Review of PV MPPT Based Battery Charging

Techniques Under Partial Shading Conditions

Aarti S. Pawar Mahesh T. Kolte Hrishikesh Mehta
2022 Second International Conference on Power, Control and Computing Technologies (ICPC2T) | 978-1-6654-5858-0/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICPC2T53885.2022.9776958

Department of Electronics Department of Electronics Research and Development

and Telecommunication Engineering, and Telecommunication Engineering, Aethertec Innovative Solutions
Pimpri Chinchwad College of Engineering, Pimpri Chinchwad College of Engineering, Pune, India
Savitribai Phule Pune University, Savitribai Phule Pune University, mehta.hrishi@gmail.com
Pune, India Pune, India
aarti.pawar@pccoepune.org mahesh.kolte@pccoepune.org

Abstract—Photovoltaic (PV) power systems installations on
rooftops of commercial and residential buildings have increased
rapidly. Electrical energy storage (EES) systems are required to
ensure continuous power delivery in standalone PV systems and
need maximum power point tracking (MPPT) to improve their
efficiency. However, many commercially available solar charge
controllers are ineffectual to track the MPP point during partial
shading conditions, thus reducing the output of PV systems when
connected to an array of PV panels. This paper provides a
comprehensive review of MPPT based battery charge controller
(BCC) to solve this problem. This study presents methods to
improve the efficiency of a low-cost PV based BCC under partial
shading conditions.
Index Terms—PV, Battery, Charge Controller, MPPT, Partial
Shading
I. I NTRODUCTION
Solar energy has emerged as one of the world’s most impor-
tant renewable energy sources due to its unique characteristics
and widespread availability. It has also emerged as a viable
alternative to address energy constraints. Solar energy has
several advantages, including being environmentally friendly,
pollution-free, readily available, and requiring little mainte-
nance [1], [2].
The efficiency of solar PV reduces substantially due to
inconsistent features of solar-based PV and atmospheric cir-
cumstances. As a result, the maximum energy production
of a solar PV system deviates with a change in irradiance
and weather conditions. The authors discuss various MPPT
strategies in depth in [3]. To extract the most power from
a PV panel or a string of PV panels, MPPT methods are
utilised in many PV applications such as PV grid-tied inverters,
PV fed motor pump controllers and other PV applications.
In contrast to PV energy instantly getting used by load,
a battery storage unit need continual monitoring of battery
characteristics to avoid over-voltage, over-temperature, and
over-current problems. Hence, along with MPPT techniques,
a BCC is essential for maximum electricity storage generated
by PV.
The main purpose of a battery charge controller is to:
978-1-6654-5858-0/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
• Charge the battery. It aids in tracking the MPP regardless
of irradiation changes.
• It shortens the time taken to charge the batteries that back
up the PV arrays [4], [5].
Various MPPT techniques exist for this purpose. However,
they do not necessarily meet the expectations of a large PV
string and partial shading conditions. Partial shading of solar
panels occurs due to the shifting of clouds or surrounding
objects. This result in a loss of efficiency. Providing individual
BCC for each solar panel may reduce the problem of partial
shadowing. However, it may still degrade the efficiency due
to parasitic effects in the battery and due to imbalance of
power in each charger [6]. To highlight the need for an
advanced MPPT based BCC considering the effect of partial
shading, a review of both conventional and recent techniques
developed for MPPT charge controllers is presented in this
paper. Articles from various recent conferences, Scopus and
SCI indexed journals are considered for the review. In this
study, 32 MPPT BCC techniques are categorically compared
based on their efficiency, requirement of sensors, algorithm
complexity, convergence speed and cost. This research may
aid the developer or user in selecting the MPPT BCC approach
that best suits the application’s needs.
This paper is organized as follows: Section I introduction is
followed by a brief description of types of PV based battery
charge controllers with a basic block diagram in Section II.
Section III describes the working and usefulness of a PV
MPPT based BCC with an example. Section IV provides the
comprehensive categorical comparison of various PV MPPT
BCC techniques considering the effect of partial shading while
Section V concludes the paper with directions towards future
work.
II. S OLAR PV BCC
A solar BCC is essentially a voltage (V) or current (I) based
controller for charging the battery and preventing overcharging
of the electric cells. It is responsible for directing the V and
I from the solar panels to the electric–cell. A basic schematic

Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 diagram of a solar BCC is illustrated in Fig. 1. Various DC–
to–DC converters like a buck, boost, buck-boost, SEPIC, Cuk,
Landsman and many more are employed to convert variable
input from PV to constant output as required by the battery in
different charge controllers. Buck-boost is popular due to its
ease of control and low–cost [7].
Fig. 1. Basic schematic diagram of a solar BCC [8]
Solar charge controllers are classified into three categories:
• Controllers with only one or two stages
• Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) based
• MPPT based
A. Controllers with only one or two stages
Shunt transistors are used to control the voltage in one
or two stages. When a particular voltage is reached, this
controller simply shorts the solar panel. Their constant quality
is their major true fuel for maintaining such an infamous image
- with so few parts, there is virtually brittle.
B. PWM based
PWM BCC is currently regarded as the industry–standard.
The PWM BCCs have higher efficiency than conventional
charge controllers and are suitable for panels up to 200 W.
C. MPPT based
In today’s solar systems, the MPPT solar BCC is the shining
star. These controllers accurately determine the solar panel’s
optimal operating voltage and amperage and match it to the
electric cell bank. In comparison to a PWM controller, this
results in an additional 10−30% greater power from your sun-
oriented cluster. They are typically preferred for panels with
more than 200W capacity. However, it is observed that none
of the low-cost charge controllers available today addresses
the issue of partial shading.
III. MPPT SOLAR CHARGE CONTROLLER
The PWM based BCCs have a straight connection from
the PV string to the battery and modulate or regulate the
battery charging using a simple ‘quick switch’. the switch
(or transistor) is open before the battery absorbs the charge
voltage. The switch then begins to switch-ON and switch-OFF
rapidly (×100/sec.) in order to regulate the current and keep
Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the battery–voltage constant. This is functional, however, the
PV voltage is reduced to match the battery voltage. As a result,
the panel voltage is pulled–away from its MPP, lowering the
panel’s power output and efficiency. When one or two solar
panels are utilized, PWM based solar charge controller is the
most economical choice for modest 12V systems, such as solar
illumination and USB chargers [9].
Fig. 2. Difference between PWM and MPPT BCCs [9]
Fig. 3. Solar PV characteristic during partial shading [10]
MPPT charge controllers are considerably more advanced
than PWM controllers as they allow the PV panel to run at
its MPP. The efficiency of MPPT PV BCC can be up to 30%
more with this technique. An MPPT based BCC is a high-
efficiency DC-to-DC converter that helps PV panels produce
more electricity. As the voltage of the PV panel fluctuates
due to a change in irradiance, the MPP tracker sweeps over
the panel voltage to identify the ’best-spot-location’ to extract
maximum power. Regardless of weather conditions or the
time of day, the MPPT is intended to continuously track and
regulate the voltage to generate maximum electricity.
An example of the difference between PWM and MPPT
BCCs is shown in Fig. 2. A sixty cell (24V) PV panel with
a 32V (Vmp ) is connected to a 12V battery using both BCCs.
In the PWM technique, PV voltage drops to match the battery
voltage, thus resulting in a significant loss of energy. In the
MPPT technique, the PV panel operates at its MPP, thus gener-
ating more energy. Perturb and observe (P&O) and incremental
conductance (InC) are popular MPPT algorithms employed in
these charge controllers along with battery charging algorithms
to improve the efficiency of charging.
 The power-voltage (P − V ) characteristic of a PV array
has one peak-point under uniform irradiation, therefore the
MPP of a PV array may be followed precisely using the
aforementioned standard techniques. In actuality, however, the
P-V curve of a PV array has multi-modal features owing
to changing surroundings such as partial shade from clouds,
trees, buildings, and dust as shown in Fig. 3. MPP tracking
can effortlessly slip into a particular peak point when using
standard MPPT techniques, resulting in a decrease in solar
energy use. As a result, it’s crucial to figure out how to prevent
slipping into effectively localizing optimum global MPP. At
the most, high-end MPPT controllers can determine partial
shading or track multiple power points to improve efficiency
and hence there is a need to develop such controllers at a
commercially viable scale.
IV. I MPROVED MPPT C HARGE C ONTROLLERS
C ONSIDERING PARTIAL S HADING C ONDITIONS
Fig. 4. Modified P&O MPPT Algorithm [13]
Recently, MPPT algorithms that can track global maximum
power point (GMPP) are being explored by researchers across
the globe aggressively. Various artificial intelligence algo-
rithms and optimization techniques are being employed for
this purpose [11]. This section provides an overview of recent
developments to evaluate the suitability of these techniques for
solar PV battery charge controllers. Different algorithms make
use of different sensors such as PV voltage (V), current (I),
irradiance (G) and temperature (T). The techniques presented
in the literature are categorized as follows:
A. Modification of Conventional Algorithms
P&O and InC are the two most commonly used algorithms
for PV MPP tracking [12]. However, for an array of PV panels,
these algorithms give a poor response. Hence, modifications
in these algorithms are necessary to extract MP from a string
of PV panels. Modified P&O MPPT algorithm is shown in
Fig. 4 to calculate MPP in case of two panels connected in
series [13]. To extract the MP from the panels, the voltage of
every single panel is considered individually to calculate the
total duty cycle of the converter. Hence, the number of sensors
required to implement this algorithm increases. However, this
algorithm fails to converge fast in case the number of panels
Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
increases substantially. Fig. 4 demonstrates an example of how
the conventional P&O algorithm can be modified. Similarly,
modified InC [14], modifications such as changes in step-size
[15], steady output and fast-tracking SOFT-MPPT [16] and
model predictive control (MPC) [17], [18] algorithms have
been claimed to improve the tracking efficiency.
B. Optimization Methods
Fig. 5. PSO based MPPT algorithm [25]
The particle swarm optimization (PSO) [25] is one of the
most popular algorithms used to extract GMPP from a string
of PV panels. PSO based MPPT scheme/algorithm is shown
in Fig. 5 in which n number of panels are considered particles.
This algorithm not only gives the individual best MPP value
but also gives GMPP in case of partial shading. However, it
is observed that sudden dips are observed until the iterations
converge in this method. Other methods such as cuckoo search
(CS) [19], ant-colony optimization (ACO) [20], bee colony
optimization (BCO) [21], bat optimization (BO) [22], salp-
swarm optimization (SSO) [23], genetic algorithm (GA) [24],
differential evolution (DE) [25], simulated annealing (SA)
[26], lookup table approach [27] and memetic salp-swarm
algorithm (MSSA) [28] were used for global optimization
and have proved to achieve suitable results. A cuckoo search
based MPPT algorithm is shown in Fig. 6 wherein panels
are considered as hosts nests. In this algorithm, a maximum
number of iterations can be determined along with the MPP
point of the most shaded panel. This panel is then abandoned
 TABLE I
VARIOUS MPPT TECHNIQUES CONSIDERING PARTIAL SHADING USEFUL FOR CHARGE CONTROLLERS

Sr. No. MPPT Technique Category Efficiency Sensors Reqd. Complexity Convergence Speed Cost
1. P&O [12] Popular Medium V and I Low Varies Low
2. InC [12] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium Varies Medium
3. Modified P&O [13] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium High Medium
4. Modified InC [14] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium High Medium
5. Dual Scaled Adaptive Step -Size [15] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium High Low
6. SOFT-MPPT [16] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium High Low
7. MPC [17] Popular Medium-High V and I Medium High Medium
8. PSO [25] Popular High V and I Medium Varies Medium
9. Cuckoo Search [19] Popular High V and I Medium Varies Low- Medium
10. ACO [b20] Optimization High V and I Medium-High High Medium
11. BCO [21] Optimization High V and I Medium Very High Medium
12. BO [22] Optimization High V and I Medium-High High Medium
13. SSO [23] Optimization High V and I High Very High Medium
14. GA [24] Optimization High V and I High High Medium
15. DE [25] Optimization High V and I Low-Medium High Medium
16. MSSA [28] Optimization Very High V, G, and T High High High
17. Lookup Table [27] Optimization High V, I, T and G Low Medium Medium
18. SA [26] Optimization High V and I Medium Varies High
19. ANN [29] AI/ML Very High G and T Medium High High
20. FL [30] AI/ML Medium-High V and I Medium Medium-High Medium
21. ANFIS [31] AI/ML Very High G and T High High High
22. FNN [32] AI/ML High G and T High High High
23. Q-learning [33] AI/ML High V and I High High Medium
24. PSO/FL [36] Hybrid High V and I High High Medium
25. GA/ANN [37] Hybrid High V, T, and G High High High
26. SVM / P&O [38] Hybrid High V, I and G High High Medium-High
27. FL/InC [39] Hybrid High V and I Medium High Medium
28. ACO / P&O [40] Hybrid High V and I Medium Very High Medium
29. ANN / P&O or InC [40] Hybrid High V and I Medium High High
30. GWO / P&O [40] Hybrid High V and I Medium High Medium
31. PSO / P&O [40] Hybrid High V and I Medium High Medium
32. FL / P&O [40] Hybrid High V and I Medium High Medium

to restructure the algorithm to find the new best MPP. It

Fig. 6. Cuckoo Search based MPPT Algorithm [19]
requires a fast-acting controller to execute this algorithm.
C. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)
based MPPT Algorithms
Recently, AI and ML-based algorithms are being widely
used for data analytics. These algorithms effectively can track
MPP based on various inputs over time. The algorithms can
be trained to consider the partial shading effect on PV string
and can thus overcome it. Various algorithms like artificial
neural network (ANN) [29], fuzzy logic (FL) [30], Adaptive
Neuro-fuzzy Inference (ANFIS) [31], fuzzy neural network
(FNN) [32] and Q-learning [33] among several other evolving
methods [34] give excellent efficiency with fast convergence.
However, these algorithms tend to be complex and the cost of
their implementation depends on the data handling capability
of the micro-controller used. However, these algorithms can
be suitable for large PV arrays [35].
D. Hybrid MPPT Algorithms
Hybrid MPPT algorithms are combinations of two or more
conventional, optimization or AI/ML methods used to track
GMPP. These combinations add the advantages of different
algorithms to improve the efficiency of tracking. Various
combinations presented in the literature are PSO with FL [36],
GA with ANN [37], Support Vector Machines (SVM) with
P&O [38], FL with InC [39], ACO with P&O, ANN with
P&O or InC, grey wolf optimization (GWO) with P&O, PSO

Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 with P&O and FL with P&O [40] can preferably adapt to static
and dynamic domains for MPP tracking.
The efficiency and complexity of these advanced MPPT
algorithms along with the approximate cost required to imple-
ment them are tabulated in Table I to give a clear view of their
applicability to be used for MPPT solar charge controllers.
It can be observed from Table I that AI-based methods
and hybrid methods have excellent tracking speed and have
higher efficiency than traditional algorithms. However, cost
and complexity are high to implement such algorithms and
therefore are more suitable for critical applications. Most of
the optimization algorithms are suitable for up to 5−−6 panels
and if the number of panels increases in an array, AI/ML or
hybrid algorithms should be considered as they have excellent
performance in case of partial shading conditions.
Fig. 7. PV characteristics under partial shading for InC MPPT
Fig. 8. PV characteristics under partial shading for PSO MPPT
Fig. 9. PV characteristics under partial shading for ANN MPPT
The PV characteristics for three distinct MPPT algorithms
using MATLAB/Simulink for a 250W PV string consisting of
Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
five 50W PV panels in series under partial shading are shown
in Figs. 7 - 9. It can be observed from these graphs that the
ANN-based MPPT algorithm tracks the MPP point faster as
compared with InC and PSO. The MP point keeps oscillating
for InC and PSO algorithms. Therefore, the importance of
implementing an advanced MPPT controller is highlighted.
V. C ONCLUSION
Improving the efficiency of solar charge controllers is ex-
tremely important as the need for energy storage has increased
multifold times in recent years. Partial shading conditions have
always made it difficult to track MPP and hence algorithms
that can be effective in such conditions need to be incorporated
in an MPPT charge controller. P&O and InC based MPPT
charge controllers give better performance than traditional or
PWM charge controllers. However, if the number of panels
increases, the performance of these controllers decreases.
Various optimization techniques like PSO, GWO and MSSA
can be effectively used to track the GMPP for up to an array
of 5 − 6 PV panels with a small increase in cost. However,
for a large number of panels and critical applications, AI/ML
or hybrid algorithms should be preferred. ANN and ANFIS
have very high efficiency in tracking the GMPP with high
convergence speed and have a promising future to be used in
solar MPPT charge controllers. Effect of weather conditions on
the performance of MPPT algorithms is considered as future
scope for this research work.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Lokeshreddy, P. J. R. P. Kumar, S. A. M. Chandra, T. S. Babu, and
N. Rajasekar, “Comparative study on charge controller techniques for
solar PV system,” Energy Procedia, vol. 117, pp. 1070-1077, 2017.
[2] D. Pattanaik, R. Dash and S. C. Swain, “A Review on Solar Thermal PV
Modeling & its Characteristics,” International Conference on Applied
Electromagnetics, Signal Processing and Communication (AESPC), pp.
1-6, 2018.
[3] J. P. Ram, T. S. Babu, and N. Rajasekar, “A comprehensive review on
solar PV maximum power point tracking techniques,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 67, pp. 826-847, 2017.
[4] M. N. Hidayat, A. D. Wulandari and F. Ronilaya, “Design and analysis
of multiple charge controller systems in hybrid power generation,” IOP
Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1098, 2021.
[5] R. B. Bollipo, S. Mikkili and P. K. Bonthagorla, “Hybrid, optimal,
intelligent and classical PV MPPT techniques: A review,” in CSEE
Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 9-33, Jan.
2021.
[6] Y. Wang, X. Lin, Y. Kim, N. Chang, and M. Pedram, “Enhancing
efficiency and robustness of a photovoltaic power system under partial
shading,” Proc. - Int. Symp. Qual. Electron. Des. ISQED, no. 2010, pp.
592-600, 2012.
[7] S. Dash and L. Sarojini, “Analysis And Charge Control Of Lithium
Ion Battery With Application Analysis And Charge Control Of Lithium
Ion Battery With Application For Off-Grid PV,” Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, vol. 1714, 2021.
[8] “Solar Charge Controller Types, Working Functionality and Applica-
tions.” https://www.elprocus.com/solar-charge-controller/ (accessed Nov.
04, 2021).
[9] “MPPT Solar Charge Controllers Explained - Clean Energy Reviews.”
https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/mppt-solar-charge-controllers
(accessed Nov. 04, 2021).
[10] S. J. Ponmalar and P. Valsalal, “Gravitational Search Based Neural
Network Tracking For Extraction Of Maximum Power Under Partial
Shading Conditions In PV System,” vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 35-46, 2021.
 [11] S. H. Hanzaei, S. A. Gorji and M. Ektesabi, “A Scheme-Based Review
of MPPT Techniques With Respect to Input Variables Including Solar
Irradiance and PV Arrays Temperature,” in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp.
182229-182239, 2020.
[12] A. Ibrahim, Z. Fang, K. Ameur, D. Min, M. B. Shafik and G. Al-
Muthanna, “Comparative Study of Solar PV System Performance under
Partial Shaded Condition Utilizing Different Control Approaches,” In-
dian Journal of Science and Technology, vol.14, no. 22, pp. 1864-1893,
2021.
[13] Y. Li, Z. Tang, Z. Zhu, and Y. Yang, “A novel MPPT circuit with 99.1%
tracking accuracy for energy harvesting,” Analog Integr. Circuits Signal
Process., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 105 - 115, 2018.
[14] L. Xu, R. Cheng and J. Yang, “A Modified INC Method for PV String
Under Uniform Irradiance and Partially Shaded Conditions,” in IEEE
Access, vol. 8, pp. 131340-131351, 2020.
[15] A. Amir, A. Amir, J. Selvaraj, N. A. Rahim, and A. M. Abusorrah,
“Conventional and modified MPPT techniques with direct control and
dual scaled adaptive step-size,” Sol. Energy, vol. 157, pp. 1017 - 1031,
Sep. 2017.
[16] S. Bhattacharyya, D. S. Kumar P, S. Samanta and S. Mishra, “Steady
Output and Fast Tracking MPPT (SOFT-MPPT) for P&O and InC
Algorithms,” in IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 12, no.
1, pp. 293-302, Jan. 2021.
[17] L. Samani and R. Mirzaei, “Maximum power point tracking for pho-
tovoltaic systems under partial shading conditions via modified model
predictive control,” Electr. Eng., vol. 103, no. 3, 2021.
[18] U. Yilmaz, O. Turksoy, and A. Teke, “Electrical Power and Energy
Systems Improved MPPT method to increase accuracy and speed in
photovoltaic systems under variable atmospheric conditions,” Electr.
Power Energy Syst., vol. 113, no. June, pp. 634 - 651, 2019.
[19] JJ. Ahmed and Z. Salam, “A Maximum Power Point Tracking ( MPPT
) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with partial shading capability,”
Appl. Energy, vol. 119, pp. 118 - 130, 2014.
[20] S. Titri, C. Larbes, K. Y. Toumi, and K. Benatchba, “A new MPPT con-
troller based on the Ant colony optimization algorithm for Photovoltaic
systems under partial shading conditions,” Appl. Soft Comput. J., vol.
58, pp. 465 - 479, 2017.
[21] S. Hassan, B. Abdelmajid, Z. Mourad, S. Aicha, and B. Abdenaceur,
“An advanced MPPT based on artificial bee colony algorithm for MPPT
photovoltaic system under partial shading condition,” Int. J. Power
Electron. Drive Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 647 - 653, 2017.
[22] K. Kaced, C. Larbes, N. Ramzan, M. Bounabi, and Z. elabadine
Dahmane, “Bat algorithm based maximum power point tracking for
photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions,” Sol. Energy, vol.
158, no. October, pp. 490 - 503, 2017.
[23] A. F. Mirza, M. Mansoor, Q. Ling, B. Yin, and M. Y. Javed, “A Salp-
Swarm Optimization based MPPT technique for harvesting maximum
energy from PV systems under partial shading conditions,” Energy
Convers. Manag., vol. 209, no. October 2019, p. 112 - 625, 2020.
[24] M. Seyedmahmoudian et al., “State of the art artificial intelligence-based
MPPT techniques for mitigating partial shading effects on PV systems
- A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 64, pp. 435 - 455, 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: CENTRO FED DE EDUCACAO TECNOLOGICA DE MINAS GERAIS. Downloaded on May 22,2023 at 17:24:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[25] N. A. Kamarzaman and C. W. Tan, “A comprehensive review of
maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic systems,”
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 37, pp. 585 - 598, 2014.
[26] S. Lyden and M. E. Haque, “Maximum Power Point Tracking techniques
for photovoltaic systems: A comprehensive review and comparative
analysis,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 52, pp. 1504-1518, 2015.
[27] A. N. A. Ali, M. H. Saied, M. Z. Mostafa and T. M. Abdel- Moneim,
“A survey of maximum PPT techniques of PV systems,” 2012 IEEE
Energytech, pp. 1-17, 2012.
[28] 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, 2019.
[29] L. Bouselham, M. Hajji, B. Hajji, and H. Bouali, “A new MPPT-based
ANN for photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 111, pp. 924 - 933, Sep. 2017.
[30] U. Yilmaz, A. Kircay, and S. Borekci, “PV system fuzzy logic MPPT
method and PI control as a charge controller,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 81, pp. 994 - 1001, 2018.
[31] A. Gupta, Y. K. Chauhan, and R. K. Pachauri, “A comparative investi-
gation of maximum power point tracking methods for solar PV system,”
Sol. Energy, vol. 136, pp. 236 - 253, 2016.
[32] W. I. Hameed, A. L. Saleh, B. A. Sawadi, Y. I. A. Al-yasir, and R.
A. Abd-alhameed, “Maximum Power Point Tracking for Photovoltaic
System by Using Fuzzy Neural Network,” Inventions, vol. 4, no. 3:33,
2019.
[33] C. Kalogerakis, E. Koutroulis, and M. G. Lagoudakis, “Global MPPT
Based on Machine-Learning for PV Arrays Operating under Partial
Shading Conditions,” Applied sciences, vol. 10, no. 2:700, 2020.
[34] K. Punitha, D. Devaraj, and S. Sakthivel, “Artificial neural network
based modified incremental conductance algorithm for maximum power
point tracking in photovoltaic system under partial shading conditions,”
Energy, vol. 62, pp. 330 - 340, 2013.
[35] M. S. Nkambule, A. N. Hasan, A. Ali, J. Hong, and Z. W. Geem,
“Comprehensive Evaluation of Machine Learning MPPT Algorithms
for a PV System Under Different Weather Conditions,” J. Electr. Eng.
Technol., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 411 - 427, 2021.
[36] H. M. H. Farh, A. M. Eltamaly, and M. F. Othman, “Hybrid PSO-FLC
for dynamic global peak extraction of the partially shaded photovoltaic
system,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 1 - 16, 2018.
[37] H. J. El-Khozondar, R. J. El-Khozondar, K. Matter, and T. Suntio, “A re-
view study of photovoltaic array maximum power tracking algorithms,”
Renewables Wind. Water, Sol., vol. 3, no. 1, 2016.
[38] K. Yan, Y. Du, and Z. Ren, “MPPT perturbation optimization of
photovoltaic power systems based on solar irradiance data classification,”
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 514 - 521, 2019.
[39] T. Radjai, L. Rahmani, S. Mekhilef, and J. P. Gaubert, “Implementation
of a modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm with direct
control based on a fuzzy duty cycle change estimator using dSPACE,”
Sol. Energy, vol. 110, pp. 325 - 337, 2014.
[40] H. Islam, S. Mekhilef, N. Binti, M. Shah, and T. K. Soon, “Perfor-
mance Evaluation of Maximum Power Point Tracking Approaches and
Photovoltaic Systems,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 7 - 9, 2018.