COMPARISON OF PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION (PSO) AND PERTURB AND OBSERVE (P&O) METHODS FOR MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKING IN PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS UNDER CHANGING CLIMATIC CONDITIONS WITH OPTIMAL PARAMETER SELECTION

Year 2025, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 42 - 57, 30.05.2025

Ömer Faruk Çiriş , Süleyman Adak , Hasan Cangi , Ramazan Taşaltin

Abstract

: Photovoltaic (PV) systems have low efficiency in electricity generation. In PV systems, Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) algorithms must track the MPPT efficiently. There are both conventional and meta-heuristic methods available to track the maximum power point(MPP) of a PV system. Under Partial Shading Conditions (PSC), local maximum power points (LMPP) and a global maximum power point (GMPP) can occur. The Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm can easily and quickly track the global maximum point. Under partial shading condition, the Perturb and Observe (P&O) method tends to get stuck at local maximum power point while tracking maximum power point. As a result, the global maximum power point of the PV system cannot be detected using the perturb and observe algorithm. In this paper, a comparative analysis was performed based on simulation results obtained from Matlab/Simulink circuit models under PSC conditions. It was observed that when the parameters of the particle swarm optimization algorithm are appropriately chosen, the particle swarm optimization method outperforms the perturb and observation method in terms of efficiency in tracking the global maximum power point. According to the simulation results, no oscillations around the global maximum power point were observed with the particle swarm optimization method. Furthermore, in rapidly changing climatic conditions, the particle swarm optimization algorithm tracks the global maximum power point more efficiently, stably, and effectively compared to the perturb and observe algorithm.

Keywords

Photovoltaic system (PV), Particle swarm optimization (PSO), Perturb and observe (P&O) Partial shading Conditions (PSC), Global maximum power point (GMPP

Ethical Statement

In this study, there is no issue in terms of ethical guidelines. Therefore, there is no need to obtain an ethics certificate.

Supporting Institution

This article has not been financially or scientifically supported by any institute

References

• K. Sarah, “A Review of solar Photovoltaic Technologies,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, c. 9, sy. 7, ss. 741-749, 2020, doi: 10.17577/ijertv9is070244.
• O. Y. Al-amin, E. Adigüzel, ve A. Ersoy, “Enhanced particle swarm optimization and P&O for MPPT of photovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions,” International Journal of Energy Applications and Technologies, c. 10, sy. 2, ss. 80-91, 2023, doi: 10.31593/ijeat.1283665.
• H. Patel ve V. Agarwal, “MATLAB-based modeling to study the effects of partial shading on PV array characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., c. 23, sy. 1, doi: 10.1109/tec.2007.914308.
• A. S. Benyoucef, A. Chouder, K. Kara, S. Silvestre, ve O. A. Sahed, “Artificial bee colony-based algorithm for maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial shaded conditions,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., c. 32, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.03.047.
• A. A. A. Moussavou, A. Raji, ve M. Adonis, “Impact study of partial shading phenomenon on solar PV module performance,” in 2018 International Conference on the Industrial and Commercial Use of Energy (ICUE), Cape Town, South Africa, 2018, ss. 1-7.
• B. Li, S. D. ve T. C. 2009, “Photovoltaic DC-building-module based BIPV system-concept and design considerations,” IEEE Transaction on Power Electronics, c. 26, sy. 5, ss. 1418–1429, doi: 10.1109/tpel.2010.2085087.
• M. Sarvi ve A. Azadian, “A comprehensive review and classified comparison of MPPT algorithms in PV systems,” Energy Syst., c. 13, ss. 281–320, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12667-021-00448-9.
• P. K. Atri, P. S. Modi, ve N. S. Gujar, “Comparison of Different MPPT Control Strategies for Solar Charge Controller,” in 2020 International Conference on Power Electronics & IoT Applications in Renewable Energy and its Control (PARC), Mathura, India, 2020, ss. 65–69.
• N. Kacimi, S. Grouni, A. Idir, ve M. S. Boucherit, “New improved hybrid MPPT based on neural network-model predictive control-kalman filter for photovoltaic system,” Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., c. 20, ss. 1230–1241, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v20.i3.pp1230-1241.
• K. Bataineh, “Improved hybrid algorithms-based MPPT algorithm for PV system operating under severe weather conditions,” IET Power Electron., c. 12, ss. 703–711, 2019, doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2018.5292.
• S. Sarwar vd., “A Novel Hybrid MPPT Technique to Maximize Power Harvesting from PV System under Partial and Complex Partial Shading,” Appl. Sci., c. 12, sy. 587, 2022, doi: 10.3390/app12020587.
• R. B. Bollipo, S. Mikkili, ve P. K. Bonthagorla, “Hybrid, optimization, intelligent and classical PV MPPT techniques: A Review,” CSEE J. Power Energy Syst., c. 7, ss. 9–33, 2021, doi: 10.17775/CSEEJPES.2020.00760.
• S. Azzouz, S. Messalti, ve A. Harrag, “A Novel Hybrid MPPT Controller Using (P&O)-neural Networks for Variable Speed Wind Turbine Based on DFIG,” Model. Meas. Control A, c. 92, ss. 23–29, 2019, doi: 10.18280/mmc_a.922-404.
• L. Bhukya, N. R. Kedika, ve S. R. Salkuti, “Enhanced Maximum Power Point Techniques for Solar Photovoltaic System under Uniform Insolation and Partial Shading Conditions: A Review,” Algorithms, c. 15, sy. 365, 2022, doi: 10.3390/a15100365.
• M. R. Javed vd., “Comparison of the Adaptive Neural-Fuzzy Interface System (ANFIS) based Solar Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) with other Solar MPPT Methods,” in 2020 IEEE 23rd International Multitopic Conference (INMIC), Bahawalpur, Pakistan, 2020, ss. 1-5.
• J. Khanam ve S. Y. Foo, “Neural Networks Technique for Maximum Power Point Tracking of Photovoltaic Array,” in SoutheastCon, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2018, ss. 1-4.
• W. Hayder, D. Sera, E. Ogliari, ve A. Lashab, “On Improved PSO and Neural Network P&O Methods for PV System under Shading and Various Atmospheric Conditions,” Energies, c. 15, sy. 7668, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15207668.
• I. Dagal, B. Akın, ve E. Akboy, “MPPT mechanism based on novel hybrid particle swarm optimization and salp swarm optimization algorithm for battery charging through simulink,” Sci. Rep., c. 12, sy. 2664, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-06489-7.
• Z. M. Ali vd., “Novel hybrid improved bat algorithm and fuzzy system based MPPT for photovoltaic under variable atmospheric conditions,” Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess., c. 52, sy. 102156, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2022.102156.
• L. Gong, G. Hou, ve C. Huang, “A two-stage MPPT controller for PV system based on the improved artificial bee colony and simultaneous heat transfer search algorithm,” ISA Transactions, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2022.01.002.
• Y. Ma, X. Zhou, Z. Gao, ve T. Bai, “Summary of the novel MPPT (maximum power point tracking) algorithm based on few intelligent algorithms specialized on tracking the GMPP (Global maximum power point) for photovoltaic systems under partially shaded conditions,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), 2017, ss. 311-315, doi: 10.1109/icma.2017.8015834.
• R. Nagarajan, R. Yuvaraj, V. Hemalatha, S. Logapriya, A. Mekala, ve S. Priyanga, “Implementation of PV-based boost converter using PI controller with PSO algorithm,” International Journal of Engineering And Computer Science (IJECS), c. 6, sy. 3, ss. 20479-20484, 2017, doi: 10.18535/ijecs/v6i3.14.
• M. Hejri, H. Mokhtari, M. R. Azizian, ve L. Söder, “An analytical-numerical approach for parameter determination of a five-parameter single-diode model of photovoltaic cells and modules,” International Journal of Sustainable Energy, c. 35, sy. 4, ss. 396–410, 2016, doi: 10.1080/14786451.2013.863886.
• X. H. Nguyen ve M. P. Nguyen, “Mathematical modeling of photovoltaic cell/module/arrays with tags in Matlab/Simulink,” Environmental Systems Research, c. 4, sy. 1, ss. 1-13, 2015, doi: 10.1186/s40068-015-0047-9.
• U. Yilmaz, O. Turksoy, ve A. Teke, “Improved MPPT method to increase accuracy and speed in photovoltaic systems under variable atmospheric conditions,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, c. 113, ss. 634-651, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.05.074.
• V. Michal, D. Cottin, ve P. Arno, “Boost DC-DC converter nonlinearity and RHP-zero: survey of the control-to-output transfer function linearization methods,” in proc. Of 21st IEEE int. conference Applied Electronics, ICAE21, Pilsen, Czech Republic, 2016, ss. 1803-7232, doi: 10.1109/ae.2016.7577229.
• G. Singh ve S. Kundu, “An efficient DC-DC boost converter for thermoelectric energy harvesting,” AEU-International Journal of Electronics and Communications, c. 118, sy. 153132, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2020.153132.
• K. Anoop ve M. Nandakumar, “A novel maximum power point tracking method based on particle swarm optimization combined with one cycle control,” in International Conference on Power, Instrumentation, Control and Computing (PICC), Thrissur, 2018, ss. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/picc.2018.8384777.
• M. Azharuddin, “Effects of shading on the power of photovoltaic arrays,” M.S. thesis, Purdue University, 2012.
• E. Kandemir, “Design and implementation of a single converter grid-connected PV system with energy recovery operating at the maximum power point under partial shading conditions,” Doktora Tezi, Ege University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, İzmir, 2020, ss. 1-2-10-47.
• A. Safari ve S. Mekhilef, “Simulation and hardware implementation of incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method using cuk converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., ss. 1154–1161, 2011, doi: 10.1109/tie.2010.2048834.
• T. Esram ve P. L. Chapman, “Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, ss. 439–449, 2007, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2006.883721.
• H. Zhu, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, ve Z. Zhou, “Three-Port DC/DC Converter with All Ports Current Ripple Cancellation Using Integrated Magnetic Technique,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., c. 31, sy. 3, ss. 2174–2186, 2016, doi: 10.1109/tpel.2015.2433675.
• C. S. Solanki, Solar Photovoltaics: Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications. PHI, 2015.
• M. Dini, A. Romani, M. Filippi, ve M. Tartagni, “A Nanocurrent Power Management IC for Low-Voltage Energy Harvesting Sources,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., ss. 4292–4304, 2016, doi: 10.1109/tpel.2015.2472480.
• I. Yadav, S. K. Maurya, ve G. K. Gupta, “A literature review on industrially accepted MPPT techniques for solar PV system,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE), c. 10, sy. 2, ss. 2117–2127, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v10i2.pp2117-2127.
• P. S. Gavhane vd., “EL-PSO based MPPT for solar PV under partial shaded condition,” Energy Procedia, c. 117, ss. 1047-1053, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.227.
• M. Sarvi, S. Ahmadi, ve S. Abdi, “A PSO‐based maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic systems under environmental and partially shaded conditions,” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, c. 23, sy. 2, ss. 201-214, 2015, doi: 10.1002/pip.2416.
• H. Rezk, A. Fathy, ve A. Y. Abdelaziz, “A comparison of different Global MPPT techniques based on meta-heuristic algorithms for photovoltaic system subjected to partial shading conditions,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, c. 74, ss. 377-386, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.051.
• R. K. Ritu, B. Mishra, ve A. K. Wadhwani, “High performance adaptive PSO MPPT technique for PV based micro grid for a rural area,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, c. 1817, sy. 012026, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1817/1/012026.
• H. S. Saad, M. S. M. ElKsas, S. F. Saraya, ve M. M. Abdelsalam, “An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Maximum Power Point Tracking Of Photovoltaic Cells in Normal and Under Partial Shading Conditions,” Mansoura Engineering Journal (MEJ), c. 46, sy. 1, 2021, doi: 10.21608/bfemu.2021.146311.