Comparative study of Incremental Conductance
and Perturb & Observe MPPT Methods for
Photovoltaic System
SAIDI Khadidja* MAAMOUN Mountassar
SET Laboratory, Electronic department, LATSI Laboratory, Electronic
Blida 1 University, BP 270 department, Blida 1 University, BP 270
Blida, Algeria Blida, Algeria
saidikhadidja@yahoo.fr Mountassar.maamoun@gmail.com
Abstract— The connection between a photovoltaic generator
(GPV) and a continuous type load is still a subject of study. This
connection uses an adaptation stage acting as an interface
between the GPV and the load. The adaptation stage is usually
composed of a DC-DC converter monitored by a controller of the
maximum power point MPPT (maximum power point tracking)
The aim of this work is to realize a study and comparison
between two methods of MPPT: the Incremental conductance
(Inc-cond) method and the perturbation & observation method
(P & O). For this we devoted a part of the work to the study of
the components constituting the global photovoltaic system
namely: the photovoltaic module, the DC-DC converter, and the
MPPT controller. The second step is reserved to comparison
between MPPT methods -both designed in the MATLAB /
SIMULINK environment- performed by simulation. The
comparison results demonstrated good performance of the
Incremental Conductance method compared to the Perturbe &
Observe method.
Keywords— Incremental Conductance (Inc-Cond);
Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT); Photovoltaic (PV)
system; Perturbe & Observe (P & O).
I. INTRODUCTION
The conversion of solar photovoltaic energy into electrical
energy is carried out by photovoltaic cells. The series / parallel
association of these photovoltaic cells constitutes a
photovoltaic generator. The energy produced by these PV
generators is not constant throughout the day, it depends on
several factors including irradiation and temperature, which
are two very fluctuating parameters from one season to
another or even from one moment to the next [1]. For each
given irradiation and temperature, the power-voltage
characteristic of the PV generator passes through a maximum
called MPP (Maximum Power Point) [2,3].
To extract the maximum power from the PV module, it is
necessary to follow-up this maximum in real time. Different
types of search algorithms of the MPP have been encountered
in the literature known as: artificial intelligence based
algorithms, such as those based on genetic algorithm, neural
network and fuzzy logic whose PPM research is very fast but
their disadvantage is their complex hardware implementation
[4-9].
978-1-5090-6287-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
BOUNEKHLA M'hamed
SET Laboratory, Electronic department,
Blida 1 University, BP 270
Blida, Algeria
bounekhla.mhamed@yahoo.fr
Contrary to intelligent methods, The classical one are
easier to implement, they are based on hill climbing technics
where the MPPT controller tries to increase the operating
point of the GPV along the characteristic P (V) until reaching
the PPM [10,11]. In these conventional methodes we can
distinguish the methods based on the conductance increment
and those based on the Perturb & Observe methods, which are
the best known methods, characterized in their first period of
use by strong oscillations around the MPP, but after their
digitization, in addition to improvements and corrections of
defaults in these techniques, they became faster, exhibiting
more stable behavior once the MPP is reached.
Their implementation has become simpler which has
participated in lowering the cost of purchasing photovoltaic
systems and has allowed them to be peerless, incomparable
and remained until today large market methods [12].
In this article, we will modeled the photovoltaic system in
MATLAB-Simulink environment, as well as the study and
simulation of the P&O and Inc-Cond MPPT algorithms. At the
end, a comparison between these two methods will take place.
II. PHOTOVOLTQIC SYSTEM
A PV system consists mainly of a PV generator linked to a
load via a DC-DC power converter interface controlled by
MPPT controller, whose role is to instantly look for the
optimum voltage at the output of the generator by varying, in
an automatic manner, the duty cycle of the signal which
controls the converter switch. Fig. 1 represents the synoptic
diagram of a PV system.
A. PV Generator(GPV)
The fundamental element in a photovoltaic system is the
photovoltaic cell which converts the received energy by solar
radiation into electrical energy.
A photovoltaic cell can therefore be assimilated to a
photodiode, Fig. 2 illustrates a PV cell [13].
 The electrical characteristics I (V) and P (V) of a GPV
shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 are not linear and has a maximum
power point (PPM), this point also has an associated current
and voltage called Impp and Vmpp respectively.

MPPT
Controller

Fig. 1. System block diagram.

Fig. 2. Solar cell equivalent circuit.

The expression of the characteristic Ipv (Vpv) is given by

equation (1): [14] Fig. 3. Photovoltaic model of GPV in Matlab Simulink.

Ipv-Vpv Curve at G=1000 W/m2 & T=25°C

1 (1) 6
M o d u le C u rre n t (A )
5

4
With:
3
Is : is the inverse saturation current of the diode.
q : is the charge of the electron 2

K : is the Boltzmann constant 1

Tak :is the temperature of the cell (in kelvin) 0

0 5 10 15 20 25
A : is the non-ideality factor of the junction Module Voltage Vpv (volts)

In order to increase the utilization power, the PV cells Fig. 4. I-V caracteristic under 25°C and 1000 watts/m2
are connected in series / parallel to form a photovoltaic
generator (GPV) whose equations governing it are given by:
Ppv-Vpv Curve at G=1000W/m2 & T=25°C
(2, 3, 4 and 5) [15]. 70
60
M o d u le Po w er (W )

50
1 (2) 40
30

20
With: 1000
(3) 10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
1 1 Module Voltage Vpv (volts)
exp (4)
Fig. 5. P-V caracteristic under 25°C and 1000 watts/m2

(5)
exp 1
B. DC-DC buck converter
The GPV circuit is modeled by MATLAB / Simulink
software and given in Fig. 3 The adaptation of the PV panels to the load is therefore
necessary to extract the maximum power from the PV module.
This is done through the DC-DC energy converters controlled
by the MPPT controller.
 The model we have chosen in our study is a buck-type C. MPPT Command
converter shown in Fig. 6
MPPT commands are used in PV systems to extract the
maximum power available on the PV panel to maximize the
efficiency of its use. The methods selected for our study are:
the Inc-Cond method and the P&O method.

1) P & O method

It is the most widely used method of tracking the

Fig. 6. DC-DC buck converter circuit.
In the real case, an internal resistance to the inductance, RL
and an internal resistance to the capacitance, Rc can be added
to the previous model [16,17].
This converter can be modeled by the following differential
equations:
maximum power point (PPM), and as its name implies it is
based on the perturbation of the system by increasing or
decreasing the duty cycle of the DC-DC converter and then
observing the effect on the output power with a view to
possible correction of this duty cycle [18]. If the value of the
current power Pk of the generator is greater than the previous
value Pk-1 then the same previous disturbance direction is
maintained, otherwise the perturbation of the preceding cycle
is reversed. The following figure (Fig. 8) shows the flowchart
of this algorithm [19,20].

– (6)

1
(7)

1
. . (8)

Vg : represents the Input voltage, D : represents the Switch

control, Io : represents the Load current, and Vc : represents
the Inductor current.

The simulink model of the converter is given in Fig. 7

Fig. 8. Flowchart of the Perturb & observes algorithm.

2) Incremental Conductance method

In incremental conductance method the array terminal

voltage is always adjusted according to the MPP voltage it is
based on the incremental and instantaneous conductance of the
PV module. The basic equations of this method are as follows.

0 at MPP (9)

0 at the left of MPP (10)

0 at the right of MPP

Fig. 7. DC-DC buck converter model in Matlab Simulink. (11)

(12)
The dP/dV is defined as Maximum power point identifier
factor. By utilizing this factor, the IC method is proposed to
effectively track the MPP of PV array [21]. The following
definitions are considered to track the MPP.
at MPP (13)
at the left of MPP (14)
at the right of MPP (15)
The MPPT regulates the PWM control signal of the DC to DC
power converter until the condition: (dI/dV) + (I/V) = 0 is
satisfied. Consider the nth iteration of the algorithm as a
reference, and then n+1 iteration process can be determined by
using the above equations [22]. The Flowchart of incremental
conductance MPPT is shown in Fig. 9
The Simulink model of the photovoltaic system is given
by Fig. 10.
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
The two MPPT algorithms Inc-Cond and P& are implemented
in Matlab / Simulink and tested to see their performance. The
simulation results are shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
Fig. 9. Flowchart of the Icremental Conductance algorithm.
A. Discussion of results
We notice that the power curve extracted by the load
joins the power curve available at the output of the panel to
finally oscillate around it. The two algorithms present
oscillations around the maximum power point once the latter
is reached, for the P&O method this is due to the perturbation
step, so the choice of this step is a compromise between the
amplitude of the oscillations and the speed of the MPPT. The
incremental conduction algorithm is assumed not to oscillate
around the MPP when it reaches it, but because of the
inaccuracies of the measurement, the condition dP / dV = 0 is
rarely detected which, still generates oscillations.
The efficiency of the MPPT controller is measured by
the relation (Pout / Pmax) * 100 whereas the error is
calculated by: [(Pout-Pmax) / Pmax] * 100
The simulation results give a yield of 94.21% for the
P&O method and 94.38% for the Cond_Inc method.
The mean error is 5.78% for the P&O method and 5.61%
for the Cond_Inc method.
This result confirms the stability of the Incremental
conductance controller compared to the Perturb and Observe
method.
IV. CONCLUSION
Our study focused on the analysis, implementation and
comparison of two MPPT methods: the Inc-Con and P&O. To
this end, the GPV, the DC-DC Buck converter controlled by
the MPPT commands were simulated on Matlab
environnement by Simulink software. The simulation result
showed that the Inc-cond method has a better performance
compared to the P&O method because it has succeeded in
minimizing the oscillations around the MPP point but the
disadvantage is that the MPP tracking time is slower, the latter
can be improved by adjusting the incrementing step so as to
have a rapid response.
 Fig. 10. Simulink model of photovoltaic system Insolation (watts/m2)
Temperature(°C)

26
1000
25 500

24 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.05 0.1
time (s) time (s)
Power PV(watts)

PPM(watts)

50 50

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
time (s) time (s)
Voltage PV(volts)

4 20
Current PV (A)

3.5
10
3
2.5 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Power out Inc-cond (watts)

time (s) time (s)

Power out P&O(watts)

80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
time (s) time (s)

Fig. 11. Simulation results of Maximum Power Point Tracking Using inc-cond and P&O Method
 P pv , P out inc c ond a nd e rror c urve s
100
50
-50
-100
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
P pv , P out P & O a nd e rror c urve s
100
50
-50
-100
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Fig. 12. Illustrative curves of error between output power of the DC-DC converter and output power of the GPV for Inc-Cond and P&O Methods.
REFERENCES
[1] F. Lasnier, T. G. Ang, "Photovoltaic Engineering Handboo", IOP
Publishing Ltd, 1980, ISBN 0-85274-311-4
[2] K. H. Hussein, I. Muta, T. Hoshino, and M. Osakada, "Maximum
photovoltaic power tracking: an algorithm for rapidly changing
atmospheric conditions", IEE Proc. Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, vol. 142, pp. 59-64, Jan. 1995
[3] K.H. Hussein, I. Muta, T. Hoshino, M. Osakada, "Maximum
photovoltaic power tracking: an algorithm for rapidly changing
atmospheric conditions", IEE Proceedings Transmission and
Distribution, Vol. 142, No. 1, Jan 1995, pp. 59 – 64
[4] F. Qiang, T. Nan, "A complex-method-based PSO algorithm for the
maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system", Second
International Conference on Information Technology and Computer
Science (ITCS), 2010, pp. 134–137.
[5] F. Chekired, A. Mahrane, M. Chikh, Z. Smara, "Optimization of energy
management of a photovoltaic system by the fuzzy logic technique",
Energy Procedia, V. 6, 2011, pp. 513–521.
[6] A. Mellit, "ANN-based GA for generating the sizing curve of stand-
alone photovoltaic systems", Advances in Engineering Software, Vol.
41, 2010, pp. 687–693.
[7] A. Mellit, S. A. Kalogirou, L. Hontoria, S. Shaari, "Artificial
intelligence techniques for sizing photovoltaic systems: A review",
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13, 2009, pp. 406-
419.
[8] A. Mellit, S. A. Kalogirou,M. Drif, "Application of neural networks and
genetic algorithms for sizing of photovoltaic systems", Renewable
Energy, Vol. 35, 2010, pp. 2881-2893.
[9] A. S. Benyoucef, A. Chouder, K. Kara,S. Silvestrec,O. Ait sahed
''Artificial bee colony based algorithm for maximum power
pointtracking (MPPT) for PV systems operating under partial
shadedconditions'' , Applied Soft Computing, vol 32 2015, pp. 38–48
[10] W. Xiao, and W. G. Dunford, "A modified adaptive hill climbing mppt
method for photovoltaic power systems," Proc. PESC, 2004, pp. 1957-
1963.
[11] T. Esram, and P. L. Chapman, "Comparison of photovoltaic array
maximum power point tracking techniques" IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers, vol. 22, no. 2, Jun. 2007, pp. 439-449
[12] A. Zegaoui1, M. Aillerie, P. Petit, J.P. Sawicki, A. Jaafar, C. Salame,
and J.P. Charles, "Comparison of Two Common Maximum Power
P o ut in c co n d
P pv
error in c co n d
0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
time (s)
P o u t P &O
P pv
erro r P &O
0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
time (s)
PointTrackers by Simulating of PV Generators" , Energy Procedia, Vol.
6, 2011, pp. 678–687.
[13] Yuncong Jiang, Jaber A. Abu Qahouq, I. Batarseh, "Improved solar PV
cell Matlab simulation model and comparison", Circuits and Systems
(ISCAS) Proceedings, IEEE International Symposium, 2010, pp. 2770-
2773
[14] S. Ndoye, I.Ly, F. Idrissa Barro, o. H. Lemrabott, G. Sissoko,
"Modelisation et simulation sous matlab/simulink de la chaine
d’alimentation d’une station relais de telecommunications en energie
solaire photovoltaique dans une zone isolee du reseau electrique",
journal des sciences, vol. 9, n° 2 ,2009, pp. 45 – 55
[15] Y. Jiang, J.A .Abu Qahouq, M. Orabi, "Matlab/Pspice hybrid simulation
modeling of solar PV cell/module", Applied Power Electronics
Conference and Exposition (APEC), Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE, 2011,
pp. 1244-1250, ISSN 1048-2334.
[16] E. Baghaz1 , M. Melhaoui1 , M. F. Yaden1 and K.
Kassmi1,"Photovoltaic System Equipped with a DC/DC Buck Converter
and a MPPT Command Ensuring an Optimal Functioning Independently
of System Perturbations" ,Physical Review & Research International
vol. 4, 2014, pp. 80-90
[17] D. Choudhary , A.R. Saxena,"DC-DC Buck-Converter for MPPT of PV
System" , International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, July 2014, Vol. 4, ISSN 2250-2459
[18] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, "Optimization of
Perturb and Observe Maximum Power Point Tracking Method", IEEE
Transactions on Power Elctronics, Vol. 20, N° 4, 2005, pp.963-973.
[19] A. Yafaoui., B. Wu and R. Cheung , "implementation of maximum
power point tracking algorithm for residential photovoltaic systems",
2nd Canadian Solar Buildings Conference Calgary, June 2007, pp. 10 –
14.
[20] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, and M. Vitelli, "Optimization of
pertub and observe maximum power point tracking method," IEEE
Trans. Power Electron, Jul. 2005, vol. 20, N° 4, pp. 963-973.
[21] A. EL FILALI , E. LAADISSI,M. ZAZI '' PSIM and MATLAB Co-
Simulation of Photovoltaic System using ―P and O and ―Incremental
Conductanceǁ MPPT', International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications(IJACSA), Vol. 7, No. 8, 2016, pp. 72
[22] A. Safari and S. Mekhilef, "Simulation and Hardware implementation
of incremental conductance MPPT with direct control method using Cuk
converter", IEEE Trans.Ind. Electron., vol . 58, no. 4, Apr. 2011, pp.
1154-1161.