Research Article
An Improved Maximum Power Point Approach for Temperature Variation in PV System Applications
Table 2
Simulation result performance from the comparison of different MPPT control methods.
| Algorithm | P&O | P&O-IMP | INC | INC-IMP | Mod-Locus MPPT | Mod-Locus MPPT-IMP |
| Tracking speed | Medium | Faster | Medium | Faster | Slow | Faster | Steady-state oscillation | Large | Small | Medium | Small | Medium | Small | Accuracy/efficiency | Low | High | Medium | High | Medium | High | Dynamic efficiency range (%) | 97.92–97.99 | 98.2–98.64 | 97.94–98 | 98–98.64 | 97.93–98 | 98–98.64 | Static efficiency range (%) | 99.63–99.87 | 99.9–99.98 | 99.45–99.83 | 99.9–99.7 | 99.51–99.83 | 99.89–99.98 | Time response (ms) | 11.03 | 8.97 | 9.77 | 4.52 | 19.47 | 16.9 | Power steady-state error (W) | 2 | Neglected | 1 | Neglected | 0.6 | Neglected | Voltage steady-state error (V) | 1.5 | Neglected | 1 | Neglected | 1 | Neglected | Power overshoot | High | Insignificant | High | Insignificant | High | Insignificant |
|
|