Tech Science Press

DOI: 10.32604/ee.2024.049423

REVIEW

Maximum Power Point Tracking Technology for PV Systems: Current Status

and Perspectives

Bo Yang1,2 , Rui Xie1 and Zhengxun Guo3,4, *

1
Faculty of Electric Power Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, 650500, China
2
Intelligent Electric Power Grid Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, 610065, China
3
Foshan Graduate School of Innovation, Northeastern University, Foshan, 528311, China
4
College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, 110819, China
* Corresponding Author: Zhengxun Guo. Email: [email protected]
Received: 06 January 2024 Accepted: 26 March 2024 Published: 19 July 2024

ABSTRACT
Maximum power point tracking (MPPT) technology plays a key role in improving the energy conversion efficiency
of photovoltaic (PV) systems, especially when multiple local maximum power points (LMPPs) occur under
partial shading conditions (PSC). It is necessary to modify the operating point efficiently and accurately with
the help of MPPT technology to maximize the collected power. Even though a lot of research has been carried
out and impressive progress achieved for MPPT technology, it still faces some challenges and dilemmas. Firstly,
the mathematical model established for PV cells is not precise enough. Second, the existing algorithms are often
optimized for specific conditions and lack comprehensive adaptability to the actual operating environment. Besides,
a single algorithm may not be able to give full play to its advantages. In the end, the selection criteria for choosing
the suitable MPPT algorithm/converter combination to achieve better performance in a given scenario is very
limited. Therefore, this paper systematically discusses the current research status and challenges faced by PV MPPT
technology around the three aspects of MPPT models, algorithms, and hardware implementation. Through in-
depth thinking and discussion, it also puts forward positive perspectives on future development, and five forward-
looking solutions to improve the performance of PV systems MPPT are suggested.

KEYWORDS
PV systems; MPPT; partial shading condition; DC-DC converter

Nomenclature
I PV system output current (A)
V PV system output voltage (V)
P PV system output power (W)
G Instantaneous irradiance (W/m2 )
T Temperature (°C)
HIL Hardware-in-loop

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2010 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

1 Introduction
Photovoltaic (PV) power is one of the most representative renewable energy resources, which is not
only environmentally friendly but also sustainable and expandable [1–3]. The widespread application
of this technology has driven the growth of renewable energy worldwide [4–6]. However, PV power
generation systems often suffer from low power generation efficiency in practical applications. In
particular, partial shading conditions (PSC) generally lead to multiple local maximum power points
(LMPPs) in the system [7,8]. Therefore, it is crucial for PV systems to efficiently and accurately modify
the operating point to maximize the power collection using maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
technology [9].
With the continuous progress of technology, it is worth noting that MPPT technology for PV
systems still faces some challenges and dilemmas. First of all, under dynamic operating conditions, the
nonlinear characteristics of PV systems become more complex. Over-idealized models such as single
diode models (SDM) may not accurately capture the dynamic behavior of the system in real operation,
pending optimization or transition to more accurate models. Second, despite the rich diversity of
existing MPPT algorithms, most studies have only conducted simulation experiments. They also
mainly optimize for specific conditions, lacking universality and comprehensive adaptability to the
practical operating environment. Additionally, a single algorithm may not be sufficiently advantageous
in the face of increasing demands and system complexity. How to efficiently combine algorithms
under given conditions is also an issue worth discussing [10–12]. Finally, the selection criteria for
choosing the suitable MPPT algorithm/converter combination to achieve better performance in a
given scenario is very limited. This paper attempts to systematically discuss the current research status
and challenges faced by MPPT technology around the above contents. By comparing SDM, double-
diode model (DDM), and less applied triple-diode model (TMD) for PV systems, it was found that
DDM had faster tracking speed and efficiency than SDM, which could be used as the best choice for
more accurate modeling of PV systems MPPT. All four types of algorithms, traditional, intelligent,
optimization, and hybrid, respectively, are studied and discussed. Two latest optimization algorithms
that have not yet been applied to PV MPPT are also provided. The characteristics of the algorithms
and the applicable scenarios are summarized. Besides, the tracking efficiency and conversion efficiency
of different MPPT/non-isolated DC-DC converter combinations are analyzed. Through in-depth
thinking and discussion, more forward-looking solutions to improve the performance of PV systems
are suggested.

2 Current Research Status on Key Issues

2.1 Accurate Modeling of PV Cells
The accurate modeling is essential for the implementation of MPPT techniques in PV systems,
several PV cell models have been proposed in previous literature [13–15], among which the most widely
used models include the single-diode model (SDM) [16–18], DDM and TMD. Then connecting the
models in series or in parallel to form PV arrays can be generalized to PV systems.
SDM simplifies the PV cell as a diode with forward voltage and output current. The light-
induced electron-hole pair formation, voltage generation, and current flow are described. Since fewer
unknown parameters need to be estimated in SDM, it is used to analyze the battery performance
under static conditions in most. DDM considers the reverse saturation current. Whereas, TMD better
considers effects like non-uniformity and temperature. While DDM has more parameters and higher
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2011

computational complexity, it is closer to the actual situation and can more accurately describe the I-
V and P-V characteristic curves of PV cells, especially under non-ideal conditions with better fitting
ability.
References [19,20] conducted simulation studies for MPPT of SDM and DDM PV systems under
various operating conditions. Reference [19] demonstrated that the root mean square error (RMSE)
of DDM and SDM using the same MPPT algorithm is 8.97 ∗ 10−4 , and 9.0 ∗ 10−4 , respectively. The
SDM-based MPPT algorithm also had the lowest RMSE of all the compared algorithms. Reference
[21] extracted unknown parameters and tracked the MPP based on the DDM. Reference [22] adopted
DDM for modeling PV systems closer to the real situation and implemented MPPT under partial
shading and complex PSC. Reference [23] compared the performance of SDM and DDM in the
MPPT technique. The experimental results showed that the DDM provided a more precise response
to the physical behavior of the PV modules, which made the proposed MPPT technique faster and
more accurate than other hybrid MPPT techniques. For example, the tracking speed and efficiency
of the proposed MPPT algorithm based on DDM at an irradiance of 1000 W/m2 and a temperature
of 25°C are 2 ms and 99.88%, respectively. Both were the best among all the compared algorithms,
while the SDM-based one required 135 ms and the efficiency was only 98.70%. The comparison in
Table 1 reveals that the increased accuracy will be accompanied by higher complexity and cost as the
latter two models are based on the first model with an additional number of diodes. Furthermore, this
will also increase the cost of hardware and software required to build and implement these models.
Descriptions of all variables can be found in reference [11].

Table 1: The comparison of three PV models

Model Equivalent circuit Output current & output voltage Remarks
Advantages Disadvantages
VD1
Single-diode + I = IPV − ID1 − Simple and Insufficient
Rs I RP
model [24,25] accessible precision
 V /α V 
+ ID1 ID1 = I01 e D1 1 t −1 High calculating Constrained by low
D1
IPV _ U efficiency irradiance
Rp
Inability to
V = VD − IRS Low cost accurately capture
_
Vt = NS kT/q Changes in
irradiance and
temperature
VD1
Double-diode I = IPV − ID1 − ID2 − More accurate More complex
Rs I +
model [26,27]  V /α V RP
ID1 ID2 ID2 = I01 e D2 2 t − 1 Better adapted to Performance
+ depends on Model
dynamic changing
IPV _ D1 D2 Rp U
conditions parameters
V = VD − IRS Wider range of
_ application
scenarios
Vt = NS kT/q Moderate cost
VD1
Triple-diode
Rs I + I = IPV − ID1 − ID2 − ID3 − More comprehensive Computation
model [28] RP
ID2
modeling complexity
ID1 ID3  
+ ID3 = I03 eVD3 /α3 Vt − 1 More precision More difficult to
IPV _ D3 Rp U adjust parameters
D1 D2
V = VD − IRS Improved response Unnecessary
_ to dynamic complexity due to
operating conditions excessive detail
Vt = NS kT/q High cost
2012 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

2.2 MPPT Algorithms

At present, the research and development of MPPT algorithms for PV systems mainly focus on
several directions, including traditional algorithms, optimization algorithms, intelligent algorithms,
and hybrid algorithms [29–31]. Reference [32] classified sixty-two MPPT algorithms for PV systems
into seven categories in detail and provided a systematic introduction, comprehensive summary,
and comparison of them. Reference [33] investigated the characteristics, implementation methods,
advantages, and weaknesses of different MPPT algorithms under uniform environmental conditions
(UEC) and PSC, as well as summarized their feasibility and bottlenecks under different environmental
conditions.

2.2.1 Conventional Algorithms

The conventional algorithms are more comprehensive in terms of basic research as well as simple
and easy to implement. They are more efficient in the case of uniform irradiance. The most common
conventional algorithms include perturb and observe (P&O) [34], incremental conductance (INC) [35],
constant voltage (CV), constant current (CC) [36], and hill-climbing methods (HC) [37].
P&O and HC both determine the direction in which the optimal output power changes by
introducing a perturbation. The only difference between them is the perturbation parameter. To
track the MPP, the P&O senses and perturbs the voltage or current, while the HC disturbs the duty
cycle. Moreover, the INC is used to determine the optimum operating point by detecting the ratio
of conductance derivative to instantaneous conductance over time. CV uses a reference voltage or a
value fixed under specific conditions to control the MPP voltage of the PV system. Similarly to CV,
CC makes the system operate at a constant current state. The comparison of different conventional
algorithms is shown in Table 2. Reference [38] developed an adaptive P&O MPPT algorithm that can
track the power in 10.1 s that conventional P&O takes 13.8 s to track, achieving fast-tracking of the
MPP with fewer steady-state oscillations. Reference [39] provided a more comprehensive comparison
of 20 classical algorithms. By comparison, it can be found that conventional algorithms suffer from
the problem of oscillations around the MPP, which can lead to power losses. The ability to adapt to
dynamically changing operating conditions is poor, especially under PSC, they tend to fall into local
optimization.

Table 2: A comparison of five conventional algorithms

Algorithm Tracking Tracking Efficiency Complexity Economy Sensed Features
speed accuracy param-
eters
Advantages Disadvantages
P&O Medium High Medium Medium Moderate V , I Simple control structure Higher steady-state power
losses
Few measurement Oscillations around MPP
parameters
High tracking Local optimum under
capabilities PSC
INC Medium High Medium Medium Moderate V , I Less power losses Easily fall into local
optimization
Low oscillations Variable step size requires
frequency around MPP complex and costly
Control circuits
(Continued)
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2013

Table 2 (continued)
Algorithm Tracking Tracking Efficiency Complexity Economy Sensed Features
speed accuracy param-
eters
Advantages Disadvantages
CV Slow Low Low Low Cheap V Simple and easy to Poor tracking capabilities
implement
High stability High power losses
Adapted to small Local optimum under
temperature changes PSC
Dependent on PV module
characteristics
CC Slow Low Low Low Cheap I Simple and easy to Poor tracking capabilities
implement
High stability High power losses
Adapted to small Local optimum under
temperature changes PSC
Dependent on PV module
characteristics
HC Medium Medium Medium Low Moderate V , I Simplicity and easy Low accuracy
Implementation
Independent of PV Difficulty in trading off
module characteristics performance between
steady state and dynamic
response error

2.2.2 Optimization Algorithms

Optimization algorithms inspired by natural processes or behavioral patterns of biologists find
the best solution to a problem from all possible alternatives. They are less likely to fall into a local
optimum under dynamic operating conditions and can be more flexible in solving nonlinear problems
[40,41]. Typical optimization algorithms include particle swarm optimization (PSO) [42], genetic
algorithm (GA) [43], gray wolf optimization (GWO) [44], ant colony optimization (ACO) [45], and
firefly algorithm (FA) [46]. Table 3 compares several of these algorithms [47]. Optimization algorithms
have shown a trend of high number and rapid development due to their diverse sources of inspiration
and simplicity of implementation. Two latest optimization algorithms that have not yet been applied
to PV MPPT will be provided here, which are the puma optimizer (PO) [48] and crested porcupine
optimizer (CPO) [49]. PO was inspired by the natural hunting behavior of cougars, where a male puma
served as the optimal solution and a puma’s territory was the entire optimization space. The algorithm
adopted a novel phase-change hyper-heuristic intelligence mechanism to vary the exploration and
exploitation phases. CPO simulated four defense strategies used by crowned porcupines to protect
themselves from predators: Sight, sound, odor, and physical attack. The results of the study showed
that CPO demonstrated better performance than the comparison algorithms in terms of average
fitness, convergence curve, and computational cost. When applying these two algorithms to PV MPPT,
the stable power output can be directly considered as the corresponding fitness value of the achieved
duty cycle (Dc ). Individuals associated with larger values of fitness indicate that it has a better or higher
quality solution. The fitness values for each control cycle will be determined by collecting the actual
voltage and current.
2014 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

Table 3: Comparative assessment of five optimization MPPT techniques

Algorithm Tracking Tracking Efficiency Complexity Economy Sensed
speed accuracy parameters
PSO High Medium Very high Medium Moderate V, I
GA Medium High High High High V, I
GWO Medium High Very high Medium Moderate V, I
ACO High Medium Very high Low Moderate V, I
FA Medium High High Medium Moderate V, I

2.2.3 Intelligent Algorithms

Intelligent algorithms have the potential to solve many of the problems associated with conven-
tional MPPT methods without complex arithmetic or precise parameters, such as increasing tracking
speed, reducing computation time, and minimizing power fluctuations near the GMPP. Widely used
intelligent algorithms include fuzzy logic control (FLC) [50], sliding mode control (SMC) [51], artificial
neural networks (ANN) [52,53], and Gauss–Newton method [54]. Table 4 compares the parameters
of these four intelligent algorithms. FLC does not depend on the accurate modeling of the PV
system. It has three main stages: Fuzzification, inference, and defuzzification. Simulation results in
both references [50,55] demonstrated that FLC-based MPPT had faster convergence, higher stability
and lower tracking error compared to P&O. The basic principle of SMC is controlling the DC-DC
converter by detecting the DC link capacitor’s current. The SMC extracts the maximum power by
activating an efficient sliding surface switching action. Reference [56] presented the double-integrated
sliding mode controller (DISMC) with 99.10% efficiency and 0.035 s setting time compared to SMC
and the single-integrated sliding mode controller (SISMC). The ANN learns the properties of the
PV system by creating a nonlinear mapping between input and output nodes. It is continuously
training based on the system data to achieve accurate prediction of the output power. Reference [57]
innovatively developed a two-stage MPPT method to achieve improvement and optimization of the
ANN. The results of the cases showed that this improved ANN not only had the shortest tracking
time among the three cases but also achieved a tracking accuracy as high as 99.99%. Reference [58]
categorized the existing intelligent algorithms and fully discussed their advantages and disadvantages.

Table 4: Comparative assessment of four intelligent MPPT techniques

Algorithm Tracking Tracking Efficiency Complexity Economy Sensed
speed accuracy parameters
FLC High High High Low Moderate V, I, G, T
SMC Very high Medium High High Expensive V, I
ANN Medium High High Medium Expensive V, I, G, T
Gauss-newton High Medium High High Moderate V, I
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2015

2.2.4 Hybrid Algorithms

In the face of growing demands and system complexity, researchers have gradually realized
that a single algorithm may not be able to give full play to its advantages. Therefore, hybrid
algorithms have gradually become the mainstream trend, achieving more comprehensive and superior
MPPT performance through the synergistic cooperation of different algorithms. There are three
combinations of hybrid algorithms, which are traditional and traditional algorithms, traditional and
intelligent or optimization algorithms, and intelligent and optimization algorithms. Reference [59]
developed a hybrid approach consisting of the INC and integral back-stepping controller (IBSC),
this method improved the operational efficiency of the PV system to 99.94%. Moreover, INC-IBSC
was approximately 4 times faster than INC in tracking the maximum power. Reference [60] combined
artificial rabbit optimization (ARO) and P&O to make MPPT more efficient and accurate under
different environmental conditions. The results indicated that the algorithm has superior MPPT
performance, with MPPT tracking efficiency and overall system efficiency as high as 96% and 99%,
respectively. Reference [61] proposed a hybrid gravitational search (GS)-pattern search (PS)-artificial
neural network (ANN)-P&O algorithm, which trained the ANN by hybrid GS-PS and P&O started
working when the ANN could not recognize the MPP accurately. The MPPT accuracy of the proposed
algorithm has been increased by 2–8% under different temperature and radiation conditions. Table 5
illustrates a brief comparison of the three hybrid algorithms described above. Reference [62] provided
a more comprehensive overview of the three main types and about ninety hybrid MPPT algorithms.

Table 5: Comparative assessment of three hybrid MPPT techniques

Algorithm Tracking Tracking Efficiency Complexity Economy Sensed
speed accuracy parameters
INC-IBSC High Medium High Medium Moderate V, I
ARO-P&O High High High Medium Moderate V, I
GS-PS-ANN-P&O Very high Very high Very high Very high Very expensive V, I, G, T

2.3 DC-DC Converter Selection

DC-DC converter is one of the important hardware conditions for realizing MPPT in PV systems.
MPPT algorithms generally work together with DC-DC converter to optimize the performance of PV
systems and maximize the energy conversion efficiency under different operating conditions [63–65].
DC-DC converters applied to MPPT in PV systems are mainly non-isolated converters such as buck-
boost [66], single-ended primary inductor converters (SEPIC), Zeta [67], and Cuk [68]. They are
capable of generating higher or lower output signals to better realize the MPPT in the presence of
variations in the external environmental conditions and connected loads.
Reference [12] explored the performance of each MPPT/converter combination consisting of four
converters and three MPPT algorithms. The experimental results under the two arithmetic cases
of constant temperature-irradiance change and fixed irradiance-temperature variation showed that
the performance of the combination formed by the three algorithms with Cuk was outstanding.
In particular, FLC/Cuk demonstrated the best MPPT performance in terms of tracking efficiency,
with average MPPT efficiencies of 99.87% and 99.77%, respectively, and average converter conversion
efficiencies of 89.43% and 89.51%, respectively. Besides, FLC/Zeta only required an average transient
tracking time of 70.91 ms. Reference [69] applied P&O to four converters, buck-boost, Cuk, SEPIC,
2016 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

and Zeta, respectively. The average conversion efficiencies of these converters were 95.780%, 94.779%,
95.788%, and 95.787% at different temperatures, individually. The shortest average setting time was for
buck-boost at 0.04 s, while Cuk had the longest at 0.065 s. In addition, a methodology for selecting the
optimal converter for standalone PV systems is proposed. Reference [70] reviewed MPPT methods
involving six non-isolated converters but did not give corresponding detailed data about MPPT
performance. It concluded that the buck-boost converter was characterized by higher performance
and lower power losses, making it the best choice for low-power loads.

3 Discussion and Perspectives

MPPT technology for PV systems has made noteworthy progress in existing research, but still
faces a series of challenges and opportunities:
a) High-precision modeling for PV systems will bring about high complexity and high-cost issues.
In the future, a reasonable balance between model accuracy, cost, and system complexity
should be considered. In addition, it was discovered during the discussion that the number of
studies applying TMD to the PV systems MPPT was currently limited. This can be extended
and explored more.
b) The conventional MPPT methods are simple in principle and hardware implementation,
but they have low accuracy, slow speed, and tend to oscillate around the MPP. They are
suitable for MPPT under uniform conditions. Intelligent algorithms do not require precise
mathematical models and have high tracking efficiency. However, the realization cost is high
and not widely used in PV MPPT. Optimization algorithms are applicable to complex nonlinear
systems. Especially under PSC, it is the best choice to realize MPPT. However, they are highly
stochastic and more dependent on the parameter settings. It will take a lot of time and effort
to continuously tune the parameters.
c) Hybrid algorithms integrate the advantages of different algorithms, and their validation has
been verified. Such algorithms suffer from the disadvantages of high complexity and long
development cycles. With the help of deep learning, real-time data mining, multi-converter
fusion, and other techniques, further exploration and research can be carried out on how to
choose the right combination of algorithms for specific operating conditions.
d) Although many algorithms have been proposed to realize MPPT in PV systems, they only stay
in the laboratory environment and simulation testing stage. When applied to large-scale PV
systems, some algorithms might lead to fluctuations in the operating point, reducing system
stability. Hardware-in-loop (HIL) is often used to evaluate the hardware implementation ability
of a system. It puts part of the system hardware into the software simulation loop, which
can compensate for the absolute idealization of purely digital simulation and improve the
confidence of the whole model. By utilizing HIL, researchers are able to further validate the
MPPT performance of various algorithms in real applications.
e) Despite many comparative studies on DC-DC converters and MPPT algorithms in the field
of PV systems, the selection criterion that defines the selection of the suitable combination
of MPPT algorithms/converters for PV systems to achieve better performance is very limited.
That could be achieved by using a multi-objective optimization approach, which integrates
evaluation metrics, e.g., the efficiency, stability, and response time of the PV systems. The fuzzy
mathematics can be used to calculate the satisfaction of the Pareto optimal frontier solution
and select the solution with the largest satisfaction as the compromise optimal solution. The
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2017

weights are taken to obtain the final score of each combination. A potential advantage of multi-
objective optimization is the ability to reveal interrelationships between different optimization
objectives, such as trade-offs or conflicts that may exist between certain objectives.

4 Conclusions
This paper provides a systematic discussion of the current research status and challenges faced
by PV MPPT technologies around the three aspects of MPPT models, algorithms, and hardware
implementation. It also puts forward positive perspectives on future development. Specifically, the
major conclusions claimed in this paper are as follows:
a) Improving the accuracy of PV systems models requires a reasonable balance between model
complexity and economic cost, rather than blindly increasing accuracy. By comparing SDM,
DDM, and TMD for PV systems, it was found that DDM had faster tracking speed and
efficiency than SDM, which could be used as the best choice for more accurate modeling of
PV systems MPPT.
b) Four types of algorithms are studied and discussed. Conventional MPPT algorithms are
suitable for uniform conditions. Intelligent algorithms do not require accurate mathematical
modeling and tracking efficiency is high. Optimization algorithms under PSC are the best
choice to implement MPPT. Two latest optimization algorithms that have not yet been
applied to PV MPPT are provided. Furthermore, hybrid algorithms are more effective in
PSC and rapidly changing environmental conditions. Combining multiple algorithms builds
on strengths and avoids weaknesses.
c) Various MPPT algorithms for PV systems have been developed, but most of them are only
simulation experiments. Nevertheless, it is also necessary to compensate for the absolute
idealization of purely digital simulations with the help of HIL experiments. Evaluate the
hardware implementation ability of the system. Especially under dynamic operation and large-
scale application conditions.
d) Hybrid algorithms have great potential to select the right combination of algorithms for
specific operating conditions with the help of techniques such as deep learning, real-time data
mining, and multi-converter fusion.
e) Non-isolated DC-DC converters still dominate. Buck-boost converters are characterized by
high performance and low power losses, making them the best choice for low power loads.
Besides, the FLC/Cuk combination always shows excellent efficiency performance, no matter
how the irradiance, temperature, or load varies. This combination has great potential. By inte-
grating the evaluation metrics of efficiency, stability, and response time of the PV systems using
a multi-objective optimization approach. It is expected to help find the MPPT algorithms/DC-
DC converters combination with optimal performance.

Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the Intelligent Electric Power
Grid Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province.

Funding Statement: The authors received funding from the Open Fund Project of Intelligent Electric
Power Grid Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province under Grant (2023-IEPGKLSP-KFYB03) and
Yunnan Provincial Basic Research Project (202301AT070443).
Author Contributions: The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: Conceptualization,
methodology, resources, validation: Bo Yang; investigation, data collection, writing-original draft and
2018 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

editing, analysis and interpretation of results: Rui Xie; visualization and contributed to the discussion
of the topic: Zhengxun Guo. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the
manuscript.
Availability of Data and Materials: The authors confirm that the data used in this study are available
on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the
present study.

References
1. M. Mansoor, A. F. Mirza, and Q. Ling, “Harris hawk optimization-based MPPT control for PV
systems under partial shading conditions,” J. Clean Prod., vol. 274, pp. 1–19, Nov. 2020. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122857.
2. K. Obaideen et al., “Solar energy: Applications, trends analysis, bibliometric analysis and research con-
tribution to sustainable development goals (SDGs),” Sustain., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–34, Jan. 2023. doi:
10.3390/su15021418.
3. B. Yang et al., “Salp swarm optimization algorithm based MPPT design for PV-TEG hybrid sys-
tem under partial shading conditions,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 292, pp. 1–27, Sep. 2023. doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117410.
4. B. Yang, R. Xie, J. H. Duan, and J. B. Wang, “State-of-the-art review of MPPT techniques for hybrid PV-
TEG systems: Modeling, methodologies, and perspectives,” Glob. Energy Interconnect., vol. 6, no. 5, pp.
567–591, Oct. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.gloei.2023.10.005.
5. B. Yang et al., “A critical survey of technologies of large offshore wind farm integration: Summary,
advances, and perspectives,” Prot. Control Mod. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–32, Dec. 2022. doi:
10.1186/s41601-022-00239-w.
6. B. Yang et al., “Comprehensive summary of solid oxide fuel cell control: A state-of-the-art review,” Prot.
Control Mod. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–31, Dec. 2022. doi: 10.1186/s41601-022-00251-0.
7. S. Verma, S. Mohapatra, S. Chowdhury, and G. Dwivedi, “Cooling techniques of the PV module: A review,”
Mater. Today Proc., vol. 38, pp. 253–258, Feb. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.130.
8. M. A. Fin, D. Gharapetian, and M. Asgari, “Efficiency improvement of hybrid PV-TEG system based on
an energy, exergy, energy-economic and environmental analysis; experimental, mathematical and numerical
approaches,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 265, pp. 1–28, Aug. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115767.
9. S. Rezazadeh et al., “Photovoltaic array reconfiguration under partial shading conditions for maximum
power extraction: A state-of-the-art review and new solution method,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 258, pp.
1–36, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115468.
10. A. K. Sharma et al., “Role of metaheuristic approaches for implementation of integrated MPPT-PV systems:
A comprehensive study,” Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–48, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.3390/math11020269.
11. B. Yang et al., “PV arrays reconfiguration for partial shading mitigation: Recent advances, challenges and
perspectives,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 247, pp. 1–28, Nov. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114738.
12. J. L. Seguel, S. I. Seleme Jr, and L. M. F. Morais, “Comparative study of Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Cuk and Zeta
DC-DC converters using different MPPT methods for photovoltaic applications,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 21,
pp. 1–26, Nov. 2022. doi: 10.3390/en15217936.
13. A. M. Humada, M. Hojabri, S. Mekhilef, and H. M. Hamada, “Solar cell parameters extraction based on
single and double-diode models: A review,” Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., vol. 56, pp. 494–509, Apr. 2016. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.051.
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2019

14. D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar, “Metaheuristic algorithms for PV parameter identification: A comprehensive
review with an application to threshold setting for fault detection in PV systems,” Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.,
vol. 82, pp. 3503–3525, Feb. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.107.
15. H. F. M. Romero, “Applications of artificial intelligence to photovoltaic systems: A review,” Appl. Sci., vol.
12, no. 19, pp. 1–31, Oct. 2022. doi: 10.3390/app121910056.
16. Z. Kesilmiş, M. A. Karabacak, and M. Aksoy, “A novel MPPT method based on inflection voltages,” J.
Clean Prod., vol. 266, pp. 1–12, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121473.
17. A. F. Mirza, M. Mansoor, K. Zhan, and Q. Ling, “High-efficiency swarm intelligent maximum power point
tracking control techniques for varying temperature and irradiance,” Energy, vol. 228, pp. 1–27, Aug. 2021.
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120602.
18. B. Yang et al., “Dynamic leader based collective intelligence for maximum power point tracking of PV
systems affected by partial shading condition,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 179, pp. 286–303, Jan. 2019. doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.074.
19. L. Thangamuthu, J. R. Albert, K. Chinnanan, and B. Gnanavel, “Design and development of extract maxi-
mum power from single-double diode PV model for different environmental condition using BAT optimiza-
tion algorithm,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1091–1102, Jun. 2022. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-213241.
20. K. Chennoufi, M. Ferfra, and M. Mokhlis, “Design and implementation of efficient MPPT controllers
based on SDM and DDM using backstepping control and SEPIC converter,” presented at the 2021 9th Int.
Renew. Sustain. Energ. Conf., Morocco, Nov. 23–27, 2021.
21. M. Leelavathi and V. S. Kumar, “Deep neural network algorithm for MPPT control of double
diode equation based PV module,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 62, pp. 4764–4771, Aug. 2022. doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.340.
22. M. H. Zafar, N. M. Khan, A. F. Mirza, and M. Mansoor, “Bio-inspired optimization algorithms based
maximum power point tracking technique for photovoltaic systems under partial shading and complex
partial shading conditions,” J. Clean Prod., vol. 309, pp. 1–18, Aug. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127279.
23. M. C. Cavalcanti, F. Bradaschia, A. J. do Nascimento, G. M. S. Azevedo, and E. J. Barbosa, “Hybrid
maximum power point tracking technique for PV modules based on a double-diode model,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 8169–8181, Sep. 2021. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2020.3009592.
24. S. Senthilkumar, V. Mohan, S. P. Mangaiyarkarasi, and M. Karthikeyan, “Analysis of single-diode PV
model and optimized MPPT model for different environmental conditions,” Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst.,
vol. 2022, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2022. doi: 10.1155/2022/4980843.
25. E. J. Barbosa, M. C. Cavalcanti, G. M. S. Azevedo, R. C. Neto, E. A. O. Barbosa and F. Bradaschia, “Hybrid
GMPPT technique for photovoltaic series based on fractional characteristic curve,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol.
14, no. 1, pp. 170–177, Jan. 2024. doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2023.3323774.
26. N. Priyadarshi, P. Sanjeevikumar, M. S. Bhaskar, F. Azam, and S. M. Muyeen, “An improved standalone
photovoltaic system with hybrid dual integral sliding mode and model predictive control for MPPT,” IET
Renew. Power Gener., pp. 1–15, Sep. 2023. doi: 10.1049/rpg2.12665.
27. E. J. Barbosa, M. C. Cavalcanti, G. M. D. Souza Azevedo, E. A. O. Barbosa, F. Bradaschia and L. R.
Limongi, “Global hybrid maximum power point tracking for PV modules based on a double-diode model,”
IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 158440–158455, Nov. 2021. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3131096.
28. P. A. Cotfas and D. T. Cotfas, “Comprehensive review of methods and instruments for photovoltaic-
thermoelectric generator hybrid system characterization,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 22, pp. 1–32, Nov. 2020.
doi: 10.3390/en13226045.
29. B. Sangeetha, K. Manjunatha, P. T. Kumaran, A. Sheela, K. S. Yamuna and S. Sivakumar, “Performance
optimization in photovoltaic systems: A review,” Arch. Comput. Method Eng., pp. 1–12, Nov. 2023. doi:
10.1007/s11831-023-10023-0.
2020 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

30. A. Mohapatra, B. Nayak, P. Das, and K. B. Mohanty, “A review on MPPT techniques of PV sys-
tem under partial shading condition,” Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., vol. 80, pp. 854–867, Dec. 2017. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.083.
31. R. B. Bollipo, S. Mikkili, and P. K. Bonthagorla, “Hybrid, optimal, intelligent and classical PV MPPT
techniques: A review,” CSEE J. Power Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 9–33, Mar. 2021. doi: 10.17775/CSEE-
JPES.2019.02720.
32. B. Yang et al., “Comprehensive overview of maximum power point tracking algorithms of PV systems under
partial shading condition,” J. Clean Prod., vol. 268, pp. 1–24, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121983.
33. J. L. Li, Y. W. Wu, S. L. Ma, M. X. Chen, B. P. Zhang and B. Jiang, “Analysis of photovoltaic array maximum
power point tracking under uniform environment and partial shading condition: A review,” Energy Rep.,
vol. 8, pp. 13235–13252, Nov. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.09.192.
34. R. Alik and A. Jusoh, “An enhanced P&O checking algorithm MPPT for high tracking efficiency of partially
shaded PV module,” Sol. Energy, vol. 163, pp. 570–580, Mar. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.12.050.
35. I. Owusu-Nyarko, M. A. Elgenedy, I. Abdelsalam, and K. H. Ahmed, “Modified variable step-size
incremental conductance MPPT technique for photovoltaic systems,” Electron., vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 1–18,
Oct. 2021. doi: 10.3390/electronics10192331.
36. H. Q. Wang, L. Vinayagam, H. Jiang, Z. Q. Cai, and H. Q. Li, “New MPPT solar generation implemented
with constant-voltage constant-current DC/DC converte,” presented at the 2016 51st Int. Univ. Power Eng.
Conf., Coimbra Inst Engn, Coimbra Inst Engn, Coimbra, Portugal, Sep. 6–9, 2016.
37. M. I. Bahari, P. Tarassodi, Y. M. Naeini, A. K. Khalilabad, and P. Shirazi, “Modeling and simulation of hill
climbing MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic application,” presented at the 2016 Int. Symp. Power Electron.,
Electr. Drives, Autom. Motion, Capri, Italy, Jun. 22–24, 2016.
38. A. Mohapatra, B. Nayak, and C. Saiprakash, “Adaptive perturb & observe MPPT for PV system with exper-
imental validation,” presented at the 2019 IEEE Int. Conf. Sustain. Energy Technol. Syst., Bhubaneswar,
India, Feb. 26–Mar. 1, 2019.
39. M. Kumar, K. P. Panda, J. C. Rosas-Caro, A. Valderrabano-Gonzalez, and G. Panda, “Comprehensive
review of conventional and emerging maximum power point tracking algorithms for uniformly and
partially shaded solar photovoltaic systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 31778–31812, May 2023. doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3262502.
40. B. Yang et al., “Novel bio-inspired memetic salp swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV
systems considering partial shading condition,” J. Clean Prod., vol. 215, pp. 1203–1222, Apr. 2019. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.150.
41. D. Molina, J. Poyatos, J. D. Ser, S. García, A. Hussain and F. Herrera, “Comprehensive taxonomies of
nature-and bio-inspired optimization: Inspiration versus algorithmic behavior, critical analysis recommen-
dations,” Cogn. Comput., vol. 12, pp. 897–939, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s12559-020-09730-8.
42. L. Q. Pan, Y. Zhao, and L. H. Li, “Neighborhood-based particle swarm optimization with discrete
crossover for nonlinear equation systems,” Swarm Evol. Comput., vol. 69, pp. 1–11, Mar. 2022. doi:
10.1016/j.swevo.2021.101019.
43. A. Hassan, O. Bass, and M. A. S. Masoum, “An improved genetic algorithm based fractional open
circuit voltage MPPT for solar PV systems,” Energy Rep., vol. 9, pp. 1535–1548, Dec. 2023. doi:
10.1016/j.egyr.2022.12.088.
44. K. Sekar, E. Arasan, and K. Chandrasekaran, “Grey wolf optimization and fed fast terminal sliding mode
controllers based on interleaved boost converters for symmetric PV systems under asymmetric partial
shading,” Symmetry, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1–14, Jul. 2023. doi: 10.3390/sym15071339.
45. R. K. Phanden, L. Sharma, J. Chhabra, and H. I. Demir, “A novel modified ant colony optimization based
maximum power point tracking controller for photovoltaic systems,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 38, no. 15,
pp. 89–93, Feb. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.06.020.
EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8 2021

46. R. B. Watanabe et al., “Implementation of the bio-inspired metaheuristic firefly algorithm (FA) applied to
maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic systems,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 15, pp. 1–15, Aug. 2022. doi:
10.3390/en15155338.
47. H. M. H. Farh, A. Fathy, A. A. Al-Shamma’a, S. Mekhilef, and A. M. Al-Shaalan, “Global research
trends on photovoltaic maximum power extraction: Systematic and scientometric analysis,” Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess., vol. 61, pp. 1–20, Jan. 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2023.103585.
48. B. Abdollahzadeh et al., “Puma optimizer (PO): A novel metaheuristic optimization algorithm and its
application in machine learning,” Cluster Comput., pp. 1–49, Jan. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10586-023-04221-5.
49. M. Abdel-Basset, R. Mohamed, and M. Abouhawwash, “Crested porcupine optimizer: A
new nature-inspired metaheuristic,” Knowl. Based Syst., vol. 284, pp. 1–42, Jan. 2024. doi:
10.1016/j.knosys.2023.111257.
50. F. Yahiaoui et al., “Experimental validation and intelligent control of a stand-alone solar energy
conversion system using dSPACE platform,” Front Energy Res., vol. 10, pp. 1–12, Aug. 2022. doi:
10.3389/fenrg.2022.971384.
51. N. Priyadarshi, P. K. Maroti, and B. Khan, “An adaptive grid integrated photovoltaic system with perturb
T-S fuzzy based sliding mode controller MPPT tracker: An experimental realization,” IET Renew. Power
Gener., pp. 1–11, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.1049/rpg2.12738.
52. M. Khan, M. A. Raza, T. A. Jumani, and S. Mirsaeidi, “Modeling of intelligent controllers for solar
photovoltaic system under varying irradiation conditions,” Front Energy Res., vol. 11, pp. 1–15, Nov. 2023.
doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2023.1288486.
53. A. G. Olabi et al., “Artificial neural networks applications in partially shaded PV systems,” Therm. Sci. Eng.
Prog., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–23, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.tsep.2022.101612.
54. A. M. Farayola, A. N. Hasan, and A. Ali, “Efficient photovoltaic MPPT system using coarse Gaussian
support vector machine and artificial neural network techniques,” Int. J. Innov. Comp. Inf. Control., vol. 14,
no. 1, pp. 323–339, Feb. 2018. doi: 10.24507/ijicic.14.01.323.
55. F. Tahiri, A. Harrouz, and I. Colak, “Analysis of the MPPT techniques used on the PV system in
comparison, including the perturbation & observation approach, sliding mode control, and fuzzy logic
control,” presented at the 2023 11th Int. Conf. Smart Grid, Paris, France, Jun. 4–7, 2023.
56. I. Rahul and R. Hariharan, “Enhancement of solar PV panel efficiency using double integral slid-
ing mode MPPT control,” Tsinghua Sci. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 271–283, Feb. 2024. doi:
10.26599/TST.2023.9010030.
57. S. P. Ye, Y. H. Liu, H. Y. Pai, A. Sangwongwanich, and F. Blaabjerg, “A novel ANN-based GMPPT method
for PV systems under complex partial shading conditions,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy., vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
328–338, Jan. 2024. doi: 10.1109/TSTE.2023.3284866.
58. H. Cheng, S. W. Li, Z. P. Fan, and L. W. Liu, “Intelligent MPPT control methods for photovoltaic system:
A review,” presented at the 2021 33rd Chin. Control Decis. Conf., Kunming, China, May 22–24, 2021, pp.
22–24.
59. A. Harrison, N. H. Alombah, and J. D. N. Ndongmo, “A new hybrid MPPT based on incremental
conductance-integral back stepping controller applied to a PV system under fast-changing operating
conditions,” Int. J. Photoenergy, vol. 2023, pp. 1–17, Feb. 2023. doi: 10.1155/2023/9931481.
60. G. G. S. Kumar and S. Titus, “Hybrid artificial rabbit optimization and perturb & observe
MPPT for grid-connected PV system,” Electr. Power Compon. Syst., pp. 1–22, Aug. 2023. doi:
10.1080/15325008.2023.2249885.
61. S. Alkhalaf, Z. M. Ali, and H. Oikawa, “A novel hybrid gravitational and pattern search algorithm based
MPPT controller with ANN and perturb and observe for photovoltaic system,” Soft Comput., vol. 26, no.
15, pp. 7293–7315, Aug. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00500-022-07139-z.
62. H. M. Liu, M. Y. A. Khan, and X. L. Yuan, “Hybrid maximum power extraction methods for photovoltaic
systems: A comprehensive review,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 15, pp. 1–64, Aug. 2023. doi: 10.3390/en16155665.
2022 EE, 2024, vol.121, no.8

63. W. H. Tan and J. Mohamad-Saleh, “Critical review on interrelationship of electro-devices in PV solar

systems with their evolution and future prospects for MPPT applications,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–37,
Jan. 2023. doi: 10.3390/en16020850.
64. F. Mumtaz, N. Z. Yahaya, S. T. Meraj, B. Singh, R. Kannan and O. Ibrahim, “Review on non-isolated DC-
DC converters and their control techniques for renewable energy applications,” Ain Shams Eng. J., vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 3747–3763, Dec. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2021.03.022.
65. A. Ba, C. O. Ehssein, M. E. M. O. M. Mahmoud, O. Hamdoun, and A. Elhassen, “Comparative study of
different DC/DC power converter for optimal PV system using MPPT (P&O) method,” Appl. Sol. Energy.,
vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 235–245, Jul. 2018. doi: 10.3103/S0003701X18040047.
66. D. F. Zaions, A. J. Balbino, C. L. Baratieri, and A. L. Stankiewicz, “Comparative analysis of buck and
boost converters applied to different maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems,”
presented at the 2021 33rd Chin. Control Decis. Conf., Juiz de Fora, Brazil, Nov. 19–22, 2017.
67. A. Raj, S. R. Arya, and J. Gupta, “Solar PV array-based DC-DC converter with MPPT for low power
applications,” Renew. Energ. Focus., vol. 34, pp. 109–119, Sep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ref.2020.05.003.
68. H. Gholizadeh, S. A. Gorji, E. Afjei, and D. Sera, “Design and implementation of a new Cuk-based step-up
DC-DC converter,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 1–18, Nov. 2021. doi: 10.3390/en14216975.
69. L. J. Jotham, C. A. Ooi, and J. Teh, “Non-isolated conventional DC-DC converter comparison for a
photovoltaic system: A review,” J. Renew. Sustain. Energy., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–22, Jan. 2020. doi:
10.1063/1.5095811.
70. K. V. G. Raghavendra et al., “A comprehensive review of DC-DC converter topologies and modulation
strategies with recent advances in solar photovoltaic systems,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–41, Jan. 2020.
doi: 10.3390/electronics9010031.