Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

Performance analysis of the GMPPT based on Spider Monkey

Optimization for PV Systems

Journal: Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

Manuscript ID TIMC-23-0089

Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript - Control

Fo
Date Submitted by the
25-Jan-2023
Author:

Complete List of Authors: HUSAIN, MOHAMMED ASLAM; Rajkiya Engineering College Ambedkar
rP

Nagar,
Pingale, Suresh ; Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University
Bakar, Abu; Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj University
Faiz Minai, Ahmad ; Integral University
ee

Pandey, Yudhishthir ; Rajkiya Engineering College Ambedkar Nagar

Bakhsh, Farhad; National Institute of Technology Srinagar, Electrical
Engineering; National Inst. of Technology Srinagar
rR

Generic Keywords: Evolutionary algorithms/computation, Energy, Modelling

Spider Monkey Optimization, Global MPPT, Solar PV, Partial Shading,

Keywords:
photovoltaic power generation
ev

This article details the global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT)
technique and how it may be used to SPV systems. The proposed system
iew

is based on the Spider Monkey optimization method of swarm

intelligence-operated optimization (SMO). The study begins with an
extensive description of the various MPPT approaches that are required
with SPV systems. Each technique has benefits and drawbacks of its
own. In recent years, numerous in-depth studies have been conducted in
this field, and numerous innovative methodologies have also been
Abstract: created. The technique that would combine the advantages of all existing
procedures would have the highest efficiency, according to ongoing
research in the field. We discussed about a handful of them here.
Throughout this essay, we have reviewed, dissected, and contrasted a
number of different strategies. The study also describes how the novel
SMO-GMPPT operates, including its working, the descriptive model for
simulation, and the outcomes. The findings demonstrate the ability of
SMO-GMPPT, a quick and reliable GMPPT approach, to monitor the
genuine global peak under partial shading events

[Link]
Page 1 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1
Performance analysis of the GMPPT based on Spider Monkey
2 Optimization for PV Systems
3 Mohammed Aslam Husain Suresh Pingale Abu Bakar
EED, Rajkiya Engineering College EEED, Faculty of Engg. & Tech., CSMU EEED, Faculty of Engg. & Tech., CSMU
4 Ambedkar Nagar, India Panvel, Navi Mumbai, India Panvel, Navi Mumbai, India
5
6 Ahmad Faiz Minai Yudhishthir Pandey Farhad Ilahi Bakhsh
7 EED, Integral University, EED, Rajkiya Engineering College EED, NIT Srinagar
Lucknow, India Ambedkar Nagar, India Hazratbal, India
8
9
10 Abstract— This article details the global maximum power point tracking (GMPPT) technique and how it may be used to SPV
11 systems. The proposed system is based on the Spider Monkey optimization method of swarm intelligence-operated optimization
12 (SMO). The study begins with an extensive description of the various MPPT approaches that are required with SPV systems. Each
13 technique has benefits and drawbacks of its own. In recent years, numerous in-depth studies have been conducted in this field, and
numerous innovative methodologies have also been created. The technique that would combine the advantages of all existing
14 procedures would have the highest efficiency, according to ongoing research in the field. We discussed about a handful of them here.
15 Throughout this essay, we have reviewed, dissected, and contrasted a number of different strategies. The study also describes how
16 the novel SMO-GMPPT operates, including its working, the descriptive model for simulation, and the outcomes. The findings
17 demonstrate the ability of SMO-GMPPT, a quick and reliable GMPPT approach, to monitor the genuine global peak under partial
shading events.
18
19 Keyword: Spider Monkey Optimization, Global MPPT, Solar PV, Partial Shading
Fo
20
21 I. INTRODUCTION
Faster development, higher living standards, rising populations, etc. have all contributed to a sharp rise in energy needs and a
22 consequent decline in conventional energy resources [1]. Renewable energy sources are the answer to the rise in energy
23
rP

requirement because they are so abundant and are freely available[2]. All nations worldwide are concentrating on developing
24 its generation plants based on renewable resources in order to collect the generated energy from them and transform it into
25 useful electrical energy in order to fulfil the requirement in eco-friendly manner.
26 The power of sun is a profitable and a viable replacement of fossil fuels because it is readily available, free, and abundant [3].
ee

27 Additionally, because of its broad breadth and environmentally friendly characteristics, experts are encouraged to do in-depth
research in this field. To acquire the most energy response from the SPV array, MPPT techniques must be required to track the
28 MPP under various climatic conditions [3]–[5]. Fractional open circuit, curve fitting, fractional short-circuit current, etc. were
29 all methods used in prior research that proved to be very wasteful. Later, more precise and efficient methods such as Differential,
rR

30 Feedback voltage, One-Cycle Control, etc. were developed and implemented. Newer algorithms, such as P&O, fuzzy logic,
31 PSO, and others, are not only more efficient but also far more accurate.
32 In this paper, in section II we have discussed the overview of some of the numerous accessible MPPT approaches and then in
section III, categorized them in accordance with a set of criteria, such as the number of variables, the control mechanism, the
ev

33
circuitry utilized, the price, the effectiveness, the intricacy, etc., to facilitate operational choice. Also described are the various
34 converter models used in conjunction with each MPPT method, as well as the several modes of operation (grid-tied and stand-
35 alone) that may be achieved. In section IV, production, application and efficiency of solar PV system has been briefly discussed.
36
iew

In the section V, we have discussed the partial shading phenomenon, its effect of the solar PV system and then have proposed
37 the SMO based global peak search method. Partially shaded areas, dust impacts, temperature inhomogeneity across PV panels,
38 etc. are only a few of the adverse conditions that are addressed in this research, along with other MPPT methods.
39 In this paper, our aim is to present a novel SMO GMPPT technique that will be used to measure and monitor the global power
output of a PV string. Till date only few authors have worked on Spider monkey optimization based MPPT and their work is
40 limited to uniform shading conditions only [6], [7]. The presented work in this paper is the development of a novel SMO based
41 GMPPT that will work effectively under partial as well as uniform shading conditions. The proposed SMO scheme for MPPT
42 purpose has been implemented in MATLAB/SIMULINK. The validation outcomes are shown with a MATLAB/SIMULINK
43 model that was provided for this purpose. The simulation results have also been validated with the hardware results. Apart from
44 that, a comparison and contrast of different MPPT methods has been demonstrated and tallied. All aspects of SMO-operation,
from GMPPT's workflow to the Simulink model's description to its results, are laid forth in this research. The results show that
45
SMO-GMPPT, a fast and reliable GMPPT method, can be used to find the true global peak even when there is partial shading.
46
47 II. OTHER MPPT METHODS
48 A. Curve-Fitting Method
49 Predicted values of coupled power (P) and voltage may be calculated using this monitoring method (V). That connection may
50 be written as (1). Maximum Peak Power (MPP) is the highest possible value in a P-V graph. Predicting P-V characteristics is
51 the starting point of this method. It is required to model a SPV panel using a numerical approximation or a mathematical
52 equation (often eq.1) [5], [8].
53 P=αV3 + βV2 + γV + ζ (1)
54 Using equation (1),
55 dP
=3αV2 + 2βV + γ (2)
56 dV
57
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 2 of 15

1
dP
2 At MPP =0 (3)
3 dV
So, MPP we can express the voltage as
4
1
5  
 2  3
6 VMPP = 2 (4)
3
7
One can determine α, β, γ, and ζ by applying an expression that is shown in [6], [8]and repeatedly sampling across a span.
8 Finally, the VMPP is determined.
9 B. Fractional Short-Circuit Current (FSCI) Method
10 The Isc is calculated with the use of a second control mechanism in this approach. The objective now is to minimise power
11 losses caused by sporadic use.
12
13
14
15
16
17 Fig. 1. (a) and (b) are the responses of PV module at different climatic situations (i.e temperature and insolation).
18 The suggested method works well for low-cost P-V applications. The maximum power (PMPP) of the panel is only available at
19 one operating point P (VMPP, IMPP), which is called MPP, under certain conditions as shown on fig. 1[9]. We can track the
Fo
20 related PMPP if the matching IMPP or VMPP is being tracked.
21 We determine the V-I properties of the panel using this technique, which uses numerical or equation approximation. The panel
22 should be countable given the wide range of environmental conditions. The V-I characteristics we obtained led us to establish
a relationship between ISCand IMPP, with IMPP depends linearly on ISC, as illustrated below.
23
rP

IMPP ≈ KSCISC (5)

24 KOC coefficient of variation ranges between 0.64 and 0.85 [10]–[12]. SPV system at a variety of temperature and solar
25 insolation can be used to get the KSC value.
26
ee

27 C. Fractional Open-Circuit Voltage (FOCV) Method

28 This method's value for VMPP may be calculated based on its empirical behaviour, which is as follows:
29 VMPP ≈ KOCVOC. (6)
rR

Here, it is determined that KOC's value ranges from 0.78 to 0.92[10], [11]. SPV system at a variety of temperature and solar
30
insolation will allow to determine the value of KOC. This FOCV method involves an interim open-circuiting of the load side
31 of the system to ascertain VOC value. After that, we may apply an equation to calculate VMPP (6). This is done repeatedly, with
32 each iteration altering the VMPP value based on the most recent sample of VOC. The SPV array is disrupted following the change
ev

33 of load between two subsequent samplings of the voltage across the array, which is the fundamental problem with this kind of
34 MPPT approach. There is a countable loss as a result of the succeeding arrays' excessive length.
35 D. One-Cycle Control(OCC) Technique
36 Since single-stage inverters are affordable, small, easy to build, and dependable, OCC method is used with them [12]. Since
iew

37 the output current value is determined by the PV array voltage (V), it is essentially a nonlinear control approach (Iout). Perfect
38 adjustment of the system's L and C parameters is necessary to achieve increased efficiency[13].
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Fig. 2. Schematic circuit for OCC method
46
47 E. Differentiation Method
48 This method takes a lot of time and work because it requires solving numerous differentiations to arrive at the MPP condition.
49 dP d (VI ) dV di
50  I  V =0 (7)
dt dt dt dt
51 The method becomes more difficult because each parameter in the equation above must be determined separately. A extremely
52 quick processor will be necessary to solve the equations more quickly[2].
53
F. Load Current/Load Voltage Maximization Method
54
55 The controller and power stages are the device's two main components. Here, we are interested in finding the optimum value
for the voltage or current at the end of the load. If you optimize the current/voltage of the output, the power at the output will
56
increase. A lossless converter is assumed here. This means the most power is being produced at the SPV array's load end. The
57 two most common kinds of loads are V and I source types. If the load is a voltage (V) source, then the Vload must be held
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 3 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1 constant and the maximum Iload utilised to calculate the maximum Pload. According to the aforementioned, if the load is a
2 current source type, It must use a constant Iload. It must use the greatest Vload in order to optimize output power. This is
3 applicable to loads that are not linear. This method has a flaw in that the system never tracks the precise MPP. The impossibility
4 of lossless conversion is the cause. The duty cycle at the power stages that the SMPC realizes is expressed by the regulated
5 excitation[14].
6 G. Feedback volatge or Current Method
7
The regulator serves the purpose of being the component that fixes the issue in systems without batteries in order to maintain
8 a consistent bus voltage. A regulator utilises a response side input and feeds it back into the bus as feedback to keep the voltage
9 stable. Combining the panel's feedback voltage or current with a predetermined reference value. The regulator's duty ratio of
10 the converter must be adjusted regularly [14] so that it may function near to the MPP.
11
H. Feedback of Power Variation with VoltageMethod
12
13 This approach is very similar to the feedback voltage method having one key variance: the power is changed in response to
the voltage change (ɗP/ɗV) (see Fig. 3). The derivative (ɗP/ɗV) is minimised by monitoring the output power and adjusting
14
the duty cycle until the maximum power is achieved.
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP
Fig 3. A P-V curve illustrating the voltage-versus-power change due to feedback
24 I. Feedback of variation in power with Current Method
25 The sole difference between this method and the dP/dV method is that in this case, the power fluctuation w.r.t current (dP/dI)
is measured and subsequently adjusted to zero to achieve the MPP condition (see Fig. 4). Here, too, the duty cycle is adjusted
26
ee

until the dP/dI value is zero in order to maximise power output.

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
Fig 4. A P-V curve illustrating the relationship between feedback and power/current
35
36 J. Gauss-Newton Method
iew

37 The Gauss-Newton Method is the most efficient implementation of an MPPT algorithm [15]. This input is required by the
38 method used to find the root. This approach is as well used to resolve the non-linear least squares problem. By tracking the
39 relative increase or decrease in power in the first and second derivatives, we may calculate how many iterations of the
40 following equation need to be performed to reach convergence, as well as in which direction:
41 dP
| v  v( k )
42 V (k  1)  v(k ) dv (8)
43 2 p
| v  v ( k )
44 v 2
45 K. Perturbation &Observation (P&O)
46 To begin, we measure the PV array's starting voltage and current to get an idea of the system's starting power, or P1. Then, a
47 brief voltage perturb (ΔV) and a modest change in duty-cycle (Δd) in any one direction are used to derive the power P2 drawn
48 by the PV array [16]. If the new power P2 is larger than the original P1, the next perturbation will be in the same direction;
49 otherwise, it will be in the other direction. Depending on the state of the input voltage, the output power will either increase
50 or decrease. The Peak Power point may be located using this perturbation technique (Vmpp). Because of how easy it is to
51 implement, this strategy has gained a lot of attraction [2]. Flowchart representations of algorithms are shown in Fig. 5.
52 The MPP might deviate from the ideal trajectory due to factors like breaking clouds, which is a major drawback of this
53 approach. One of its potential drawbacks is that it may be difficult to choose the magnitude of the disturbance. An improved
form of this method, called Adaptive Hill Climbing [2], uses a controller to automatically tune the amount of the perturbation
54
in response to the variation in output power caused by variations in atmospheric condition. An Improved P&O MPPT scheme
55 has been shown in [17], [18].
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 4 of 15

1 L. MPPT Based Particle Swarm Optimization(PSO)

2
PSO procedures are more suitable for partly shaded atmospheric circumstances due to their higher resilience features, parallel
3 handling, even and responsive convergence, simple implementation, and high chance of finding a global optimum result. Here,
4 we use an MPPT method known as Global MPPT, which follows the peak wherever it may be located throughout the globe
5 (GMPPT). Because it allows for the simultaneous optimization of many peaks, it is more efficient [2], [19]–[26]. The concept
6 for this technique originated from observing flocks of birds as they navigate and communicate in the air. Each agent, or
7 particle, follows its own trajectory and intelligently interacts with its neighbors to find the optimal solution in its immediate
8 vicinity. So, they constantly adjust where they are and how fast they're going depending on both their prior individual velocities
9 and the greatest velocities their group has achieved [26], [27]. After using the formula [27], each particle modifies its speed.
10 In this equation, pbest is the ith agent's best position to date, is the momentum factor, c1 and c2 are positive constants, r1 and
r2 are random integers with values between 0 and 1, and (3) holds only if (4) holds,
11
pbesti = ski (9)
12
ƒ(ski) > ƒ(pbesti) (10)
13 where gbest denotes the agent who achieved the best position overall [21].
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25 Fig 5. A Basic Algorithm for the P&O Technique
26 M. MPPT Based Artifical Neural Network(ANN)
ee

27 Among the greatest techniques for maximum power point tracking (MPPT), an ANN can automatically create a map of the
28 nonlinear connection between the input and output variables in any meteorological situation. To ensure that Neural Networks
29 can perform well once they are linked online with the PV system, they are first trained offline using a variety of non-linear
rR

30 interactions. As a result, this helps deliver the optimal duty cycle necessary to achieve the MPP. The data for the ANN model
31 is then generated using the P&O approach, and one table of logics is constructed using the generated data and by using the
32 sign function. Both the derivative of power output (dP) and the voltage derivative (dV) are used as inputs to the ANN model
[16], [28].
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Fig 6. ANN setup for calculating MPP duty cycle
45
46 N. MPPT Based Fuzzy Logic(FL)
47 Due to its stability, this method can be utilised to apply a rule-based approach to solve the problem of non-linear optimization.
48 The best feature of this technique is that it is not necessary to know the precise model on which it is being applied. In spite of
49 this, the designer must fully comprehend how the PV system operates [16]. Inputs include error and change in error, while the
50 output variable is duty cycle. The corresponding computations are presented below.:
51 dP dP
E( j)  ( j)  ( j  1) (11)
52 dV dV
53 C ( j)  E ( j )  E ( j  1) (12)
54 The inaccuracy in the working point's location relative to the connected load at jth instant is represented by E(j), whereas C(j)
55 indicates the direction of motion. FL is executed via Mamdani's defuzzification technique, and the result is intended with the
56 mean [29].
57
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 5 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1 O. Hybrid MPPT Method

2 To achieve MPP further reliably in all climatic situations, a hybrid MPPT uses two independent methods to regulate the duty
3 cycle. Since the P&O technique is so straightforward, precise, and user-friendly, it has become the de facto standard for MPPT.
4 It is also possible to improve accuracy and efficiency by combining it with other ways to adjust the magnitude of the
5 perturbation, such as an ANN, fuzzy logic, etc. [30]–[33]. In order to mitigate the power fluctuations and lack of stability
6 brought on by the PV characteristics of a basic P&O, an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) may be used [34].
7 Many further hybrid strategies are presented in [28], [32], [35], [36].
8 P. Other MPPT Methods
Many Distributed Maximum Power Point Tracking (DMPPT) methods are shown in [37], [38]. Using a state space
9
representation [39], the state-based MPPT shows the non-linear connection of the dynamic feedback controller. In [38] the
10 authors use the cell's temperature and irradiance to derive the cell's voltage and current, allowing for instantaneous monitoring
11 of MPP. In [40] and [41], we see the use of the Cuckoo search algorithm and Hybrid Elephant Herding Optimization
12 respetively. (CS). In [42], a modified artificial fish swarm algorithm based MPPT technique for partial shading has been
13 presented. Using long-term records of temperature and irradiance, as described in [43], allows for the determination of MPP,
14 and then regulation is based on the value closest to MPP.
15
III. COMPARE AND CONTRAST OF VARIOUS APPROACHES
16
17 The comparison of the MPPT methods/Techniques (Tech A to N), discussed in previous section, is done here. The charts in
fig. 7 gives a comparison of different MPPT techniques. Fig. 7(a) compares control strategy and control variables used.
18 Parameter tuning and the kind of circuitry employed are compared in Fig. 7(b). Figure 7(c) also makes a comparison of the
19 various converter types.
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

Fig. 7(a) Fig. 7(b)

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Fig. 7(c)
53 Fig. 7 A Review of MPPT Techniques [Acronyms: SM = Sampling Method, INC = Indirect Control, MM = Modulation Method, V = Voltage, INT = Intelligent
54 Control, I = Current, D = Digital, A = Analog, & Tech A-N = MPPT Techniques are illustrated in part-II and A-N respectively]
55 Each approach has a unique feature, therefore comparing them will allow us to choose the one that is best for achieving the
desired result.
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 6 of 15

1 a) Comparision of Control Strategies

2 Control strategy is the term used to describe the method utilised to solve the MPP [44]. The MPPT uses a number of different
3 kinds of control, including Direct Control [45], Probabilistic and Indirect Control. In indirect control, a wide variety of metrics
4 & data, including the characteristic curves of the PV module are gathered, & we use these to establish the MPP. Once again,
5 the methods used to exercise control fall into one of two camps: sampling (see reference [46]) or modulation (see references
6 [47]). In direct control, the MPP may be obtained without any prior knowledge of characteristic curves by simply adjusting
7 the PV module's operating points. Probabilistic equations & probability principles are utilized to determine the MPP [48].
8 b) Comparision of Circuitry used
The specifics of the circuit design are determined by the components used. In essence, there are three different types of circuits:
9 those with purely digital components, those with only analogue components, and those with both digital and analogue
10 components. Everyone chooses the type on which they can comfortably operate, therefore the user determines this [2].
11 c) Comparision using Control Varaiable
12 The production procedures of the PV module should be considered while deciding on the number of variables. In most cases,
13 variables including temperature, radiation, voltage, and current are used. Depending on the number of variables used, MPPT
14 methods may be classified as either a "one-variable methodology" or a "two-variable approach." Due to its low cost and ease
15 of construction, voltage sensor based MPPT is frequently used [2].
16 IV. PRODUCTION, APPLICATION, EFFICIENCY
17
The NREL in the United States evaluates and validates solar technologies, including MPPTs, which are largely mass-produced
18 in Germany, Taiwan, China, and Japan. Many microelectronic devices, such as power supply of satellites, solar water pumping
19 systems (SWPS) [49], solar vehicles (SVs) [50], grid-connected and off-grid power supply systems (GPS) [28], [51], and a
Fo
20 wide variety of mobile charging systems (MCS) [43], use MPPT techniques to convert electrical energy from solar panels to
21 a usable form. In order to maximise output from a grid-tied scheme, it is crucial to get in-depth understanding of PV Panels in
22 terms of efficiencies, like efficiency of conversion, dynamic & static efficiency of MPPT, European efficiency, etc., and their
23 technique of assessment, which is outlined in [36]. Efficiency of an MPPT may be calculated using the following equation
rP

24 (13):
25
26 (13)
ee

27 V. GMPPT WITH SPIDER MONKEY OPTIMIZATION

28 Swarm intelligence is the driving force behind the SMO, the foundation of the provided GMPPT system. This improvement
29 is inspired by the searching habits of spider monkeys. The SMO -centered GMPPT method that takes use of the fission-fusion
rR

30 social structure of spider monkeys. Figure 8 shows the procedures needed [6], [7], [52], [53] by SMO-GMPPT to follow the
31 global peak power search.
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Fig 8. Steps in the SMO-GMPPT Process
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 7 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1
2 a) SMO-GMPPT Simulation and Analysis
3 MATLAB/Simulink was used to implement the GMPPT that was provided. For this simulation, TP250MBZ PV modules were
4 utilised. The MPPT procedure was implemented using a boost converter, as seen in figure 9. A flowchart of the typical P&O
5 procedure (fig. 5) was utilized and adapted for use in the presented SMO-GMPPT. Table 1 lists the modelling parameters. The
6 tracking during partial shading and uniform shading can be understood by visualizing the figure 10.
7
8 Tale 1.: Parameters for Photovoltaic (PV) Modules
9 Open-Circuit Voltage, Voc (V) 36.8
10 Parameters of Short-Circuit Current, Isc(A) 8.83
11 PV Module at 25°C, 1000W/m2
[Utilised four similar modules in series
Maximum Power, Pmax (W) 249
12 Temperature Coefficient of Isc (%/Deg. C) 0.06385
with bypass diodes]
13 Temperature Coefficient of Voc(%/Deg. C) -0.33
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28 Fig 9. The SMO-GMPPT implementation in Simulink

29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57 Fig. 10. tracking during partial shading and uniform shading
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 8 of 15

1 b) Results and discussion

2
The results of the above-mentioned simulation of the SMO-GMPPT method are shown in Figures 11 to 16. With roughly
3 tuning the values of tracking optimization parameters, the results obtained are shown in the (a) subfigures of Figures 11–16.
4 The (b) subfigures of Figures 11–16 show the results obtained after properly tuning the tracking optimization.
5 Figure 11, 12, & 13 shows the power, current & voltage waveforms respectively of PV strings using the SMO-GMPPT
6 technique. Figure 14, 15 and 16 presents the convergence curves of power vs current, power output vs input voltage, and string
7 voltage vs current respectively for the SMO-GMPPT technique. Figure 17 shows the power output and voltage waveforms on
8 the load side and figure 18 shows the current output and duty cycle waveforms on the load side.
9 Figures 19- 22 shows the tracking performance of the presented SMO-GMPPT compared to PSO (particle swamp
10 optimization) and P&O based GMPPT. It can be easily observed that the tracking speed and overall performance of proposed
SMO-GMPPPT is much better as compared to other two schemes. Figure 23 shows the hardware result obtained for SMO
11
method. These results show the SMO-ability of GMPPTs to swiftly and appropriately trace the true global power peak. The
12 global peak is then achieved after the local peaks have also been tracked. SMO-GMPPT can therefore follow the actual global
13 peak during partial shading occurrences.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
Fig 11. Power-waveform of PV strings using the SMO-GMPPT technique
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Fig 12. Waveform of current via PV strings when using the SMO-GMPPT technique
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 9 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Fig 13. The Voltage Waveform of a PV String Using the SMO-GMPPT Technique
17
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30
31
32
ev

33 Fig 14. Convergence curve of power vs current for the SMO-GMPPT technique
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Fig 15. Convergence curve for power output vs input voltage using the SMO-GMPPT technique
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 10 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Fig 16. Voltage vs Current convergence curve for SMO-GMPPT method
18
19
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25
26
ee

27
28
29
rR

30 (a) (b)
31 Fig 17. (a) Power output and (b) Voltage waveform on the load side
32
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 (a) (b)
45 Fig 18. (a) Current output and (b) Duty Cycle waveform on the load side
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 11 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Fo
20 Fig. 19 MPP tracking comparison of SMO, PSO and P&O MPPT schemes
21
22
23
rP

15
24
25
10
26
ee

27
28 5
29
rR

30 0
31 Rise time (ms) Settling time (ms)
32
SMO PSO P&O
ev

33
34 Fig. 20 Rise and settling times comparison of SMO, PSO and P&O MPPT schemes
35
4.5
36
iew

37 4
38 3.5
39 3
40 2.5
41
2
42
43 1.5
44 1
45 0.5
46
0
47
Dynamic-state error Dynamic-state error Dynamic-state error Dynamic-state error
48 (Irradiation change) (%) (Load unbalancing)(%) (Fixed power mode)(%) (Abnormal grid
49 voltage)(%)
50
51 SMO PSO P&O
52 Fig. 21 Various error comparison of SMO, PSO and P&O MPPT schemes
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 12 of 15

1
2
2.714
3
4
5
6 3 0.121 1.264
7 P&O
2 1.229
8 0.064
PSO
9 1 0.061
10 SMO
0
11
Steady-state error Transient-state
12 (%) error (%)
13
14 SMO PSO P&O
15
Fig. 22 Steady state and transient error comparison of SMO, PSO and P&O MPPT schemes
16
17
18
19 String Current
Fo
20
21
22
23
rP

24
25 String Voltage

26
ee

27
28 String Power

29
rR

30
31 Fig. 23 Hardware result obtained for SMO method
32
ev

33 VI. CONCLUSION
34 The SMO GMPPT technique may be used to measure and monitor the global power output of a PV string. The validation
35 outcomes are shown with a MATLAB/SIMULINK model that was provided for this purpose. Apart from that, a comparison
36
iew

and contrast of different MPPT methods has been demonstrated and tallied. In this paper, we provide an overview of some of
37 the numerous accessible MPPT approaches and categorize them in accordance with a set of criteria, such as the number of
38 variables, the control mechanism, the circuitry utilised, the price, the effectiveness, the intricacy, etc., to facilitate operational
39 choice. Also described are the various converter models used in conjunction with each MPPT method, as well as the several
modes of operation (grid-tied and stand-alone) that may be achieved. Partially shaded areas, dust impacts, temperature
40
inhomogeneity across PV panels, etc. are only a few of the adverse conditions that are addressed in this research, along with
41 other MPPT methods. All aspects of SMO-operation, from GMPPT's workflow to the Simulink model's description to its
42 results, are laid forth in this research. The simulation results have also been validated with the hardware results. The results
43 show that SMO-GMPPT, a fast and reliable GMPPT method, can be used to find the true global peak even when there is
44 partial shading.
45
46 REFERENCES
47 [1] C. Abrar, Ahmed, S. Vyas, V. Kumar, and R. R. Joshi, “MPPT optimisation techniques and power electronics for
48 renewable energy systems: wind and solar energy systems,” Int. J. Swarm Intell., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141–167, 2022,
49 doi: 10.1504/IJSI.2022.123092.
50 [2] B. Subudhi and R. Pradhan, “A Comparative Study on Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques for Photovoltaic
51 Power Systems,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 89–98, Jan. 2013, doi:
52 10.1109/TSTE.2012.2202294.
53
[3] M. D. Siddique, M. A. Husain, M. Wasiq, T. S. Babu, and S. Mekhilef, “A new seven-level ANPC inverter structure
54
with semiconductor device reduction,” Int. J. Circuit Theory Appl., Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1002/CTA.3279.
55
56 [4] J. P. Ram, T. S. Babu, and N. Rajasekar, “A comprehensive review on solar PV maximum power point tracking
57 techniques,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 67, no. November 2016, pp. 826–847, 2017, doi:
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 13 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1 10.1016/[Link].2016.09.076.
2
3 [5] A. Ilyas, M. Ayyub, M. R. Khan, A. Jain, and M. A. Husain, “Realisation of incremental conductance the MPPT
4 algorithm for a solar photovoltaic system,” [Link] vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 873–
884, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1080/01430750.2017.1354322.
5
6 [6] T. K. Behera, M. K. Behera, and N. Nayak, “Spider monkey based improve P&O MPPT controller for photovoltaic
7 generation system,” Int. Conf. Technol. Smart City Energy Secur. Power Smart Solut. Smart Cities, ICSESP 2018 -
8 Proc., vol. 2018-Janua, pp. 1–6, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1109/ICSESP.2018.8376735.
9 [7] S. Das and K. Namrata, “Improving the Performance Analysis of MPPT Controller Unit of a PV Generation System
10 Using Optimization Technique Based on Spider Monkey Principle (SMO),” in Next Generation Materials and
11 Processing Technologies, 2021, pp. 553–564.
12 [8] J. C. H. Phang, D. S. H. Chan, and J. R. Phillips, “Accurate analytical method for the extraction of solar cell model
13 parameters,” Electron. Lett., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 406–408, May 1984, doi: 10.1049/EL:19840281.
14
[9] A. Alzahrani, “A Fast and Accurate Maximum Power Point Tracking Approach Based on Neural Network Assisted
15
Fractional Open-Circuit Voltage,” Electron. 2020, Vol. 9, Page 2206, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 2206, Dec. 2020, doi:
16 10.3390/ELECTRONICS9122206.
17
18 [10] Mohammed Aslam Husain; Zeeshan Ahmad Khan; Abu Tariq, “A novel solar PV MPPT scheme utilizing the
difference between panel and atmospheric temperature,” Renew. energy Focus, 2017, doi:
19
10.1016/[Link].2017.03.009.
Fo
20
21 [11] R. K. Pachauri, A. K. Gupta, A. F. Minai, M. Kumar, and Shashikant, “Su-Do-Ku Game Puzzle for Improving
22 Shade dispersion factor on PV Array Systems under PSCs: Experimental Validation,” 2022 Int. Conf. Emerg. Smart
23 Comput. Informatics, ESCI 2022, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ESCI53509.2022.9758362.
rP

24 [12] M. A. Husain, A. Jain, and A. Tariq, “A novel fast mutable duty ( FMD ) MPPT technique for solar PV system with
25 reduced searching area,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, 2016, doi: 10.1063/1.4963314.
26 [13] A. Ilyas, M. Ayyub, M. R. Khan, M. A. Husain, and A. Jain, “Hardware Implementation of Perturb and Observe
ee

27 Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for Solar Photovoltaic System,” Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater., vol. 19,
28 no. 3, pp. 222–229, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s42341-018-0030-z.
29
[14] K. Fatima, A. F. Minai, and H. Malik, “Intelligent Approach-Based Maximum Power Point Tracking for Renewable
rR

30 Energy System: A Review,” Lect. Notes Electr. Eng., vol. 802, pp. 373–405, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-6081-
31 8_19.
32
[15] W. Xiao, W. G. Dunford, P. R. Palmer, and A. Capel, “Application of centered differentiation and steepest descent
ev

33
to maximum power point tracking,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 2539–2549, 2007, doi:
34
10.1109/TIE.2007.899922.
35
36 [16] S. Messalti, A. Harrag, and A. Loukriz, “A new variable step size neural networks MPPT controller: Review,
iew

37 simulation and hardware implementation,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 68, pp. 221–233, Feb. 2017, doi:
38 10.1016/[Link].2016.09.131.
39 [17] M. Y. A. Khan, H. Liu, S. M. Hashemzadeh, and X. Yuan, “A Novel High Step-Up DC–DC Converter with
40 Improved P&O MPPT for Photovoltaic Applications,” Electr. Power Components Syst., vol. 49, no. 9–10, pp. 884–
41 900, 2022, doi: 10.1080/15325008.2022.2049649.
42 [18] V. J. Fesharaki, F. Sheikholeslam, and M. R. Jahed Motlagh, “Maximum power point tracking with constraint
43 feedback linearization controller and modified incremental conductance algorithm,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, vol.
44 40, no. 7, pp. 2322–2331, May 2017, doi: 10.1177/0142331217701537.
45 [19] M. Naseem, M. A. Husain, J. D. Kumar, M. W. Ahmad, A. F. Minai, and A. A. Khan, “Particle Swarm Optimization
46 based Maximum Power Point Tracking Technique for Solar PV System under Partially Shaded conditions,” 2021
47 Int. Conf. Control. Autom. Power Signal Process., pp. 1–6, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1109/CAPS52117.2021.9730703.
48
[20] A. F. Minai, M. A. Husain, M. Naseem, and A. A. Khan, “Electricity demand modeling techniques for hybrid solar
49
PV system,” Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 607–615, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1515/IJEEPS-2021-
50 0085/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS.
51
52 [21] M. Naseem et al., “Assessment of Meta-Heuristic and Classical Methods for GMPPT of PV System,” Trans. Electr.
Electron. Mater., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 217–234, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1007/S42341-021-00306-3.
53
54 [22] H. Renaudineau et al., “A PSO-based global MPPT technique for distributed PV power generation,” IEEE Trans.
55 Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 1047–1058, 2015, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2014.2336600.
56 [23] S. Duman, N. Yorukeren, and I. H. Altas, “A novel MPPT algorithm based on optimized artificial neural network by
57 using FPSOGSA for standalone photovoltaic energy systems,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 257–278,
58
59
60 [Link]
 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control Page 14 of 15

1 Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1007/S00521-016-2447-9/TABLES/8.

2
3 [24] S. K. Gopalakrishnan, S. Kinattingal, and S. P. Simon, “MPPT in PV Systems Using PSO Appended with
4 Centripetal Instinct Attribute,” Electr. Power Components Syst., vol. 48, no. 9–10, pp. 881–891, Oct. 2020, doi:
10.1080/15325008.2020.1825552.
5
6 [25] A. M. Eltamaly, M. S. Al-Saud, A. G. Abokhalil, and H. M. H. Farh, “Photovoltaic maximum power point tracking
7 under dynamic partial shading changes by novel adaptive particle swarm optimization strategy,” Trans. Inst. Meas.
8 Control, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 104–115, Jan. 2020, doi:
10.1177/0142331219865627/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0142331219865627-[Link].
9
10 [26] Q. Duan, M. Mao, P. Duan, and B. Hu, “An intelligent algorithm for maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic
11 system under partial shading conditions,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 244–256, 2017, doi:
12 10.1177/0142331215606514.
13 [27] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with
14 partial shading capability,” Appl. Energy, vol. 119, no. April, pp. 118–130, 2014, doi:
15 10.1016/[Link].2013.12.062.
16 [28] C. Vimalarani, N. Kamaraj, and C. B. B., “Improved method of maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic
17 (PV) array using hybrid intelligent controller,” Optik (Stuttg)., vol. 168, pp. 403–415, Sep. 2018, doi:
18 10.1016/[Link].2018.04.114.
19
[29] S. Choudhury and P. K. Rout, “Comparative study of M-FIS FLC and modified PandO MPPT techniques under
Fo
20 partial shading and variable load conditions,” 12th IEEE Int. Conf. Electron. Energy, Environ. Commun. Comput.
21 Control (E3-C3), INDICON 2015, pp. 1–6, 2016, doi: 10.1109/INDICON.2015.7443305.
22
23 [30] M. A. Husain, A. Jain, A. Tariq, and A. Iqbal, “Fast and precise global maximum power point tracking techniques
rP

for photovoltaic system,” pp. 2569–2579, 2019, doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2019.0244.

24
25 [31] M. Rizwan, M. Jamil, and D. P. Kothari, “Generalized neural network approach for global solar energy estimation in
26 India,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 576–584, 2012, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2012.2193907.
ee

27 [32] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “An Enhanced Adaptive P&O MPPT for Fast and Efficient Tracking Under Varying
28 Environmental Conditions,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1487–1496, Jul. 2018, doi:
29 10.1109/TSTE.2018.2791968.
rR

30 [33] H. Rezk, A. Fathy, and A. Y. Abdelaziz, “A comparison of different global MPPT techniques based on meta-
31 heuristic algorithms for photovoltaic system subjected to partial shading conditions,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
32 vol. 74, no. August 2016, pp. 377–386, 2017, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.02.051.
ev

33
[34] A. A. Aldair, A. A. Obed, and A. F. Halihal, “Design and implementation of ANFIS-reference model controller
34
based MPPT using FPGA for photovoltaic system,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 82, pp. 2202–2217, Feb.
35 2018, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.08.071.
36
iew

37 [35] R. Faranda, S. Leva, and V. Maugeri, “MPPT techniques for PV systems: Energetic and cost comparison,” IEEE
38 Power Energy Soc. 2008 Gen. Meet. Convers. Deliv. Electr. Energy 21st Century, PES, 2008, doi:
10.1109/PES.2008.4596156.
39
40 [36] S. Ngo, T. D. Ngo, C. T. Nguyen, and C. S. Chiu, “A Novel Approach Based Incremental Conductance Method for
41 MPPT Strategy of PV Systems Considering Partial Shading Conditions,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 2022, doi:
42 10.1080/15325008.2022.2129859.
43 [37] G. Spagnuolo, E. Franco, J. D. Bastidas-Rodriguez, C. A. Ramos-Paja, and G. Petrone, “Maximum power point
44 tracking architectures for photovoltaic systems in mismatching conditions: a review,” IET Power Electron., vol. 7,
45 no. 6, pp. 1396–1413, 2014, doi: 10.1049/iet-pel.2013.0406.
46 [38] P. Tsao, S. Sarhan, and I. Jorio, “Distributed max power point tracking for photovoltaic arrays,” Conf. Rec. IEEE
47 Photovolt. Spec. Conf., pp. 002293–002298, 2009, doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2009.5411351.
48
[39] M. A. Husain and A. Tariq, “Transient analysis and selection of perturbation parameters for PV-MPPT
49
implementation,” Int. J. Ambient Energy, vol. 41, no. 10, 2020, doi: 10.1080/01430750.2018.1517661.
50
51 [40] J. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with
52 partial shading capability,” Appl. Energy, vol. 119, pp. 118–130, Apr. 2014, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2013.12.062.
53
54 [41] S. Vijayakumar and C. Govindaraju, “Generation of Maximum Power in Grid Connected PV System Based MPPT
55 Control Using Hybrid Elephant Herding Optimization Algorithm,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 2022, doi:
56 10.1080/15325008.2022.2136293.
57 [42] M. Mao, Q. Duan, P. Duan, and B. Hu, “Comprehensive improvement of artificial fish swarm algorithm for global
58
59
60 [Link]
Page 15 of 15 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control

1 MPPT in PV system under partial shading conditions,” Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 2178–2199,
2 Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1177/0142331217697374.
3
4 [43] E. Koutroulis and F. Blaabjerg, “A new technique for tracking the global maximum power point of PV arrays
operating under partial-shading conditions,” IEEE J. Photovoltaics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 184–190, 2012, doi:
5
10.1109/JPHOTOV.2012.2183578.
6
7 [44] C. Lupangu, A. K. Saha, R. C. Bansal, and J. J. Justo, “Critical Performance Comparison Between Single-Stage and
8 Two-Stage Incremental Conductance MPPT Algorithms for DC/DC Boost-Converter Applied in PV Systems,”
Electr. Power Components Syst., 2022, doi: 10.1080/15325008.2022.2136286.
9
10 [45] K. Ishaque and Z. Salam, “A Deterministic Particle Swarm Optimization Maximum Power Point Tracker for
11 Photovoltaic System under Partial Shading Condition,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1–1, 2012,
12 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2012.2200223.
13 [46] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, “Optimizing sampling rate of P&O MPPT technique,”
14 undefined, vol. 3, pp. 1945–1949, 2004, doi: 10.1109/PESC.2004.1355415.
15
[47] E. Iyasere, E. Tatlicioglu, and D. M. Dawson, “Backstepping PWM control for maximum power tracking in
16 photovoltaic array systems,” undefined, pp. 3561–3565, 2010, doi: 10.1109/ACC.2010.5530833.
17
18 [48] C. Barth, “Dithering Digital Ripple Correlation Control for Photovoltaic Maximum Power Point Tracking,” vol. 30,
no. 8, pp. 4548–4559, 2012.
19
Fo
20 [49] M. A. S. Masoum, H. Dehbonei, and E. F. Fuchs, “Theoretical and experimental analyses of photovoltaic systems
21 with voltageand current-based maximum power-point tracking,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 17, no. 4, pp.
22 514–522, 2002, doi: 10.1109/TEC.2002.805205.
23
rP
[50] S. Vehicles, “Hybrid and Solar Vehicles,” 2006.
24
[51] H. Abu-Rub, A. Iqbal, S. M. Ahmed, F. Z. Peng, Y. Li, and G. Baoming, “Quasi-Z-source inverter-based
25 photovoltaic generation system with maximum power tracking control using ANFIS,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
26 vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2013, doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2012.2196059.
ee

27
28 [52] J. C. Bansal, H. Sharma, S. S. Jadon, and M. Clerc, “Spider Monkey Optimization algorithm for numerical
optimization,” Memetic Comput., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31–47, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s12293-013-0128-0.
29
rR

30 [53] M. Naseem et al., “A Spider Monkey Optimization Based Global Maximum Power Point Tracking Technique for
31 Photovoltaic Systems,” 2022 2nd Int. Conf. Emerg. Front. Electr. Electron. Technol. ICEFEET 2022, 2022, doi:
32 10.1109/ICEFEET51821.2022.9847903.
ev

33
34
35
36
iew

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 [Link]