temperature ofthe
thep-n
p‒n junction,
junction, NSNseries
S series number
number of cells,
of cells, K Boltzmann
K Boltzmann = 1.38073
constant
constant =1.38073 × 10−23
× 10−23 J K, J
NPK,parallel
NP parallel number
number of cells,
of cells, q electron
q electron charge = 1.6022
charge = 1.6022 × 10−19
× 10−19 C, and α diode
C, and α diode ideality
ideality factor.
factor.

Figure 1. Explanatory scheme of the photovoltaic (PV) cell in the single diode model.
Figure 1. Explanatory scheme of the photovoltaic (PV) cell in the single diode model.
The PV model used in this study had thirty-six solar cells in a series of connections to form a
string, The
whichPVacted
model asused
a module.
in thisThe open
study hadcircuit voltage
thirty-six (Voc)
solar of in
cells each cell was
a series 22.1V, and the
of connections to short
form a
circuit current (Isc) was 4.8 A. The solar array was formed by combination of such modules.
string, which acted as a module. The open circuit voltage (Voc) of each cell was 22.1V, and the Under
short
the full irradiation
circuit current (Isc)of was
1000,4.8the
A.maximum powerwas
The solar array was 80 W at
formed byacombination
voltage and ofcurrent of 17.6 V Under
such modules. and
4.55
theA, respectively.
full irradiation of 1000, the maximum power was 80 W at a voltage and current of 17.6 V and 4.55
A, respectively.
3. Partial Shading Effect on Solar PV
3. Partial
Under Shading Effect on
steady weather Solar PVwhen the series of connected modules are experiencing equal
conditions,
irradiation levels, the P-V curve presents only single power peak. While multiple peaks exist under
Under steady weather conditions, when the series of connected modules are experiencing equal
uneven levels of irradiation, which can occur due to building and tree shadows; items moving in
irradiation levels, the P‒V curve presents only single power peak. While multiple peaks exist under
the sky, such as a bird falling and a plane in motion [29]; and anything that can hurdle the received
uneven levels of irradiation, which can occur due to building and tree shadows; items moving in the
irradiation and cause shading conditions. Consequently, the shaded PV panels suffer from hotspots,
sky, such as a bird falling and a plane in motion [29]; and anything that can hurdle the received
which cause considerable power dissipation [30]. Bypass diodes are applied to prevent hotspot
irradiation and cause shading conditions. Consequently, the shaded PV panels suffer from hotspots,
effects [31], and blocking diodes are connected in series to each PV string in order to protect the
which cause considerable power dissipation [30]. Bypass diodes are applied to prevent hotspot effects
entire PV array from the reverse flow of current [32]. In order to demonstrate the PSC effect, a PV
[31], and blocking diodes are connected in series to each PV string in order to protect the entire PV
array connected in six series (6S) configuration was considered in this study and simulated for both
array from the reverse flow of current [32]. In order to demonstrate the PSC effect, a PV array
uniform and shading conditions. Several PV patterns are shown in Figure 2. However, during shading
connected in six series (6S) configuration was considered in this study and simulated for both
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

uniform and shading conditions. Several PV patterns are shown in Figure 2. However, during
shading occurrence, the bypass diodes were activated by the generated reverse voltage across the
shaded PV module, which resulted in the appearance of multiple power peaks in the P‒V curves, as
Sustainability 2020,12,
2020,
Sustainability 12,5786 5 of 24 5 of 24
shown in Figure 3. x FOR PEER REVIEW
uniform and shading conditions. Several PV patterns are shown in Figure 2. However, during
occurrence, the bypass
shading occurrence, diodes
the bypasswere activated
diodes by the generated
were activated reverse
by the generated voltage
reverse across
voltage the shaded
across the PV
module, which resulted in the appearance of multiple power peaks in the P-V curves, as
shaded PV module, which resulted in the appearance of multiple power peaks in the P‒V curves, as shown
shown in
in Figure 3. Figure 3.

Figure 2. PV patterns used for simulation: (a) first pattern, (b) second pattern, (c) third pattern, and
(d) fourth
Figure 2. pattern.
PV patterns used for simulation: (a) first pattern, (b) second pattern, (c) third pattern,
Figure 2. PV patterns used for simulation: (a) first pattern, (b) second pattern, (c) third pattern, and
and
(d)(d) fourth
fourth pattern.
pattern.

Figure 3. P-V curve characteristics under uniform irradiation and partial shading conditions PSCs.
Figure 3. P‒V curve characteristics under uniform irradiation and partial shading conditions PSCs.
Figure 3. P‒V curve characteristics under uniform irradiation and partial shading conditions PSCs.
4. Boost Converter
4. Boost Converter
4. Boost Converter
AApower
powerconversion unitisisemployed
conversion unit employed between
between thethe
PV PV module
module andload
and the theinload in a MPPT
a MPPT system system
in order
A to
powerimprove the
conversion performance
unit is of
employedthe output
between of the
the PVPV system.
module In
and this
the study,
load ina boost
a MPPT
in order to improve the performance of the output of the PV system. In this study, a boost converterconverter
system
was
in usedtoto
order control the
improve theperformance
MPPT system ofoperation
the outputtooftrack thesystem.
the PV accurateInGMPP, and athe
this study, output
boost of the
converter
boost converter was adapted according to the duty cycle of the pulse width Modulation (PWM)
signal. For efficient controlling, the boost converter has to be designed carefully based on the system
specifications and objectives. Output voltage (Vo), input voltage (Vin), inductor (L), output capacitance
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 6 of 24

(Cout), and the operational frequency were determined using Equations (3) to (5), as considered
in [33–35]. The converter design parameters are presented in Table 1.

Vin
D = 1− (3)
VO

D × Vin × (1 − D)
L = (4)
2 × IO × fS
IO
Cout ≥ (5)
(Vripple × fS )
where D is duty cycle, fS is switching frequency, IO is expected output current, and Vripple is the
maximum allowable voltage ripple.

Table 1. Boost converter component values.

Component Parameter Value

Switching frequency, fs 10 kHz
Inductor, L 0.5 mH
Capacitor, Cout 100 µF
Load resistance, RL 110 Ω

5. The Proposed MPPT Technique

Among all the MPPT algorithms, P&O is considered the most popular and preferable due
to its significant features, such as simplicity and ease of implementation [7]. Moreover, the basic
benchmark to evaluate the effectiveness of any newly published modified MPPT method is set at
the level of P&O regarding the main performance aspects, such as simplicity, implementation, cost
effectiveness, and popularity [16]. Figure 4 clarifies the operation principle of the P&O algorithm,
which is based on periodically perturbing the terminal voltage of the PV module in order to decide
the correct direction toward the MPP. The operating voltage of the PV module is perturbed and the
new corresponding power is calculated and compared with that of the previous perturbation cycle,
and if the current power is found to be greater than that of the previous perturbation cycle, the control
system will keep the perturbation in the same direction, otherwise it will be reversed until reaching
the MPP. However, the P&O algorithm suffers from two main issues. First, the produced oscillations
around the achieved MPP can impact the tracking speed, and second, this algorithm in its original
form is not efficient in extracting the actual maximum power under PSC, in which it is not able to
recognize the global maximum among the local maximums. This work proposes a novel, simpler,
and efficient approach based on smart cooperation between the ESC strategy and P&O algorithm in an
organized procedure. The proposed algorithm can accommodate all the aforementioned limitations,
taking into account a balanced achievement between the desired high-performance features under any
atmospheric condition.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 7 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24

Figure 4. 4.Flowchart
Figure ofconventional
Flowchart of conventional Perturb
Perturb and Observe
and Observe (P&O) (P&O) algorithm.
algorithm.

MPPT MPPTusing thethe

using ESCESCmethod
method is is an
anoptimal
optimal control
control strategy,
strategy, whichwhich
aims toaimstrack toan track an extremum
extremum
valuevalue
on P-Von P-V characteristicswith
characteristics with reduced
reducedoscillations
oscillations around
aroundthe maximum
the maximum point [25], and [25],
point hence,and hence,
boostsboosts
the PVthe PV system
system efficiency [36].
efficiency [36]. ForForthis
thiswork,
work, the the
extremum
extremum seeking scheme scheme
seeking was utilized
wastoutilized to
provide robustness and accuracy to a modified P&O algorithm for tracking the actual MPP efficiently
provide robustness and accuracy to a modified P&O algorithm for tracking the actual MPP efficiently
under any weather fluctuation. The ESC that was used has been applied in much of the literature, but
underisanyseenweather fluctuation.
in particular The ESC
in [37–39]. The that
ESC wasmethodusedconsists
has been applied
basically of in
the much
power of the
fromliterature,
P-V but is
seen in particular in
characteristics, [37–39].detector,
a gradient The ESCand method
a smallconsists
sinusoidal basically of thesignal
perturbation power withfrom
a andP-V characteristics,
ω as its
a gradient
amplitudedetector, and a small
and frequency. sinusoidal
The gradient perturbation
estimator signal
is the key factor with a and
of successful peak as itsseeking,
ωpoint amplitude and
and a combination
frequency. The gradient of aestimator
low-pass filter
is the(LPF)
keyand a high-pass
factor filter (HPF)
of successful peakis usually used to accomplish
point seeking, and a combination
the gradient estimator [39].
of a low-pass filter (LPF) and a high-pass filter (HPF) is usually used to accomplish the gradient
The PV power acted as the input to the gradient detector, the DC component of power was
estimator [39].
removed by the HPF, and in order to obtain the gradient function, the remaining component was
The PV power
multiplied acted as the
by the perturbation input
signal to theif gradient
to decide the currentdetector,
is less thanthe DC component
or greater than the optimum of power was
removed
valueby theon
based HPF, and
if it is in order
in phase or out toofobtain
phase the
of thegradient function,
perturbation signal. the
Then, remaining
the low-pass component
filter was
multiplied by the
eliminated perturbation
unnecessary signaland
components to decide if thesignal
the resulting current is less than
represented or greater
the estimated than[38].
gradient the optimum
valueThe frequencies
based on if itofisthe in low-pass
phase orfilter,
out ωl,
of high-pass
phase of filter, ωh, and small sinusoidal
the perturbation signal. Then, perturbation, ω
the low-pass filter
had to be designed in such a manner that ωh ≤ ωl << ω in order to be able to respond quickly to the
eliminated unnecessary components and the resulting signal represented the estimated gradient [38].
control input perturbations as illustrated in [40]. We can conclude that the gradient function was used
The frequencies of the low-pass filter, ωl, high-pass filter, ωh, and small sinusoidal perturbation, ω had
for guiding the operating power point to converge to the maximum point at the optimized current
to bevalue,
designed in such aworked
and this process manner that ωh
efficiently ≤ ωlMPP
to track << under
ω in uniform
order toirradiations,
be able towhile respond
under quickly
PSC, to the
control
theinput perturbations
performance as illustrated
was degraded with thein [40]. We
presence of can conclude
multiple MPPs.that the gradient
Therefore, function
we developed a was used
robust technique,
for guiding the operatingwhich was able to
power trackto
point theconverge
GMPP under PSCmaximum
to the with high efficiency
point at and convergence
the optimized current
speed and avoid power loss and oscillations during the extracting
value, and this process worked efficiently to track MPP under uniform irradiations, while process. It was composed of under
a PSC,
modified P&O algorithm cooperating with a simple ESC strategy, which provided the gradient and
the performance was degraded with the presence of multiple MPPs. Therefore, we developed a robust
reference current (Iref) that were employed in the algorithm procedure to perform accurate and fast
technique,
global which was able
MPP tracking, to track
as shown inthe GMPP
Figure under
5. This PSC with
combination high efficiency
promised andPV
to get better convergence
system speed
and avoid power loss and oscillations during the extracting process.
utilization efficiency under continuous variations in solar irradiation. The gradient detection It was composed of a modified
P&O procedure
algorithmled cooperating
the proposed with a simple
tracking ESCuntil
process strategy,
reachingwhich provided
the global MPP the in thegradient
presence andof reference
multiple maximums. The produced gradient was introduced as an additional
current (Iref) that were employed in the algorithm procedure to perform accurate and fast global MPP input for the proposed
modified P&O algorithm and the reference current initiated the algorithm, which made considerable
tracking, as shown in Figure 5. This combination promised to get better PV system utilization efficiency
enhancement in the tracking speed. The PV voltage acted as the input voltage for the boost converter,
under continuous variations in solar irradiation. The gradient detection procedure led the proposed
as observed in the Figure 5. The obtained duty cycle from the MPPT controller was limited initially
tracking
fromprocess
0.08 untiluntil
0.9 toreaching
ensure thethe global MPP
effectiveness in converter.
of the the presence of multiple maximums. The produced
gradient was introduced as an additional input for the proposed modified P&O algorithm and the
reference current initiated the algorithm, which made considerable enhancement in the tracking
speed. The PV voltage acted as the input voltage for the boost converter, as observed in the Figure 5.
The obtained duty cycle from the MPPT controller was limited initially from 0.08 until 0.9 to ensure the
effectiveness of the converter.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 8 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24

Figure 5. Block
Figure diagram
5. Block diagramof
ofthe
the proposed technique
proposed technique inin
thethe system.
system.
Figure 5. Block diagram of the proposed technique in the system.
Accordingly,
Accordingly, the the
process
process waswasbased
basedonongradient considerations.
gradient considerations. Basically,
Basically, at the
at all all the stationary
stationary
points in the P-V
Accordingly,
points curve,
in the P‒Vthe the
process
curve, gradient
was based
the gradient was
was equal
onequal to
gradient zero, at a maximum
considerations.
to zero, at a maximum Basically,point
point or or
at all a minimum point.point.
the stationary
a minimum
For points
maximum in thepoints,
For maximum P‒V thethe
curve,
points, gradient
thegradientwas
gradient was positive
was just
equal to
positive before
zero,
just the
at athe
before maximum;
maximum
maximum; pointit isit isa zero
orzero minimum at maximum
at the thepoint.
maximum
andFor ismaximum
itand negative points,
it is negative the
justjust
after gradient
after
thethe was positive
maximum;
maximum; andjust
and forbefore
for minimum
minimumthe maximum;
points,
points, itgradient
thethe isgradient
zero atisthe ismaximum
negative, zero, zero,
negative,
and
thenit is negative
positive. just
Figure after
6 the maximum;
illustrates the and
gradient for minimum
variations and points,
the the gradient
stationary points
then positive. Figure 6 illustrates the gradient variations and the stationary points in the P-V curve for is negative,
in the P‒V zero,
curve
then
partial positive.
forshading
partial Figurescenarios
shading
scenarios 6 illustratesarethe
whichwhich gradient
are
(Ppv1, V1),variations
(Ppv1, V1), (Ppv2,
(Ppv2, and
V2),
V2), the stationary
(Ppv4,
(Ppv4, V4),(Ppv5,
V4), pointsV5),
(Ppv5, in the
V5), and
and P‒V curve
(Ppv7,
(Ppv7,V7).
V7).
for partial shading scenarios which are (Ppv1, V1), (Ppv2, V2), (Ppv4, V4), (Ppv5, V5), and (Ppv7, V7).

Figure 6. P-V characteristics of the PV array under PSC with gradient variations.
Figure 6. P-V characteristics of the PV array under PSC with gradient variations.
Figure 6. P-V characteristics of the PV array under PSC with gradient variations.
The main idea of the proposed algorithm is illustrated by the flow chart in Figure 7: it was to
The main
The main
update
idea of the proposed
idea of voltage
the optimal the proposed
algorithm
value algorithm
during the
isperiod
illustrated
is illustrated
of by
by thegradient
the flow
positive
flow chart
chart in
in
forFigure
Figure 7:
7: it was
searching
itthe
for to
was to
update the
update
maximum optimal
the peak voltage
optimal value
voltage
(LMPP). When during
value the
the during period
gradientthe of
period
became positive gradient
ofatpositive
zero the LMPP, for
gradient searching
for searching
the optimal for the maximum
for the
voltage value was
peakmaximum
(LMPP).and
updated When
peakthen the
(LMPP). gradient
When
remained itbecame
asthe duringzero
isgradient at the
became
the LMPP,
zero
negative at the the
gradient optimal
LMPP, voltage
theuntil
period optimal value
voltage
it became wasagain
value
positive updated
was
andupdated
then remained
and the and thenas
maximum it is during
remained
power the
as it is
increased negative
during gradient
thetime,
another negative period
gradient
except until until
for theperiod
region itwhen
became
it the
becamepositive
last positive
maximum again
againand the
point
and
wasthe
maximum maximum
power
still greater power
increased
than theincreased
another another
operatingtime, time,
except
PV power, except
for
even the for
that thepositive
region
with region
whenwhen the maximum
the last
gradient, last maximum
as clarified point
by point
the was
red still
wasthan
greater still greater than the PV
the operating operating
power,PV power,
even thateven
withthat with positive
positive gradient,gradient, as clarified
as clarified by thebyredtheregions
red in
Figure 6. The red regions indicate that the gradient was positive, meanwhile, the operating power was
less than the previous maximum point, hence, the optimal voltage value should not be updated as in
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 9 of 24
regions in Figure 6. The red regions indicate that the gradient was positive, meanwhile, the operating
power was less than the previous maximum point, hence, the optimal voltage value should not be
the negative gradient regions (yellow regions). The global MPP tracking approach is elucidated in
updated as in the negative gradient regions (yellow regions). The global MPP tracking approach is
Figure 8. This process aids the achievement of the global MPP for any applied PV array configuration
elucidated in Figure 8. This process aids the achievement of the global MPP for any applied PV array
accurately with considerable time provisioning and power loss reduction in addition to many features
configuration accurately with considerable time provisioning and power loss reduction in addition
that are not available in other MPPT techniques under same conditions.
to many features that are not available in other MPPT techniques under same conditions.

Figure 7. The proposed modified P&O algorithm.

Figure 7. The proposed modified P&O algorithm.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 10 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

Figure 8. Maximum power point variation versus voltage.

Figure 8. Maximum power point variation versus voltage.

6. Simulation Results and Discussion

6. Simulation Results and Discussion
ToTovalidate
validatethethe performance
performance ofofthe
the proposed
proposed algorithm
algorithm underunder
PSC andPSCunderand under
uniform uniform
weatherweather
conditions,
conditions,the
the four
four patterns (a)–(d)shown
patterns (a)–(d) shown in Figure
in Figure 2 in2Section
in Section
2 were2 were considered.
considered. These shading
These shading
cases
caseswere
wereselected
selected for thecomprehensive
for the comprehensive formulation
formulation of partial
of the the partial
shadingshading
issues.issues. The performance
The performance
ofofthe
theproposed
proposedalgorithm
algorithm waswascompared
compared with
with thethe conventional
conventional P&OP&Oand IC and IC algorithms.
algorithms. Simulations
Simulations
were
were performedin
performed in MATLAB
MATLAB Simulink
Simulink and thethe
and results withwith
results respect to its to
respect power, voltage,
its power, and current
voltage, and current
arearepresented
presented inin detail.
detail. Furthermore,
Furthermore, detailed
detaileddiscussions relating
discussions to thetopower
relating oscillation
the power and
oscillation and
tracking speed are briefly analyzed. The quantitative analysis for simulation results
tracking speed are briefly analyzed. The quantitative analysis for simulation results is presented in is presented in
Table 2. Furthermore, three more comprehensive PV array configurations are considered and studied
Table 2. Furthermore, three more comprehensive PV array configurations are considered and studied
in Appendix A in order to confirm the validity of the proposed algorithm to extract the actual MPP
in Appendix A in order to confirm the validity of the proposed algorithm to extract the actual MPP for
for any utilized PV array configuration and under any complex PSC, with the same high
any utilized PV array configuration and under any complex PSC, with the same high effectiveness.
effectiveness.

6.1.
6.1.Performance
Performance under UniformSolar
under Uniform SolarIrradiation
Irradiation
InInthis 2 250 C.peak
thiscase,
case, all
all PV modulesreceived
PV modules received equal
equal full-sun
full-sun irradiation,
irradiation, (1000(1000
W/m2W/m) at 250)C.atSingle Single peak
existed
existedininthe
the P-V characteristics,
P-V characteristics, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 9. Figure
9. Figure 10 illustrates
10 illustrates the simulation
the simulation results for results
forthis case
this with
case performance
with performancecomparison between
comparison the proposed
between algorithm algorithm
the proposed and the conventional P&O
and the conventional
and IC algorithms in power, voltage, and current. It was observed that the proposed
P&O and IC algorithms in power, voltage, and current. It was observed that the proposed algorithm algorithm
convergesexactly
converges exactly to
tothe
theMPP
MPP of 472 W atW
of 472 224.5 V andV
at 224.5 2.1and
A, within
2.1 A,very shortvery
within tracking
shorttime (less than
tracking time (less
100 ms) and with very reduced oscillations and 100% efficiency. Part (d) shows the obtained gradient
than 100 ms) and with very reduced oscillations and 100% efficiency. Part (d) shows the obtained
from the ESC scheme, which indicated the stability and idealistic execution under uniform
gradient from the ESC scheme, which indicated the stability and idealistic execution under uniform
conditions. The other two algorithms were able to extract the MPP with an average power of 470.6
conditions. The other two algorithms were able to extract the MPP with an average power of 470.6 W,
W, with 99.7% efficiency, but with the presence of oscillations at the same voltage and current as the
with 99.7% efficiency,The
proposed algorithm. but with the presence
quantitative analysis ofof oscillations
Figure 10 is shownat the same2.voltage and current as the
in Table
proposed algorithm. The quantitative analysis of Figure 10 is shown in Table 2.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12,
12, 5786
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24

Figure 9. Scenario of the first pattern (uniform weather conditions).

Figure 9. Scenario of the first pattern (uniform weather conditions).
Figure 9. Scenario of the first pattern (uniform weather conditions).

Figure 10. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC algorithms
Figure 10. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
for the first pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the
algorithms for the first pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost
output current of the boost converter; and (d) the gradient behavior for the proposed algorithm.
converter; (c) the output current of the boost converter; and (d) the gradient behavior for the proposed
Figure 10. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
algorithm. under Partial Shading Conditions
6.2. Performance
algorithms for the first pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost
converter; (c)
6.2.InPerformance the
order to confirm output
under thecurrent
high
Partial of the boost converter;
performance
Shading Conditions and (d) thealgorithm
of the proposed gradient behavior for thethree
under PSC, proposed
different
algorithm.
patterns of partial shading are considered in this section. Figure 11 presents the maximum power
In order to confirm the high performance of the proposed algorithm under PSC, three different
peaks for the three scenarios of shading, indicating the GMPP for each case as 242.9 W for the first
patterns of partial shading
6.2. Performance are considered in this section. Figure 11 presents the maximum power
shading pattern,under148.7 Partial
W for theShading Conditions
second pattern, and 230 W for the third pattern. The comparisons of
peaks for the three scenarios of shading, indicating the GMPP for each case as 242.9 W for the first
simulation
In order
shading results
pattern, under
to confirm
148.7 W the
the first
forhigh PSC pattern
pattern,are
performance
the second illustrated
ofand
the W forin
proposed
230 Figure
algorithm
the 12.under
TheThe
third pattern. achieved
PSC, power
three
comparisons and
different
of
tracking
patterns time
simulation at theshading
of partial
results maximum
under the voltage
arefirst PSCand
considered current
in this
pattern of 160.8 V
section.
are illustrated and
Figure
in 1.603 A for
Thethe
11 presents
Figure 12. proposed
the maximum
achieved algorithm
power power
and
were
peaks 242.9
for the
tracking W in
timethree77 ms with
at thescenarios
maximum efficiency
ofvoltage of
shading, 100%,
andindicatingwhile
current of the for
160.8 the
GMPP conventional
V andfor each
1.603 case
A for P&O and
theasproposed IC algorithms,
242.9 Walgorithm
for the first
the average
shading
were 242.9 of
Wextracted
pattern, in148.7
77 ms powers
Wwith
for the were 224.8
second
efficiency W and
pattern,
of 100%, and222.4
while 230
forWW, respectively,
thefor and
P&Oboth
the third pattern.
conventional Theat
and the maximum
ICcomparisons
algorithms, of
voltage
simulationandresults
the average current, around
under
of extracted the 154.9 V and
firstwere
powers PSC 1.45
pattern
224.8 WA,are
andwhich
222.4 is
W,around
illustrated the first
in Figure
respectively, andLMPP.
12. The This
the indicates
achieved
both at power and
maximum the
failure
tracking oftime
voltage both
and at algorithms
the maximum
current, aroundto track
154.9 GMPP.
voltage andThe
V and obtained
current
1.45 gradient
of 160.8
A, which V andis1.603
is around shown
the in part
A for
first LMPP. (d) which
the proposed
This indicates
algorithm
indicates the
the
were behavior
failure
242.9 Wunder
of both 77 this
inalgorithms casetoof
ms with PSC.
track The
GMPP.
efficiency ofproposed algorithm
The obtained
100%, while the validated
gradient
for is shownthe
conventional same
in part
P&O effectiveness
(d) which
and under
indicates
IC algorithms,
thethe behavior
second
average of under
pattern ofthis
extractedPSC case of five
with
powers PSC. The
power
were proposed
224.8 peaks
W and inalgorithmW, validated
its characteristic,
222.4 respectively, theshown
as same effectiveness
in Figure
and both at the11, under
and the
maximum
GMPP of 148.7 W was tracked at the maximum voltage and current
voltage and current, around 154.9 V and 1.45 A, which is around the first LMPP. This indicates of 125.8 V and 1.18 A by the
proposed algorithm
failure of both with 100%
algorithms efficiency
to track GMPP. in The just 83 ms, as
obtained shown is
gradient inshown
Figurein 13.part
However,
(d) which theindicates
average
the behavior under this case of PSC. The proposed algorithm validated the same effectiveness under
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24

the second pattern of PSC with five power peaks in its characteristic, as shown in Figure 11, and the
GMPP of 148.7 W was tracked at the maximum voltage and current of 125.8 V and 1.18 A by the
proposed algorithm with 100% efficiency in just 83 ms, as shown in Figure 13. However, the average
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 12 of 24
extracted powers by the conventional IC and P&O algorithms at the maximum voltage and current,
about 113 V and 1.055 A, were 119.1 W. Therefore, this shows the same failure in tracking the actual
extracted
MPP. Thepowers by the conventional
best efficiency of 100% wasIC and P&Oby
confirmed algorithms at thealgorithm
the proposed maximumasvoltage well asand current,
under any
about 113 V and 1.055 A, were 119.1 W. Therefore, this shows the same failure
level of partial shading conditions. The behavior of the obtained gradient under this strong level of in tracking the actual
MPP.
shadingTheisbest efficiency
shown Figureof13d.
100%The wasthird
confirmed by the proposed
PSC pattern was tested algorithm as wellconfirmation
to give more as under anyoflevelthe
of partial shading
proposed algorithm’sconditions.
validityThe behavior
to work of the under
efficiently obtainedanygradient under this
case of weather strong level
fluctuation. Asofshown
shading in
is shown Figure 13d. The third PSC pattern was tested to give more confirmation
Figure 14, the GMPP of 230 W was achieved accurately by the proposed algorithm at 156.8 V and of the proposed
algorithm’s
1.468 A withvalidity to workwithin
nil oscillations efficiently
less under any
than 100 case
ms, as of weatherin
approved fluctuation.
all studiedAs shownininthis
patterns Figure
works,14,
the GMPP
which meansof 230this
W was achieved
algorithm is accurately by the proposed
more beneficial than all algorithm
other MPPT at 156.8 V and 1.468
techniques in A with nil
literature.
oscillations
Meanwhile,within less than 100P&O
the conventional ms, as approved
and in all studied
IC algorithms couldpatterns
track the incorrect
this works,
MPPwhichundermeans
PSC. Itthisis
algorithm is more
clear in Figure 14 beneficial than all power
that the average other MPPT
of 139techniques in literature.
W was extracted Meanwhile,
by these algorithms the at
conventional
122 V and
P&O
1.141 and IC algorithms
A. Moreover, the could track
stability of the gradient
correct MPP under PSC.
extraction was It is clear
clear in cases,
in all Figurewhich
14 thatcan
theimprove
average
power of 139and
the stability W was extracted
accuracy of thebyproposed
these algorithms
algorithm. at Table
122 V2and 1.141 the
presents A. Moreover, the stabilityfor
detailed performance of
the studied
gradientscenarios.
extraction was clear in all cases, which can improve the stability and accuracy of the
proposed algorithm. Table 2 presents the detailed performance for the studied scenarios.

Figure 11. Scenarios of the shading patterns (PSC).

Figure 11. Scenarios of the shading patterns (PSC).
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 13 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

Figure 12. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
Figure 12. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
Figure 12. Thethe
algorithms simulation results of the(a)proposed algorithm power;
and the conventional P&O and theIC
algorithms for
for the first shading
first shading pattern:
pattern: (a) the
the tracked
tracked output
output power; (b)
(b) the
the output
output voltage
voltage of
of the
algorithms
boost for the first shadingcurrent
pattern: (a)
thethe tracked outputand
power; the
(b) gradient
the output voltagefor
of the
boost converter;
converter; (c)
(c) the
the output
output current of
of the boost
boost converter;
converter; and (d)
(d) the gradient behavior
behavior for the
boost converter;
proposed (c)
algorithm.
proposed algorithm. the output current of the boost converter; and (d) the gradient behavior for the
proposed algorithm.

Figure 13.
Figure The simulation
13. The simulation results
results of
of the
the proposed
proposed algorithm
algorithm and
and the
the conventional
conventional P&OP&O and
and IC
IC
algorithms
Figure 13. for
The the second
simulation shading
results pattern:
of the (a) the
proposed tracked output
algorithm and power;
the (b) the output
conventional P&O
algorithms for the second shading pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the voltage
and of
IC
the boost
algorithmsconverter;
for the(c)
boost converter; (c)
second the output current
shadingcurrent
the output of
pattern:of(a)thethe boost
theboost
trackedconverter; (d)
output power;
converter; the
(d) the(b)gradient behavior
the output
gradient for
voltagefor
behavior the
of the
proposed
boost algorithm.
converter;
proposed algorithm.(c) the output current of the boost converter; (d) the gradient behavior for the
proposed algorithm.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 14 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

Figure 14. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
Figure 14. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm and the conventional P&O and IC
algorithms for the third shading pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the
algorithms for the third shading pattern: (a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the
boost converter; (c) the output current of the Boost converter; and (d) the gradient behavior for the
boost converter; (c) the output current of the Boost converter; and (d) the gradient behavior for the
proposed algorithm.
proposed algorithm.
Table 2. Detailed quantitative analysis for performance of the proposed algorithm.
Table 2. Detailed quantitative analysis for performance of the proposed algorithm.
Irradiation of the Six Series Ideal POWER Tracked Power Efficiency Tracking
Pattern B
Modules at GMMP (A) at GMMP (B) (A ×100)
Efficiency Speed
Tracked
One (uniform Irradiation of the six series Ideal Power Power at 𝐁 Tracking
[1000,1000,1000,1000,1000,1000] 472 W 472 W 100%
( 0.0846 s
Pattern
condition) 𝐀
Two (partial modules at GMMP (A) GMMP speed
[1000,1000,1000,700,500,300] 242.9 W 242.9 W 100%
× 𝟏𝟎𝟎) 0.0778 s
shading) (B)
Three (partial
One (uniform [1000,800,600,400,200,200] 148.7 W 148.7 W 100% 0.083 s
shading)[1000,1000,1000,1000,1000,1000] 472 W 472 W 100% 0.0846 s
condition)
Four (partial
[1000,1000,700,700,500,200] 230.1 W 230.1 W 100% 0.079 s
Two (partial
shading)
[ 1000, 1000,1000,700,500,300] 242.9 W 242.9 W 100%
0.0778 s
shading)
Three (partial
6.3. Performance of [the Proposed Algorithm under Rapid Change
1000, 800,600,400,200,200] 148.7 W in Irradiation
148.7 WConditions
100% 0.083 s
shading)
Four The performance of the suggested enhanced P&O technique was further evaluated for different
(partial
[ 1000, 1000,700,700,500,200] 230.1 W 230.1 W 100% 0.079 s
cases in order to confirm the effectiveness of the algorithm under variations of the weather conditions.
shading)
The algorithm was tested under four diverse levels of experienced irradiation. Figure 15 presents
6.3. Performance ofofthethe
the performance Proposed Algorithm
proposed under
algorithm Rapidtransitions
under Change in Irradiation Conditions
between uniform shadowing and the
three patterns of shadowing. The sequences of weather condition changes were from the pattern of
The performance of the suggested enhanced P&O technique was further evaluated for different
uniform to the first shading pattern, then to the second and the third. This arrangement constitutes a
cases in order to confirm the effectiveness of the algorithm under variations of the weather
comprehensive sample of the worst cases of weather fluctuations. The robustness and realization of the
conditions. The algorithm was tested under four diverse levels of experienced irradiation. Figure 15
proposed algorithm is obviously illustrated in Figure 15, in terms of the tracked power, the maximum
presents the performance of the proposed algorithm under transitions between uniform shadowing
voltage and current, and also the gradient variations under this change in irradiation conditions.
and the three patterns of shadowing. The sequences of weather condition changes were from the
The first pattern was carried out for 0.3 s, then the shadowing event occurred in the second pattern for
pattern of uniform to the first shading pattern, then to the second and the third. This arrangement
another 0.3 s. Then the shading level was increased significantly under the third pattern. Then the sun
constitutes a comprehensive sample of the worst cases of weather fluctuations. The robustness and
realization of the proposed algorithm is obviously illustrated in Figure 15, in terms of the tracked
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24

power, the maximum voltage and current, and also the gradient variations under this change in
irradiation conditions.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 The first pattern was carried out for 0.3 s, then the shadowing event occurred 15 of 24
in the second pattern for another 0.3 s. Then the shading level was increased significantly under the
third pattern. Then the sun illumination was enhanced to less shading intensity during the fourth
illumination
pattern after was
0.9 s.enhanced to less shading
The maximum availableintensity during
power was the fourth
extracted frompattern
the PVafter 0.9under
array s. Theeach
maximum
of the
available power was extracted from the PV array under each of the existing
existing shadowing patterns, conserving its performance aspects, such as convergence time to shadowing patterns,
be less
conserving
than 100 ms, its performance aspects,and
tracking accuracy suchefficiency
as convergence time to
of 100%, andbe the
less than
output100stability
ms, tracking
withaccuracy
absent
oscillations. The quantitative analysis for these simulation results is presented in Table 3. analysis for
and efficiency of 100%, and the output stability with absent oscillations. The quantitative
these simulation results is presented in Table 3.

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. Cont.

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 16 of 24

(c)

(d)

Figure 15. 15.

Figure Performance under
Performance the the
under sequence of the
sequence combined
of the uniform
combined andand
uniform three shading
three patterns
shading with
patterns with
(a) (a)
thethe
output power,
output (b) (b)
power, thethe
output voltage,
output (c) (c)
voltage, thethe
output current,
output andand
current, (d)(d)
thethe
gradient behavior.
gradient behavior.

Table
Table 3. Performance
3. Performance analysis
analysis of the
of the proposed
proposed algorithm
algorithm under
under thethe sequence
sequence of the
of the uniform
uniform andand three
three
shading
shading patterns.
patterns.

Pattern Power at MPP Measured Power Efficiency

Efficiency
Pattern Power at MPP Measured power
Pattern one (0–0.3 s) 472 W 472 W 100%
Pattern one (0two
Pattern - 0.3(0.3–0.6
s) s) 472W
242.9 W 242.9 W472 W 100% 100%
Pattern two (0.3
Pattern - 0.6
three s) s–0.9 s)
(0.6 242.9WW
148.7 148.7 W242.9 W 100% 100%
Pattern Pattern
three (0.6 s - (0.9
four 0.9 s)
s–1.2 s) 148.7WW
230.1 230.1 W148.7 W 100% 100%
Pattern four (0.9 s - 1.2 s) 230.1 W 230.1 W 100%
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 17 of 24

7. Conclusions
This paper proposes a novel hybrid MPPT algorithm based on a modified P&O assisted by the
ESC strategy for gradient searching, which is employed to lead the suggested tracking procedure.
The proposed algorithm is able to track the maximum achievable power under any level of weather
fluctuations. The algorithm’s performance was tested under four different patterns—the first was a
uniform weather condition and the other three were comprehensive shadowing patterns, and these
were all compared with the conventional P&O and IC algorithms. Simulation results guarantee the
performance superiority of energy extraction and prove the ability of the proposed scheme to enhance
the tracking efficiency of the conventional algorithms to 100%, reduce the convergence time to less
than 100 ms, eliminate the oscillations around the tracked power, and keep the simplicity level for
both involved strategies. Moreover, this algorithm is applicable for any PV array configuration as
approved in Appendix A. All of these features qualify this algorithm to be a novel, robust, simple, fast,
and accurate MPPT algorithm.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.N.M.M., M.A.M.R., N.A., and S.S.; investigation, A.N.M.M.,
M.A.M.R., N.A., S.S. and M.A.A.M.Z.; methodology, A.N.M.M.; resources, S.S. and M.A.A.M.Z.; software,
A.N.M.M.; supervision, M.A.M.R. and N.A.; validation, M.A.M.R.; visualization, M.A.A.M.Z.; writing—original
draft, A.N.M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.A.M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Ministry of Higher
Education, Grant number: FRGS/1/2019/TK07/UPM/02/2.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Higher Education and Universiti Putra Malaysia
for supporting this manuscript especially regarding research funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
In order to further approve the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm tracking mechanism for
any PV array configuration and under complex partial shading, we proposed an additional three
comprehensive configurations to test the algorithm tracking ability. The first configuration was for
complex partial shading study. This type of shading happens when a large number of PV modules are
connected in series under PSC. Therefore, the array with eight series (8S) of PV models was considered
for the first array configuration, as shown in Figure A1 for two cases of complex PSCs, and also for
uniform weather condition. The resulted two shading scenarios were complicated due to the multiple
closely associated peaks, which have a unique maximum as presented in Figure A2. The simulation
results of the proposed algorithm performance under the uniform and the two complex PSC patterns
are illustrated in Figure A3. The GMPP for the uniform of 630.6 W was extracted accurately at the
maximum voltage and current of 263.4 V and 2.394 A. While under the second pattern of complex PSC,
the maximum peak among all of the existed MPPs was 380.5 W. The proposed algorithm showed the
ability of accurate GMPP tracking at 204.6V and 1.86 A. The same effectiveness was confirmed under
the third pattern of more complex PSC, and the GMPP of 259.6 W was tracked at 169 V and 1.536 A
within less than 100 ms in all cases, which is the most important characteristic of this algorithm, as well
as its efficiency of 100% with ignored oscillations. All of these features confirm the proposed approach
validity and reality for efficient maximum power extraction under any weather condition fluctuation,
even the worst PSC cases.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 18 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 24

Figure A1. PV patterns used for simulation: (a) first pattern, (b) second pattern, and (c) third
pattern.
A1. PV
FigureFigure A1.patterns used
PV patterns for for
used simulation:
simulation:(a)
(a)first
firstpattern, (b)second
pattern, (b) secondpattern,
pattern, and
and (c) (c) third pattern.
third
pattern.

Figure A2. The scenarios of the three patterns.

FigureA2.
Figure A2. The
The scenarios
scenarios of three
of the the three patterns.
patterns.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 19 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

Figure A3. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm for the three patterns: (a) the tracked
Figure A3. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm for the three patterns: (a) the tracked
output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current of the boost converter,
Figure A3.
output The simulation
power; resultsvoltage
(b) the output of the proposed algorithm
of the boost for the three
converter; patterns:
(c) the output(a)current
the tracked
of the boost
and (d) the
output gradient
power; behaviors.voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current of the boost
converter, and (b)
(d) the
the output
gradient behaviors.
converter, and (d) the gradient behaviors.
Another two PV array configurations are presented in Figure A4a,b—two parallel of four
Another two PV array configurations are presented in Figure A4a,b—two parallel of four series
series (4S2P)
Anotherand
twotwo parallel
PV array of three series
configurations (3S2P), respectively.
are presented The PSC
in Figure A4a,b—two scenarios,
parallel of fourthree
seriesfor each
(4S2P) and two parallel of three series (3S2P), respectively. The PSC scenarios, three for each
configuration, are illustrated
(4S2P) and two parallel ofinthree
Figure A5a,b,
series and the
(3S2P), simulation
respectively. results
The PSC of the proposed
scenarios, three algorithm
for each under
configuration, are
areillustrated
illustratedinin Figure A5a,b,
and and the simulation results of the proposed algorithm
all configuration,
PSC cases for both Figure
configurations A5a,b,
are expressed the in
simulation
Figures A6results
andofA7.the All
proposed
of the algorithm
aforementioned
under all
all PSC
under and PSC cases for
cases forboth
bothconfigurations
configurations are are expressed
expressed in Figures A6 and All A7. All of the
benefits performance features were confirmed at the sameinsuperb
Figures A6 and
level. The A7.
detailed of the
performance
aforementioned
aforementioned benefitsand
benefits andperformance
performance features
features were were confirmed
confirmed at the at thesuperb
same same level.
superb Thelevel. The
analysis for these two configurations is presented in Tables A1 and A2.
detailed
detailed performance analysis
performance analysis forfor these
these twotwo configurations
configurations is presented
is presented in TableinA1
Table
and A1
TableandA2.Table A2.

Figure A4. PV array configurations used for simulation: (a) first array of 4S2P and (b) second array
Figure A4. PV array configurations used for simulation: (a) first array of 4S2P and (b) second array of
of 3S2P.
3S2P.
Figure A4. PV array configurations used for simulation: (a) first array of 4S2P and (b) second array of
3S2P.
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 20 of 24

(a)

(b)
Figure
FigureA5.
A5.The
ThePSC
PSC scenarios
scenarios forfor
both configurations:
both configurations:(a)(a)
PSC scenarios
PSC forfor
scenarios the first
the array
first ofof
array 4S2Pand
4S2Pand
(b)
(b)PSC
PSCscenarios
scenariosfor
forthe
thefirst
firstarray
arrayofof3S2P.
3S2P.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 21 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24

A6. The
Figure Figure A6.simulation results
The simulation of the
results proposed
of the proposedalgorithm
algorithmfor
for the threePSC
the three PSCpatterns
patterns
of of 4S2P
4S2P array:
array:
Figure A6. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm for the three PSC patterns of 4S2P array:
(a) the tracked
(a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current of
output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current of the
(a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current of
boost converter, and (d) the gradient behaviors.
the boost converter, and (d) the gradient behaviors.
the boost converter, and (d) the gradient behaviors.

Figure A7. The simulation results of the proposed algorithm for the three PSC patterns of 3S2P array:
(a) theFigure
Figure tracked
A7. A7.output
The power;
The simulation
simulation (b)results
resultstheofoutput
of the
the voltage
proposed ofalgorithm
proposed the boost converter;
algorithm for the
for (c)PSC
the three
three the
PSCoutput
patternscurrent
of of
patterns 3S2Pofarray:
3S2P array:
the boost
(a) converter,
the tracked and (d)
output the gradient
power; (b) behaviors.
the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the
(a) the tracked output power; (b) the output voltage of the boost converter; (c) the output current ofoutput current of the
the boost converter,
boost converter, andgradient
and (d) the (d) the gradient behaviors.
behaviors.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 22 of 24

Table A1. Detailed quantitative analysis for performance of the proposed algorithm.

Irradiation of the
Ideal Power at GMMP Tracked Power at GMMP Efficiency
Pattern Parallel First and Second B Tracking Speed
(A) (B) (A ×100)
4 Series Modules
[1000,1000,800,800]
First (partial shading) 435.5 W 435.5 W 100% 0.0633 s
[1000,1000,500,500]
[1000,1000,600,400]
Second (partial shading) 263.7 W 263.7 W 100% 0.0638 s
[600,400,400,400]
[1000,800,600,400]
Third (partial shading) 243.6 W 243.6 W 100% 0.0581 s
[600,400,400,200]

Table A2. Detailed quantitative analysis for performance of the proposed algorithm.

Irradiation of the
Ideal Power at GMMP Tracked Power at GMMP Efficiency
Pattern Parallel First and Second B Tracking Speed
(A) (B) (A ×100)
3 Series Modules
[1000,1000,800]
First (partial shading) 346.8 W 346.8 W 100% 0.0799 s
[800,600,600]
[1000,500,300]
Second (partial shading) 247.9 W 247.9 W 100% 0.0876 s
[1000,700,700]
[1000,500,300]
Third (partial shading) 164.8 W 164.8 W 100% 0.0776 s
[1000,500,300]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 23 of 24

References
1. Loukriz, A.; Messalti, S.; Harrag, A.; Harrag, A. Design, simulation, and hardware implementation of novel
optimum operating point tracker of PV system using adaptive step size. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019,
101, 1671–1680. [CrossRef]
2. Stitou, M.; Fadili, A.E.; Chaoui, F.Z.; Giri, F. Output feedback control of sensorless photovoltaic systems,
with maximum power point tracking. CONPRA Control Eng. Pract. 2019, 84, 1–12. [CrossRef]
3. Li, Q.; Zhao, S.; Wang, M.; Zou, Z.; Wang, B.; Chen, Q. An improved perturbation and observation
maximum power point tracking algorithm based on a PV module four-parameter model for higher efficiency.
APEN Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 523–537. [CrossRef]
4. Loukriz, A.; Haddadi, M.; Messalti, S. Simulation and experimental design of a new advanced variable
step size Incremental Conductance MPPT algorithm for PV systems. ISATRA ISA Trans. 2016, 62, 30–38.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Radjai, T.; Rahmani, L.; Mekhilef, S.; Gaubert, J.P. Implementation of a modified incremental conductance
MPPT algorithm with direct control based on a fuzzy duty cycle change estimator using dSPACE. SE Sol. Energy
2014, 110, 325–337. [CrossRef]
6. Safari, A.; Mekhilef, S. Simulation and hardware implementation of incremental conductance MPPT with
direct control method using cuk converter. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58, 1154–1161. [CrossRef]
7. Subudhi, B.; Pradhan, R. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 89–98. [CrossRef]
8. Kwan, T.H.; Wu, X. Maximum power point tracking using a variable antecedent fuzzy logic controller.
SE Sol. Energy 2016, 137, 189–200. [CrossRef]
9. Bouselham, L.; Hajji, M.; Hajji, B.; Bouali, H. A New MPPT-based ANN for Photovoltaic System under Partial
Shading Conditions. Energy Procedia 2017, 111, 924–933. [CrossRef]
10. de Oliveira, F.M.; Oliveira da Silva, S.A.; Durand, F.R.; Sampaio, L.P.; Bacon, V.D.; Campanhol, L.B. Grid-tied
photovoltaic system based on PSO MPPT technique with active power line conditioning. IET Power Electron.
2016, 9, 1180–1191. [CrossRef]
11. Larbes, C.; Aït Cheikh, S.M.; Obeidi, T.; Zerguerras, A. Genetic algorithms optimized fuzzy logic control for
the maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2093–2100. [CrossRef]
12. Ge, X.; Ahmed, F.W.; Rezvani, A.; Aljojo, N.; Samad, S.; Foong, L.K. Implementation of a novel hybrid
BAT-Fuzzy controller based MPPT for grid-connected PV-battery system. CONPRA Control Eng. Pract. 2020,
98, 104380. [CrossRef]
13. Ahmed, J.; Salam, Z. A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with
partial shading capability. APEN Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 118–130. [CrossRef]
14. A Novel Ten Check Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for a Standalone Solar Photovoltaic System.
Electronics 2018, 7, 327. [CrossRef]
15. Ram, J.P.; Babu, T.S.; Rajasekar, N. A comprehensive review on solar PV maximum power point tracking
techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 826–847. [CrossRef]
16. Ahmad, R.; Murtaza, A.F.; Sher, H.A. Power tracking techniques for efficient operation of photovoltaic array
in solar applications—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 101, 82–102. [CrossRef]
17. Ishaque, K.; Salam, Z.; Lauss, G. The performance of perturb and observe and incremental conductance
maximum power point tracking method under dynamic weather conditions. Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 228–236.
[CrossRef]
18. Abdel-Salam, M.; El-Mohandes, M.T.; El-Ghazaly, M. An Efficient Tracking of MPP in PV Systems Using
a Newly-Formulated P&O-MPPT Method Under Varying Irradiation Levels. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2019,
15, 501–513.
19. Aashoor, F.A.O.; Robinson, F.V.P. A variable step size perturb and observe algorithm for photovoltaic
maximum power point tracking. In Proceedings of the 2012 47th International Universities Power Engineering
Conference (UPEC), London, UK, 4–7 September 2012.
20. Killi, M.; Samanta, S. Modified Perturb and Observe MPPT Algorithm for Drift Avoidance in Photovoltaic
Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62, 5549–5559. [CrossRef]
21. Belkaid, A.; Colak, I.; Kayisli, K. Implementation of a modified P&O-MPPT algorithm adapted for varying
solar radiation conditions. Electr. Eng.-Berl. 2017, 99, 839–846.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5786 24 of 24

22. Mahmod Mohammad, A.N.; Mohd Radzi, M.A.; Azis, N.; Shafie, S.; Atiqi Mohd Zainuri, M.A. An Enhanced
Adaptive Perturb and Observe Technique for Efficient Maximum Power Point Tracking Under Partial
Shading Conditions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3912. [CrossRef]
23. Shi, J.-Y.; Xue, F.; Qin, Z.-J.; Zhang, W.; Ling, L.-T.; Yang, T. Improved Global Maximum Power Point
Tracking for Photovoltaic System via Cuckoo Search under Partial Shaded Conditions. J. Power Electron.
2016, 16, 287–296. [CrossRef]
24. Bataineh, K.; Eid, N. A hybrid maximum power point tracking method for photovoltaic systems for dynamic
weather conditions. Resources 2018, 7, 68. [CrossRef]
25. Leyva, R.; Alonso, C.; Queinnec, I.; Cid-Pastor, A.; Lagrange, D.; Martinez-Salamero, L. MPPT of Photovoltaic
Systems using Extremum—Seeking Control. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2006, 42, 249. [CrossRef]
26. Malek, H.; Dadras, S.; Chen, Y. Performance analysis of fractional order extremum seeking control. ISA Trans.
2016, 63, 281–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Muhammadsharif, F.F.; Hashim, S.; Hameed, S.S.; Ghoshal, S.K.; Abdullah, I.K.; Macdonald, J.E.; Yahya, M.Y.
Brents algorithm based new computational approach for accurate determination of single-diode model
parameters to simulate solar cells and modules. Sol. Energy 2019, 193, 782–798. [CrossRef]
28. Pilakkat, D.; Kanthalakshmi, S. An improved P&O algorithm integrated with artificial bee colony for
photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions. Sol. Energy 2019, 178, 37–47.
29. Pillai, D.S.; Rajasekar, N.; Ram, J.P.; Chinnaiyan, V.K. Design and testing of two phase array reconfiguration
procedure for maximizing power in solar PV systems under partial shade conditions (PSC). ECM Energy
Convers. Manag. 2018, 178, 92–110. [CrossRef]
30. Li, X.; Peng, J.; Li, N.; Wu, Y.; Fang, Y.; Li, T.; Wang, M.; Wang, C. Optimal design of photovoltaic shading
systems for multi-story buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 1024–1038. [CrossRef]
31. Wen, Z.; Chen, J.; Cheng, X.; Niu, H.; Luo, X. A new and simple split series strings approach for adding
bypass diodes in shingled cells modules to reduce shading loss. Sol. Energy 2019, 184, 497–507. [CrossRef]
32. Kolsi, S.; Samet, H.; Amar, M.B. Design Analysis of DC-DC Converters Connected to a Photovoltaic Generator
and Controlled by MPPT for Optimal Energy Transfer throughout a Clear Day. JPEE J. Power Energy Eng.
2014, 2, 27–34. [CrossRef]
33. Bennett, T.; Zilouchian, A.; Messenger, R. A proposed maximum power point tracking algorithm based on a
new testing standard. SE Sol. Energy 2013, 89, 23–41. [CrossRef]
34. Ishaque, K.; Salam, Z. A comprehensive MATLAB Simulink PV system simulator with partial shading
capability based on two-diode model. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 2217–2227. [CrossRef]
35. Kollimalla, S.K.; Mishra, M.K. A Novel Adaptive P&O MPPT Algorithm Considering Sudden Changes in
the Irradiance. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. EC 2014, 29, 602–610.
36. Ghaffari, A.; Seshagiri, S.; Krstic, M. Power optimization for photovoltaic micro-converters using multivariable
gradient-based extremum-seeking. In Proceedings of the 2012 American Control Conference (ACC), Montreal,
QC, Canada, 27–29 June 2012; pp. 3383–3388.
37. Ariyur, K.B.; Krstic, M. Real Time Optimization by Extremum Seeking Control; Wiley Interscience: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2003.
38. Kebir, A.; Woodward, L.; Akhrif, O. Extremum-Seeking Control with Adaptive Excitation: Application to a
Photovoltaic System. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 2507–2517. [CrossRef]
39. Tan, Y.; Moase, W.H.; Manzie, C.; Nesic, D.; Mareels, I.M.Y. Extremum seeking from 1922 to 2010.
In Proceedings of the 29th Chinese Control Conference, Beijing, China, 29–31 July 2010; pp. 14–26.
40. Ghaffari, A.; Seshagiri, S.; Krstic, M. Multivariable maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic
micro-converters using extremum seeking. Control Eng. Pract. 2015, 35, 83–91. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).