MPPT Methods The presented work in this paper deals with various step sizes used in incremental conductance (INC) related to the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) technique. In the solar photovoltaic system, the variable step size selection method for INC is proposed and compared. The MATLAB/Simulink and hardware setup are used for assessing and analyzing step size methods. The variable step size (DVS), fixed step size (DFS) are comprehensively studied and compared. This DVS method is having a lower ON delay time TdON as 148 msec as regard to 164 msec in the DFS method. On the other hand, the lowest peak-peak oscillations in load current as 0.04 amp for DVS as compared to 0.5A for the DFS method, lower peak current as 1.96A for DVS as compare to 2.37A for the DFS method. In this way, the performance of the DVS method is found superior as it is analyzed and compared with the DFS algorithm.
- Renewable energy
- Maximum power point tracking
- Photovoltaic system
- Incremental conductance
Figure 1. Electrical Equivalent Circuit Of Pv Solar Cell.
EXPECTED SIMULATION RESULTS:
Figure 2. Load Power For Fix Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 3. Load Power In The Case For Variable Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 4. Load Voltage In The Case For Fix Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 5. Load Voltage In The Case For Variable Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 6. Solar Pv Panel Current In The Case For Fix Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 7. Solar Pv Panel Current In Case Of Variable Step Size Inc Algorithm (Simulated Result).
Figure 8. Irradiance Variation In Matlab/Simulation.
This study in this paper reports a comprehensive analysis and comparison between the two-step sizes methods for INC MPPT for solar PV panel. It reflects the superior MPPT tracking system that is built on a variable step size by the DVS method. The delivered power rate of the DVS algorithm is higher when equated with the DFS algorithms. It is quite practicable to deal with the rapid changes in weather conditions due to its stability and low rate of rising time.
As the DVS method, provide the maximum power in comparison to the DFS method. The life of solar panel has been an increase in the case of the DVS method because in the case of the DFS method the operating point is less than the maximum PowerPoint. In this case, the battery withdraws the maximum current from the source to maintain the power. The DFS method is not economical because it provides less power in comparison to the DVS method. So that more solar panel has been required to produce the same power as provided by DVS method.
The load side is not dangerous at higher overshoot current and especially at this point, there is no need for a high-value fuse. The protection circuit is also not necessary which makes it, a cost-effective approach. Salient points of the experimental study are-
- TdON i n the DVS method is gained as 148 msec where 164 msec for the DFS method. _
- TP – PR Peak to peak current oscillations for the DVS method is obtained as 0.04 Amp and 0.5 Amp for Fss.
- Peak overshoot (Mp) in DVS is 1.96 Amp and 2.37 Amp for DFS.
The load current settles in less time with the sudden change in irradiance in the case of DVS.
 M. Akbaba and M. A. A. Alattawi, “A new model for I_V characteristic of solar cell generators and its applications,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 123_132, May 1995.
 B. C. Babu, T. Cermak, S. Gurjar, Z. M. Leonowicz, and L. Piegari, “Analysis of mathematical modeling of PV module with MPPT algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE 15th Int. Conf. Environ. Electr. Eng. (EEEIC), Jun. 2015, pp. 1625_1630.
 T. Radjai, L. Rahmani, S. Mekhilef, and J. P. Gaubert, “Implementation of a modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm with direct control based on a fuzzy duty cycle change estimator using d-SPACE,” Sol. Energy, vol. 110, pp. 325_337, Dec. 2014.
 A. Gupta,Y. K. Chauhan, and R. K. Pachauri, “A comparative investigation of maximum power point tracking methods for solar PV system,” Sol. Energy, vol. 144, pp. 780_797, Oct. 2017.
 H. D. Maheshappa, J. Nagaraju, and M. V. K. Murthy, “An improved maximum power point tracker using a step-up converter with current locked loop,” Renew. Energy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 195_201, Feb. 1998.