Volume 5 Number 6 December 2022 (627-644)

DOI: 10.1016/j.gloei.2022.12.005

Production And
Hosting By Elsevier
Global Energy Interconnection
On Behalf Of KeAi Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
https: //www.sciencedirect.com/journal/global-energy-interconnection

Full-length article

Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and

Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant
operating conditions
Jinan Abdulhasan Salim1, Baraa M. Albaker1, Muwafaq Shyaa Alwan1, M. Hasanuzzaman2
1. College of Engineering, Al-Iraqia University, Saba’a Abkar Compex, Baghdad, Iraq
2. Higher Institution Centre of Excellence (HICoE), UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre
Scan for more details
(UMPEDAC), Level 4, Wisma R&D, University of Malaya, Jalan Pantai Baharu, 59990 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia

Abstract: Photovoltaic (PV) systems are adversely affected by partial shading and non-uniform conditions. Meanwhile, the
addition of a bypass shunt diode to each PV module prevents hotspots. It also produces numerous peaks in the PV array’s
power-voltage characteristics, thereby trapping conventional maximum power point tracking (MPPT) methods in local peaks.
Swarm optimization approaches can be used to address this issue. However, these strategies have an unreasonably long
convergence time. The Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) is a fast and more dependable optimization algorithm. This renders
it a good option for MPPT of PV systems operating in varying partial shading. The conventional GWO method involves a
long conversion time, large steady-state oscillations, and a high failure rate. This work attempts to address these issues by
combining Cuckoo Search (CS) with the GWO algorithm to improve the MPPT performance. The results of this approach
are compared with those of conventional MPPT according to GWO and MPPT methods based on perturb and observe (P&O).
A comparative analysis reveals that under non-uniform operating conditions, the hybrid GWO CS (GWOCS) approach
presented in this article outperforms the GWO and P&O approaches.

Keywords: Cuckoo Search, GWO MPPT, Hybrid MPPT, PV system, Luo DC-DC converter.

0 Introduction and social development. Energy consumption is increasing

rapidly owing to population growth and economic activities.
Energy is the driving force for automation, advancement, A significant supply of energy comes from fossil fuels that
and economic development. Energy is one of the have limited resources and are depleting rapidly. In addition,
fundamental inputs for advancement as well as economic fuels damage the environment. To highlight the depleting
issue and growing concerns about the environmental
impacts alternative renewable energy resources are one of
Received: 13 April 2022/ Accepted: 28 July 2022/ Published: 25
December 2022 the potential solutions [1]. Solar energy is a highly potential
M. Hasanuzzaman Baraa M. Albaker renewable energy resource. It is environmentally friendly,
hasan@um.edu.my baraamalbaker@ymail.com ecologically benign, requires low maintenance, and is
Jinan Abdulhasan Salim Muwafaq Shyaa Alwan simple to construct [2-4].
jenanabdulhasan@gmail.com abulaithmsh@yahoo.com In December 2015, the COP21 United Nations Climate

2096-5117/© 2022 Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organization. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications
Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http: //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).

627
Global Energy Interconnection
Change Conference highlighted the increasing importance
of solar energy. In this conference, 195 nations signed a
worldwide climate agreement aimed at, among other things,
decreasing global temperatures by 2 °C [5]. In addition,
the climate action tracker stated that the world should cut
144 Gt of emissions by 2025 to maintain global warming
at 1.5 °C [5-7]. The tracker tracks the 32 highest polluters
accounting for 80% of the total emissions. The Singapore-
based Renewable Energy Corporation estimated that an
additional 4800 GW of solar power would be required by
2025 to achieve this worldwide target [5, 8]. The Fraunhofer
Institute for solar energy systems research estimates that
solar energy would satisfy 40% of the world’s electricity
demands by 2025 [8]. Academics in the field of solar
systems have been motivated by the important recent global
achievements to address the domain’s basic concerns, one
of which is the energy conversion efficiency of PV systems.
The highest efficiency of silicon crystalline cells and
modules are 26.3% and 24%, respectively [9]. A control
approach for obtaining Maximum Power Point (MPP) is
used to extract maximum efficiency from the Si material’s
inherent limited efficiency, and so plays a critical part in the
operation of a PV system [9, 10].
The two most prevalent types of classical approaches for
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) include incremental
conductance (IC) and perturb and observe (P&O) [11, 12].
These methods are commonly employed because of their
convenience of application, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity.
However, these have unique sets of disadvantages. P&O
oscillates around MPP when a PV system achieves MPPT
owing to fluctuations in the operational point [13, 14]. This
is owing to the employment of a fixed perturbation, which
results in a loss of produced energy. Furthermore, because
of slower convergence, the P&O approach is incapable of
following MPP in rapidly changing environments. This is
because it considers fluctuations in current relative to voltage
and helps with fast irradiation changes. The IC MPPT
method has a higher computational complexity than P&O.
The uncertainty in selecting the step-size and the ensuing
oscillations (as with P&O) is a disadvantage of this approach
[2-4]. The MPP computed using approximation functions of
the short circuit voltage and open circuit current in other basic
techniques such as short circuit and fractional open voltage
procedures [4, 15].
PV systems are challenging from the standpoint of
control engineering because of their nonlinear properties.
Variable climatic circumstances have an impact on PV
systems. This necessitates the use of a simple and adaptive
controller that can change with the environment [16].
Consequently, a simple and reliable controller is required
628
Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022
to track the MPP in real time and accurately under varied
operating conditions. A comprehensive review of the recent
research on MPPT methods deployed for partial shade
conditions is presented in [17]. Conventional MPPTs fail
to provide these criteria of robust and adaptive control
under rapidly changing environmental circumstances [4].
Artificial neural network (ANN)-based methods [18];
fuzzy logic [13]; and metaheuristics such as Cuckoo
Search (CS), Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), and particle
swarm optimization (PSO) are presented in [16]. However,
compared with conventional procedures, the computational
complexity-based limitations of these technologies restrict
their practical application. Furthermore, ANN-based
MPPT methods require a considerable quantity of data for
appropriate training (various irradiations, temperatures, and
partial shade situations). This renders these viable only for
large PV panels [18]. Furthermore, metaheuristics-based
techniques display severe transient behavior (duty cycle or
reference voltage) during the search for the optimal value.
Under rapidly shifting environmental circumstances, this
results in delayed convergence and may cause premature
convergence [4]. Fuzzy logic control (FLC) has a relatively
low processing complexity and is equivalent to ANN in
terms of efficiency. However, FLC design necessitates a
thorough understanding of PV functioning. Furthermore,
the FLC rule table can result in additional computation if
it is not optimized appropriately. Various combinations of
intelligent approaches were investigated to counteract these
disadvantages. The FLC’s membership functions and rules
were optimized using PSO [19]. To overcome the static fuzzy
rule table, [20] proposed an FLC combined with a Hopfield
ANN. Bat algorithm-based MPPT [21]. Grey Wolf Optimizer-
based MPPT [22, 23]. Machine learning-based MPPT [24].
For MPPT, artificial intelligence techniques are widely
used and combined with other approaches. However,
the practical implementation of complex MPPT systems
is limited owing to the decreasing solar cell prices.
Conventional MPPT techniques such as IC, P&O, and
proportional integral derivative (PID) should be improved
by researchers [4, 5]. Yang et al. [25] recommended a
method to improve the memetic salp swarm algorithm
to achieve maximum energy point tracking in different
atmospheric conditions. Yang et al. [26] introduced a new
algorithm for MPPT through the existing dynamic leader
collective intelligence for PV systems under PSC. The
results demonstrate the superiority of their algorithms over
several existing recent algorithms.
This study presents a new hybrid approach based on two
optimization algorithms: GWO and CS with the IC algorithm.
This is to enhance the performance and efficiency of PV
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

systems under non-uniform conditions. The contributions
of this study are that it addresses a variable step-size and
early step decision for the standard P&O algorithm, presents
a modified MPPT technique based on the hybrid GWOCS
MPPT to include the capability of MPPTs to account for
slow and fast variations in solar irradiation, and achieves the
GWO-reduced MPPT’s processing time.
1 System Configuration
The key modules of the proposed PV system include PV
panels, a DC/DC converter, and the MPPT algorithm (see
Fig. 1). A relevant mathematical model extraction and the
problem formulation of the proposed MPPT are included
in this section. Initially, the entire dynamic model of the
PV module in use and its parameters are provided. An
introduction to the MPPT controller, which is employed in
this study and problem formulation, follows the description
of the used DC/DC converter are presented. The PV system
1.1 Mathematical Modeling of PV Cells
The recombination losses in the depletion area are
omitted in a single diode model. A more accurate model
is obtained by accounting for the recombination losses.
Double diodes are used to reflect PV cell physics (see Fig. 2).
A commercial PV module comprises many identical cells
(mono or poly-crystalline). Cells can be linked in parallel or
series depending on the requirements, to increase the current
or to provide additional voltage. The common mathematical
formulation of the resultant current for a double diode-
based PV module may be obtained by expanding a PV cell
model by adding strings of parallel-and series-connected
cells. Equations (1) – (6) present the common mathematical
expression for the resultant current for a double diode-based
PV module [28].
Ipv
RS +
ID1 ID2 IRp
IPh Rp
VPV

is composed of four strings. Each string includes three –

panels as shown in Fig. 1. The total output power of the PV
system is estimated to be 1800 W, and each PV module has Fig. 2 Equivalent circuit of the PV cell’s double-diode model [28]
150 W. Table 1 shows the specification parameters of the
The continues describes the PV module’s output current
PV modules deployed.
in a double diode can be expressed as
Table 1 Specification parameters of BS-SP150/12Vtype [27] V + I PV RS 
I PV = I ph − I D1 − I D 2 −  PV  (1)
Name Symbol Value  RP 
Rated maximum power 150 W 
Pmax
 V + I PV RS  
Rated voltage Vmpp 18.55 V
I D1 = I O1 exp  PV  − 1 (2)
  n1VT 1  
Rated current Impp 8.25 A
  V + I PV RS  
Open circuit voltage Voc 22.2 V I D 2 = I O 2 exp  PV  − 1 (3)
Short circuit current Iscr 8.81 A   n2VT 2  
Maximum system voltage VL 1000 V
where Iph is the photogenerated current. RS and RP represent
the series and parallel resistances, respectively. IO1, IO2
Nominal operating cell temperature 44.7 ± 2 °C
are the saturation currents of the double diodes. VT is the
Series fuse rating 15 A
thermal voltage, and n1, n2 are the idealist factors. The seven

4 string parallel

PV array
D1 D2

+
L1
C1
3 panel series C2 Vo RL
s
–

ipv GWOCS D
PWM
vpv MPPT

Fig. 1 The proposed system configuration

629
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

parameters, IO2, Iph, n1, n2, RP, and RS should be measured. The pumping inductor can be designed during the ON
Iterative methods such as the Newton method have mode as
D Vin
been used to evaluate the saturation current values for the L1 = (9)
diode model (IO1 and IO2) [28]. These methods increase the fs∆I L1
computation time owing to the assumption of suitable initial Finally, the lift capacitor can be designed as follows
conditions. In general, it is higher by three–seven orders of depending on the relationship between the voltage and
magnitude. To simplify this, the saturation currents of the current of the principle operation capacitor and the working
two diodes can be measured as [28] principle of the super positive Luo converter:
( I scr + K i ∆T ) I in (1 − D)
I O1 = (4) C1 = (10)
 (VOC + KV ∆T )  (2 − D) fs∆VC1
exp   −1
 n1VT 1  Iin D1 D2
( I scr + K i ∆T )
IO 2 = (5) Io
 (V + KV ∆T )  +
exp  OC  −1 +
L1 C1 VC 1
 n2VT 2  Vin
–
+
+
R Vo
–
where VOC is the open-circuit voltage and Iscr is the short- C2 VC 2 –
S –
circuit current. K is the Boltzmann constant.

1.2 Luo DC–DC converter

(a)
One of the main elements that contribute to the Iin Io
investigation of the maximum power under shading
conditions is the DC–DC converter. The basic step-up + + + +
C2
converter is called boost converter. It has certain advantages Vin L1 C1 Vin VC 2 R Vo
– – – –
such as simple structure, operation, and implementation.
However, it has limitations such as a low gain ratio, (b)
reverse recovery diode under the higher value of duty Iin L1 C1 Io
cycle (D > 0.7), and high voltage stress on active switch VL1
[29-31]. In this study, the super positive Luo converter is + – Vin + + +
C2 VC 2
used rather than a simple boost converter. Luo converters
Vin R Vo
– – –
are DC-DC converters that operate in a similar manner
as boost converters. Compared with a boost converter, a (c)
Luo converter has a high gain ratio and low output ripple Fig. 3 Equivalent circuit of positive super lift Luo converter,
of voltage and current. In addition, it assists the MPPT (a) elementary circuit (b) ON switch, (c) OFF switch
algorithm in rapidly attaining the maximum power.
The basic concept of a super positive Luo converter 2 PID Controller
depends on charging the passive elements in parallel
during the ON mode and discharging in series during the The PID controller is used to control several things such
OFF mode (see Fig. 3). The gain ratio can be expressed as as temperature, pressure, velocity, and flow. This controller
follows based on this principle [31]: uses the available information that come through feedback.
Vo 2 − D Moreover, a specific point is generally set. The controller
= (6)
Vin 1 − D constantly observes the difference between the output and
Omitting the losses, the input current can be determined as specific point. The controller directs the output value using
2−D proportional, integral, and differential controller parameters.
I in = Io (7)
1− D The error value reduces through this process. The PID
The design of passive elements is essential for operating controller continues to automatically correct the error that results
the DC-DC converter in a perfect mode with an MPPT from the difference between the output and set point [32].
algorithm. The output capacitor is driven based on the
variation ripple in output voltage. It can be expressed as
2.1 Perturbation and Observation (P&O) MPPT
1− D The perturbation control and monitoring approaches
C2 = (8)
2Rfs∆VC 2 are popular because of their simple implementation

630
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

structure and because these only require voltage and current
sensors [3]. When the MPP is attained, the P&O algorithm
continues to alternate around it without stopping using the
previous values of the power sample to increase or decrease
the reference voltage. This method is used when a marginal
increase in the PV operating voltage is disturbed and the
variation in power (P) is positive. It should continue moving
in the same direction as illustrated in Fig. 4, because it
the prior one. The PV array’s voltage is enhanced if the
power difference (∆P) and voltage difference are positive.
The PV array’s voltage would increase if both voltage
difference and ∆P are negative, and decrease otherwise.
In this manner, the next cycle is repeated until the MPP is
attained.
Start

travels in the direction of the MPP. The operating point Measure V(t), I(t)
shifts away from the MPP if the variation in power P
P(t)=V(t)×I(t)
is negative. The signal should be altered to address the ∆P=P(t)–P(t–1)
disturbance.
The mathematic equation of the P&O strategy is driven
∆P>0
No Yes
according to the equations below:
V(t)–V(t–1)<0 V(t)–V(t–1)>0
P=V×I (11)
dp dI Yes No No Yes
= I +V (12) Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
dV dV reference V reference V reference V reference V

To achieve the maximum power, assume

dP  Return
=0 
dV Fig. 5 Flowchart of the control method of P&O

dI  d ∆
0 = I +V  , where = (13)
dV  dt ∆t 2.2 MPPT Controller
I dI 
0= + The controller is designed based on the P&O algorithm
V dV 
 dP 
The simulation process of the above equations is equation  = 0  as shown in Fig. 6. The figure shows the
depicted in Fig. 4.  dV 
simulation developed in MATLAB. This equation considers
MPP
the condition for achieving MPPT through the concept of
PMAX
ΔP<0 the P&O algorithm work.
Right of In the figure,
Power (W)

MPP
Left of MPP dV = Vi - Vi-1 (14)
ΔP>0 where Vi represents the current voltage and Vi-1 represents
ΔV >0 the previous voltage.
ΔV >0
dP = Pi – Pi-1 (15)
Increase voltage Voltage (V) VMAX Decrease voltage
(decrease phase shift) (increase phase shift) where P i denotes the current power (P i = V i × I i), I i
Fig. 4 P-V graph for P&O control method represents the current, Pi-1 indicates the previous power
(Pi-1 = Vi-1 × Ii-1), and Ii-1 depicts the previous current.
Figure 5 shows a flowchart of the P&O algorithm. It Note that in the figure below, Pb is the previous power,
depends on the perturbed operating voltage compared with and Pn is the current power. Zero is set as a set point, then

0
setpoint 2
dp/dv
– +
+ ÷ PID(s) D P 1
1 × –
dV
Vpv

×
2 Pb –
Ipv +
× dP
Pn

Fig. 6 Matlab simulation of MPPT controller

631
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

the result of (dP/dV) compared with the set point, if the 4 Grey Wolf Optimizer
result equal zero that mean MPPT achieved while any other
result mean there is error, this error will be the input to the The approach was first published in 2014 [34]. The
Fitness function. The PID controller would resolve the error. natural behavior of grey wolves in pursuing prey inspired
Error = set point - (dP/dV) (16) this optimization approach. Grey wolves dwell in packs of
five–ten individuals [35]. There are four tiers of leadership
3 Cuckoo Search in this organization. The leaders are defined as alpha (α),
whereas the subleaders are defined as beta (β), delta (δ),
One of the most effective swarm optimization methods and omega (ω) according to their positions in the wolf
is the CS algorithm. It was launched for the first time in dominance pyramid [5]. The pyramid grows from top to
2009 [33]. The parasitic characteristic of the Cuckoo’s bottom [34]. The following is a mathematical depiction of
reproductive mechanism inspired the algorithm. Rather the hunting methods of wolves [34]:
than constructing its nest, the bird deposits its eggs in the E = C ∗ dp (t ) − d (t ) (20)
nests of other birds. It utilizes a strategy to select a good d (t +1) = dp (t ) − A ∗ E (21)
host nest. Herein, it flies randomly from one nest to the
where t is the current generation, d(t) is a vector indicating
next to identify the best one. The nest with the highest
the grey wolf’s position, and dp is a vector representing
chance of hatching eggs successfully is defined as the
the prey’s position. The two coefficient vectors (A and C)
best nest. Cuckoos may throw the host bird’s eggs out
are utilized to ensure a balance between exploration and
of the nest to increase the chances of their eggs hatching
exploitation. Their values are determined by Equations (22),
successfully. To prevent detection, certain Cuckoo
(23), and (24):
species may alter the shape of their eggs to replicate those
A = 2 × a × r 1 - a(t) (22)
of the host birds. If the host bird detects the Cuckoo’s
deception, it may abandon the nest or throw the Cuckoo’s C = 2×r 2 (23)
eggsout. The CS algorithm is based on the Cuckoos’ a(t) = 2 - (2 × t)/MaxIter (24)
seeking activity. CS may make a lengthy leap during its where A decreases linearly from two to zero. r1, r2 are
search by employing random steps based on Lévy flight random vectors with values ranging from zero to one.
characteristics. This improves the global search and MaxIter represents the maximum iterations used in GWO
may minimize the convergence time. Owing to its long (five iterations are considered). The prey is surrounded by
convergence time and large oscillations in steady-state the grey wolves. The members of the pack should obey the
circumstances, the original CS (OCS) method is designed instructions of the leader (alpha wolf) first, then those of
to address multi-variable problems involving multiple the beta wolves, and finally those of the delta wolves. The
objectives. This makes it unsuitable for MPPT of PV following equations can be used to depict the grey wolves’
systems. The following part introduces the improved CS leadership process mathematically [16, 34, 35]:
(ICS) method, which solves this problem. Meanwhile, Eα = C1 ∗ dα − d (t ) 
the OCS employs the Lévy flight to update the values of 
Eβ = C2 ∗ d β − d (t )  (25)
Eδ = C3 ∗ d δ − d (t ) 
multiple searching agents that randomly initialize with
initial values within the bounds of the searching region.
d1 = dα (t ) − Α1 ∗ Eα (t ) 
u 
d (t + 1) = d (t ) + α ×
k k
× (dbest − d )
k
(17) d 2 = d β (t ) − Α2 ∗ Eβ (t )  (26)
v1 / β 
t
d3 = d δ (t ) − Α3 ∗ Eδ (t ) 
where t is the generation number; k is the searching agent d + d 2 + d3
d (t + 1) = 1 (27)
order in the swarm; and u, v are the matrices having uniform 3
distribution. u, v are calculated by (18): The coefficient |A| ≤ 1 when the wolves tend to exploit
u ≈ N (0, σU2 ) and v ≈ N (0, σv2 ) (18) (converge to the prey), and |A| ≥1 when the wolves tend to
explore.
The variance of u, v can be determined as
 

σu = 
(
 Γ(1 + β ) × sin π× β 
2 )  and σ = 1 (19)
5 Proposed MPPT Approach
 1+ β 
 β −1   v

 Γ 

 2  
 The hybridization of the GWO and CS algorithms in the
 × β × 2 
  2   proposed approach would increase the accuracy, speed, and

632
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

other performance measures. The CS algorithm based on the expressed as

 dP 
t
discovery factor as the nests that are exposed replaced. It is jmin = ∫ t ×  0 −  dt (28)
used for global exploration optimization. However, it reacts 0  dV 
ineffectively in local exploration. The GWO algorithm where jmin is the minimum fitness and t is the simulation
is considered successful in the local exploitation aspect. error. The optimal parameters of PID are based on the GWO
However, it displays its drawback in the global exploration and GWOCS algorithms that are used in the simulation
aspect. As a result, when the two algorithms are combined, results presented in Table 2.
the Cuckoo algorithm improved the grey wolf algorithm in
terms of enhancing its ability to global exploration area. CS Table 2 Optimal PID gain coefficients, which are estimated
is used to update the locations of the alpha wolf (α), beta based on GWO and GWOCS
wolf (β), and delta wolf (δ), whereas the GWO algorithm Parameters GWO GWOCS
handles the process of identifying the best coefficients for
Kp 8.9206 9.1074
MPP tracking.
The proposed approach starts by generating an initial Ki 0.102 0.0664

population of n random search space agents for the grey
wolf. Each agent carries encoded random PID coefficient
values at the initialization phase. The evaluation function
and its fitness are calculated for each agent. Accordingly,
the best agents with the highest fitness values are selected.
Thereafter, the positions (α, δ, and δ) of the current selected
agents are updated using the CS algorithm. The algorithm
receives the fittest agents from GWO and starts by
selecting a random Cuckoo and nest. The CS encapsulates
an opposition-based learning technique. It is applied to
strengthen the capability of global exploration by comparing
the fitness of the candidate and opposite candidate, and
select the best fitness value. This enhances the exploration.
Further, the evaluation function and fitness values are
calculated for the updated search agent positions. Finally,
the search agents are updated based on the fittest agents,
and the entire process continues until the maximum number
of iterations is attained. The algorithm stops and returns
the best search agent coefficient values when it satisfies the
terminating condition.
The GWOCS approach is employed to tune the PID
controller for investigating the fast tracking of maximum
power under non-uniform conditions. Figure 7 shows a
schematic that explains how the GWO and the proposed
GWOCS function in MPPT in a PV system. The fitness that
is used to tune the parameters of the PID controller is the
Kd 0.0029 0.0007114
jmin 2.4 0.985
The MPPT controller is necessary to alter the duty
cycle of a DC-DC converter to achieve effective MPPT.
dp/dv is considered as a reference point for MPPT control
as indicated in Fig. 8. The result of dP/dV is continuously
compared with zero for MPP tracking. The error value is
sent to the mechanism that controls the DC–DC converter.
The controller generates the response represented by duty
cycles to increase the generator of pulse width modulation
(PWM). The converter directs the operating point in the PV
toward MPP. The main advantages of the current MPPT are
the fast capture of the maximum global energy under rapid
changes, simple implementation, and absence of oscillation
with significantly small ripples. This is achieved by
selecting the P&O technique. The technique is characterized
by its low cost and convenience of implementation. This
makes it capable of tracking the maximum power rapidly
when climatic conditions change rapidly and without
noticeable fluctuation, by improving its work based on the
controller (which functions based on the hybrid GWOCS
algorithm).
dp/dv fitness function GWO or GWOCS
setpoint 0

integral time absolute error (ITAE). The ITAE equation is

+
Kp, Ki, Kd
dp/dv PID controller
calculation –
Ipv Vpv
PWM at fs=5 kHz
fitness function
GWO/GWOCS
(ITAE) PV source Luo DC-DC resistive load
Kp, Ki, Kd
Vpv
dp/dv D S Fig. 8 dP/dV feedback based MPPT control scheme
calculation PID PWM
Ipv –

+
dp/dv set point 0
6 Results and Discussion

Fig. 7 GWO/GWOCS-based MPPT for PV systems The hybrid system is constructed using Simulink and the

633
 Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

m.file in MATLAB (R2018a). A system validation design 40

and simulation, Simulink for MATLAB, designing a solar 30

37.5 ˚C

Current (A)
panel plant, a DC-DC converter, and proposed MPPT with
20 60 ˚C
resistive load.
10 75 ˚C
6.1 Effect Variable Temperature and Irradiation
0
of Array PV System 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Voltage (V)
The characteristics of the photovoltaic array are plotted, (a)
e.g., the I–V and P–V curves for an array under variable 2000
conditions (radiation or temperature). It is also known that 37.5 ˚C
1500
the variation in the PV array current is related to that in the

Power (W)
radiation value (which appears in the simulation results in 1000 60 ˚C

the shape) and that the variation in the voltage of the PV 500
75 ˚C
array is related to that in the temperature of the PV array.
Figure 9 shows the I–V, P–V curves for an array with 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Voltage (V)
different radiation levels. Meanwhile, Figure 10 illustrates
(b)
the I–V, P–V curves for an array with different temperature
levels. Fig. 10 (a) I-V curve and (b) P-V curve at different
temperature level

40
1 kW/m2
STC circumstances. The simulation results show that
30 0.8 kW/m2
the recommended MPPT can track MPP in a short time.
Current (A)

20 0.5 kW/m2 Meanwhile, the normal GWO algorithm is faster and has
10 fewer power losses than the P&O approaches.
0.2 kW/m2
Figures 12 and 13 depict the PV array current and
voltage, respectively. In this scenario, GWOCS has the
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Voltage (V)

(a)
40
2000 1 kW/m 2
35
1500 0.8 kW/m2 30
Power (W)

PV Current (A)

1000 0.5 kW/m2 25 35 GWO

GWOCS
20 PO
500 0.2 kW/m2 30
15 25
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
Voltage (V) 20
5
(b) 15
0
Fig. 9 (a) I-V curve and (b) P-V curve at different irradiation level 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (Sec)

Fig. 11 PV current response under STC condition

6.2 Normal Operation Conditions
In this scenario, the conventional P&O algorithm
70
and the two proposed intelligent MPPT (GWOCS-
60
based MPPT and GWO-based MPPT) are tested under
STC (Standard Test Condition, 1000 W/m 2, 25 °C).
50
PV Voltage (V)

40
The output responses of the PV system for PV current, PV 65
voltage, and PV power are measured and discussed. This 30 60 GWO
GWOCS
first scenario shows the tracking performance of MPP of 20 55 PO

the three approaches (conventional P&O, GWO, and the

50
10
45
proposed GWOCS) in normal operating conditions without 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
accounting for partial shading. Time (Sec)
Figure 11 depicts the system’s output power under Fig. 12 PV voltage response under STC condition

634
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

2000 ticularly when exposed to irradiation. Therefore, perfor-

1800
1600
mance evaluation in the scenario of constantly changing
1850
1400
GWO 1800
environmental conditions is critical. This partly addresses
1200
Power (W)

1840 GWOCS
PO
1750 rapidly changing environmental circumstances, which occur
1000
daily with a high frequency. In this test, the irradiance varies
1820
1700
800 1800
1650
600 1780 rapidly, whereas the temperature remains constant.
1600
400
Figure 15 depicts the profile utilized for this scenario.
1760
1550
200 1740

It should be observed that this fluctuation occurs between

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Time (Sec)
Fig. 13 PV power response under STC condition
better dynamic response of the system output voltage
and current than GWO, whereas GWO has the better
performance and attains the maximum power point more
rapidly than P&O. However, P&O is the least effective
technique owing to its significant volatility around MPP,
which reduces the output power produced. This is the
most typical problem with the P&O approach because
it necessitates higher duty cycle levels to increase MPP
tracking. Hence, the hybrid intelligent MPPT is required
to increase the duty cycle step size may help them become
more efficient.
Finally, the P-V curve is illustrated in Fig. 14. It is
evident from this figure that the GWOCS-based MPPT
rapidly attains the maximum power without oscillation
and with negligible ripple compared with the GWO-based
1500
1
a low irradiation level of 150 W/m 2 and the highest
irradiation level conceivable (1000 W/m2). Furthermore,
the temperature is maintained as STC (25 °C) during the
irradiation fluctuation.
The resulting MPPT responses for the PV current,
voltage, and maximum power are shown in Fig. 16-18.
The performance of the hybrid GWO and CS algorithm
MPPT controllers is higher than that of the GWO MPPT
controller and conventional P&O algorithm in terms of fast
tracking to the maximum power notwithstanding rapidly
variable irradiation with a significantly small period, lower
ripple, with no oscillation and overshoot.
Figures 16 and 17 indicate that the proposed approach
1000
900
800

MPPT and conventional P&O algorithm. 700

Irradiation (w/m2)

600
2000
1800 500
GWO
1600 GWOCS
PO 400
1400
PV Power (W)

1200
300
1000
800 200
600 GWO
GWOCS
400 100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
200 Time (Sec)
0
0 10 20 30 40
PV Voltage (V)
50 60 70
Fig. 15 Non-uniform irradiance

Fig. 14 P-V curve under STC condition

40

35
6.3 Irradiation Variation 35
30
The second scenario shows the performance of the three
PV Current (A)

30
25
MPPT approaches to address the random non-uniform
20
irradiance at a constant temperature. This case replicates 25
15
the presentation of clouds and abrupt change of obstacles
20
in front of the solar panels and the performance measure of 10
GWO
GWOCS
the approaches to operate in these partial shading situations. 5 PO 15
Although a controller’s MPPT tracking efficiency may be 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
remarkable under static settings, it can drastically reduce Time (Sec)

under rapidly changing environmental circumstances, par- Fig. 16 PV current response under non-uniform irradiance

635
 Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

successfully traces the commanded PV currents and
voltages. It is evident from these figures that the proposed
GWOCS-based MPPT has a lower ripple and maximum
undershoot than the GWO-based MPPT controllers. Note
that this increase in power is caused by a shift from a low-
irradiation zone to a higher-irradiation zone after a small
period. As stated earlier, most conventional and intelligent
MPPT controllers fail to track success in these situations.
Meanwhile, the proposed MPPT controller does not lose
track and prevents the system response from deviating from
the set point.
Finally, the P-V curve is illustrated in Fig. 19 to





399ROWDJH 9
demonstrate that the GWOCS attains maximum power
tracking without oscillation and with a higher steady state.
It is evident from this figure that the GWOCS attains the
maximum point without swinging about the maximum
point, compared with the conventional P&O and GWO
MPPT strategies.
6.4 Temperature Variation
The third scenario is designed to show the behavior of
the three MPPT approaches to follow the MPP at different
temperature values and for constant solar irradiance.
Figure 20 depicts the profile utilized for this test scenario.
It should be emphasized that this fluctuation occurs
between medium temperature levels, 37.5 ℃, 60 ℃, and
75 ℃. Irradiation is also maintained constant during these
temperature variations, as observed at STC (1000 W/m2).
Figure 21 shows the MPPT responses received. Compared
with irradiation fluctuations, temperature variations do not
generate significant variations in performance. However, the

*:2
 *:2&6 performances at three locations are examined in-depth and
32
 shown here. As shown in Fig. 22-24, the proposed hybrid
GWOCS controller has less undershoot than the GWO-


 75


70

          
65
7LPH 6HF

Fig. 17 PV voltage response under non-uniform irradiance

Temperature (℃)

60

55



  50


45
3RZHU :

 

 40
*:2
 *:2&6

32
± 35
 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (Sec)
±
           Fig. 20 Change profile of temperature
7LPH 6HF

Fig. 18 PV power of proposed system under non-uniform

irradiance 
 

 
*:2 
39&XUUHQW $

*:2&6 
 32 *:2 

 *:2&6 
 32
393RZHU :

 

 
 


±

          
± 7LPH 6HF
±±±        
399ROWDJH 9 Fig. 21 Dynamic response of PV current under variable
Fig. 19 P-V curve at different irradiance levels temperature

636
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

based MPPT controllers. The comparative performance of
controllers for the maximum power is shown in Fig. 22.
As can be observed, the performance gains are less drastic
than the irradiation day profile. It is evident from this figure
that the proposed MPPT based on GWOCS still provides a
minimum of energy loss and minimal ripple. This verifies
the advantage of the hybrid GWO with CS-based MPPT
controllers for achieving MPPT during daytime heat
conditions.
Figures 23 and 24 show the MPPT responses obtained
in terms of PV array power and P-V curve. Compared with
irradiation variations, temperature variations do not generate
drastic variations in performance.



399ROWDJH 9
6.5 Simultaneous temperature and irradiation
variations
The fourth scenario depicts the performance measure of
the approaches under a more complex operating condition,
wherein both temperature and solar irradiance vary, each
with a different profile. This is to demonstrate how the three
approaches would behave to follow the MPPs effectively.
A critical characteristic test is a mixture of irradiance and
temperature variations. The profile utilized is shown in Fig.
25 and 26. As shown in these figures, it includes both sharp
and smooth fluctuations in irradiation and temperature. It
generates a chaotic and abrupt profile that the PV system
may be compelled to function under.
Figures 27-29 illustrate the MPPT responses for
*:2
*:2&6
combined temperature and irradiation variations. Figures 27
32 
and 28 show that compared with other MPPT controllers,

the MPPT-based hybrid GWOCS controller displays


 the least degree of undershoot and the fastest tracking of

 
1000


 950

 900
          
7LPH 6HF 850
Fig. 22 Dynamic response of PV voltage under variable
Irradiation (w/m2)

800
temperature
750

700



650


*:2  600
 *:2&6
32 
 550
3RZHU :




 500
  0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

 Time (Sec)



 
Fig. 25 Profile of irradiance
          
7LPH 6HF
75
Fig. 23 Dynamic response of PV power under variable
temperature 70

65
Temperature (℃)

 60


*:2 55
 *:2&6
32

393RZHU :

50

 45

 40

 35
        0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
399ROWDJH 9 Time (Sec)

Fig. 24 P-V curve under at different temperature levels Fig. 26 Profile of variable temperature

637
 Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

temperature and irradiance variations that occur randomly. 

Meanwhile, GWOCS-based MPPT recovers faster than
GWO-based MPPT does. *:2
 *:2&6
The GWO MPPT stops tracking direction when both 32

the controllers approach the point where the power to the 

393RZHU :



 *:2
*:2&6 
32


 ±
39&XUUHQW $


±
 ± ± ±       
399ROWDJH 9

Fig. 30 P-V curve under varying irradiance and

temperatures levels

          
7LPH 6HF
left and right of the point are nonlinear in relation. This
Fig. 27 Dynamic response of PV currents under varying causes significant undershoot at 0.3 s and 0.7 s. However,
temperature and irradiance
the GWOCS-based MPPT controller continues to track
the intended power with no variation. As indicated earlier,

 GWOCS-based MPPT controllers can recover more

rapidly from variations in direction in tracking intended
 *:2
*:2&6  power. Because other controllers still generate significant
 32
oscillatory activity after achieving MPPT, the hybrid
399ROWDJH 9


 optimizer controller has the smallest settling time. It is



apparent that compared with the other MPPT, the GWOCS-

based MPPT controller generates the least ripple for steady-

state conditions as indicated in the magnified sections in

Fig. 27-30. Note that the GWOCS-based MPPT response
          
7LPH 6HF in this situation either perfectly overlaps the GWO-based
Fig. 28 PV voltages dynamic response under varying MPPT response or has a better response than the other
temperatures and irradiance MPPT.


6.6 Irradiation Sinusoidal test
*:2 The fifth and final scenario shows the performance of
*:2&6
 32 the three MPPT approaches to address continuously varying
solar irradiance with small and smooth variation values at a
 constant temperature. This case would show the strength of
the approaches in following the continuously varying MPP
3RZHU :

 in a short time. This is important for testing the performance

under a rapidly varying environment. The baseline
 irradiation profile for this case is shown in Fig. 31. Because
large irradiance fluctuations would result from relatively
± transitory variations in the environment, the variation occurs
within an irradiation band of 200–1000 nm. Furthermore,
±
          
the temperature is maintained constant at STC (25 °C)
7LPH 6HF during these irradiation variations.
Fig. 29 Dynamic response of PV power under variable As stated earlier, most conventional and intelligent
temperature and irradiance MPPT controllers fail to track success in these situations.

638
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

Meanwhile, the conventional P&O algorithm cannot follow
the desired power according to the input irradiance (see Fig.
32). Meanwhile, the proposed MPPT controller keeps track
of the system’s response and prevents it from deviating
from the set point. Hence, a hybrid intelligent algorithm
is required to solve this problem. In the exact figure, the
proposed hybrid MPPT is a seamless transition from a
higher power to a lower power without ripple, overshoot,
or oscillation. As observed, there is no abrupt variation in
power because irradiance varies continuously and smoothly
(rather than in insignificant steps) as examined in the three
previous tests.
Figure 32 shows the response PV array current. It is
evident from this figure that the GWOCS tracks the desired
current according to the available insolation notwithstanding
the critical variation irradiation as a sinusoidal waveform.
Meanwhile, the PV array voltage response is shown in Fig. 32.
It is evident from the figure that the voltage response is
constant owing to the physics behavior of the PV system.
Finally, the P-V curve of the sinusoidal test is depicted
in Fig. 34. It can be observed from this figure and Fig. 33
that compared with existing MPPTs, the proposed GWOCS
MPPT achieves the least amount of ripple. Note that the
power variations occur more rapidly at zoomed portions,
which denote the rise and fall, respectively, than the GWO
and P&O algorithms, which denote the response is a
practically steady-state with slight variations. Thus, GWO
is superior to the other MPPTs because it can adapt to such
a dynamic environment and provides the smallest deviation
from its planned power locus.

1000


900

800

Irradiation (w/m2)

700

 *:2
399ROWDJH 9

600 *:2&6
32
500 

400 

300


200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 
Time (Sec)           
7LPH 6HF
Fig. 31 Sinusoidal profile of irradiance
Fig. 33 Dynamic response of PV voltage
under sinusoidal test

 
*:2
*:2&6  *:2
 32 *:2&6
32






39&XUUHQW $

3RZHU :





 





 
                     
7LPH 6HF 7LPH 6HF

Fig. 32 Dynamic response of PV current under Fig. 34 Dynamic response of PV power under
sinusoidal test sinusoidal test

639
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

 The proposed GWOCS algorithm has a higher tracking

 speed and provides superior performances in terms of
*:2
*:2&6 efficiency and power quality than the conventional ones.
 32
This can be observed from the prior observations. The

values of the considered indices for the proposed and
 standard MPPT algorithms under STC conditions for the
393RZHU :

 power response indicated in Fig. 13 are shown in Tables

 3 and 4. The performance of the proposed GWOCS-based

MPPT algorithm for the power response is demonstrated
to be superior to the GWO-based MPPT and conventional

P&O. It can be observed from these tables that the results of

GWO are better than those of the P&O algorithm.

       
399ROWDJH 9 Table 3 Performance comparison of proposed and
Fig. 35 P-V curve under sinusoidal test conventional P&O algorithms

Performance Index P&O MPPT GWO MPPT GWOCS MPPT

7 Comparison of performance among MPPT αMPPT 96.223 98.847 99.64
strategies
ηMPPT 96.12 98.745 99.5203

Specific additional tests are examined. These use various ∈MPPT 3.42 2.645 1.024
indices to describe how the recommended and compared
ηMPPT, E 96.324 98.92 99.7501
algorithms behave under static and dynamic variations. The
following are the indices: ∈MPPT , E 3.481 2.7021 1.2602

Accuracy αMPPT: This index is used to determine how

nearly the tracking is to attain its maximum point. It is Table 4 Specification Performances under STC conditions
utilized in our study to show how close the PV current is to
Index P&O MPPT GWO MPPT GWOCS MPPT
the current MPP during tracking, as shown below:
I PV Rise time (ms) 9.18 7.08 3.75
α MPPT = ⋅ 100 (29)
I MPPT Settling time (ms) 11.45 8.35 5.4

Index of static efficiency ηMPPT: The MPPT graph depicts Overshoot (W) 9.9.39 0.639 0.061
the ratio of actual PV power to maximum PV power. It is Undershoot (W) 0 0 0
provided by
P Ripple (W) 300 20 1.5
η MPPT = PV ⋅ 100 (30)
PMPPT
Relative tracking error ∈MPPT : It is expressed as follows: The performance values are presented in Tables 5 and 6,
P respectively. These tables highlight the performance
∈MPPT = PV − 1 ⋅ 100 (31)
PMPPT parameters for the combined profile. GWOCS-based
In addition, the efficiency and energizing error of the MPPT yields better performance in all areas of the system
MPPT are reflected by the indices in (32) and (33). These responses in this situation—the most significant and most
are utilized to compare the tracking performance of the negligible reductions in energy loss. As shown in Table 5,
proposed and standard approaches under dynamic variations the comparisons show that the GWOCS-based MPPT is
in the MPP. superior even in highly unpredictable and dynamic contexts.

 t f P dt 
η MPPT , E
∫ PV  ⋅ 100
=  t f0 (32) Table 5 Performance comparison between proposed and
 
 ∫0 MPPT 
P dt  conventional P&O algorithms under combined profile

Performance Index P&O MPPT GWO MPPT GWOCS MPPT

 t f P dt
∫ PV − 1 ⋅ 100
∈MPPT , E =  t f0 (33)
αMPPT 89.4205 98.354 99.584
 
 ∫0 MPPT
P dt  ηMPPT 89.015 98.448 99.5301


640
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions

continue varying weather conditions. These do not eliminate the drift

Performance Index P&O MPPT GWO MPPT GWOCS MPPT problem and oscillation around the MPP. The modified
P&O-MPPT based on the GWO algorithm was presented
∈MPPT 14.254 5.48 1.332
to address the primary limitations of the standard P&O
ηMPPT, E 90.1024 98.602 99.6351 algorithm.
∈MPPT , E 14.678 5.495 1.426
The GWO method-based MPPT technique is better
for constructing a PV-MPPT controller. This is because it
achieves a higher tracking efficiency and faster tracking
Table 6 Specification performances under combined profile
speed in experimental measurement tests.
Index P&O MPPT GWO MPPT GWOCS MPPT GWOCS has a zero-failure rate, a convergence time less
Rise time (ms) 14.3 8.415 4.23 than 0.02 s, and zero oscillations around the steady-state
conditions.
Settling time (ms) 25.14 9.25 7.02
The recommended MPPT methodology based on the
Overshoot (W) 69.3605 8.875 2.14 GWOCS and P&O algorithm is preferable for enhancing
Undershoot (W) 0 0 0 PV electrical generation owing to its capacity to track the
Ripple (W) 270 45.4 1.784 MPP when large irradiation fluctuations occur. Meanwhile,
the modified P&O-MPPT approach was developed for
8 Conclusion inexpensive PV systems. Thereby, it passed the EN50530
standard test with the highest tracking efficiency.
The photovoltaic energy efficiency, stability, and Finally, the simulation results demonstrated that
reliability are important aspects in promoting this energy the GWOCS is effective for various circumstances and
resource in the market. To maximize the output power critical disturbances in fast-tracking and significantly
of a PV array, the standard MPPT techniques such as small oscillation. Thereby, according to the EN50530
P&O, GWO, and hybrid GWO with CS (GWOCS) were standard test, the GWO approach achieved average tracking
developed in this research for the PV system. The objective efficiencies of approximately 98.847%, whereas the
was also to improve the stability and reliability of PV recommended hybrid GWOCS control technique stands
power conversion, particularly under an abrupt shift in out for robustness and steady-state power tracking heading
meteorological circumstances. Therefore, the super lift to attain a maximum efficiency of 99.5301%. However,
Luo converter was used rather than a conventional boost the current limitation of the proposed approach is that it
converter. is computationally expensive and difficult to implement
To assess the performance of the various MPPT compared with the conventional P&O approach.
controllers, MATLAB SIMULINK was used to construct Other issues need to be addressed if investment in this
the PV system modeling and control. The key observations energy resource becomes more appealing, with the following
reveal that the use of an MPPT controller with a PV system ideas. It would be advantageous to enhance the PV system's
increases the output PV power, decreases the convergence performance while being partially shaded. This problem
time, and reduces the MPP fluctuations. Consequently, the occurs when a portion of the PV array is shaded because of
PV system’s average tracking efficiency and the stability a tree shadow or dust. The PV array would generate various
and reliability of PV generation improved when it connects MPPs in this instance. Thereby, the installed PV array's total
to the DC load. generating efficiency reduces. An MPPT controller based
Although there are various algorithms for MPPT, the on the hybrid deep neural network and GWOCS algorithm
P&O algorithm is extensively utilized owing to its low cost could solve this problem. In addition, the proposed system
and convenience of implementation. However, this method would be implemented as a hardware prototype to account
has a long convergence time, considerable oscillation around for challenges presented in realistic scenarios.
the MPP, and the drift problem associated with rapidly
varying irradiance as its principal limitations. Meanwhile, Declaration of Competing Interest
PV systems based on conventional and modified P&O
algorithms produce fluctuating DC voltage during rapidly We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

641
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

Appendix A – Nomenclature of variables continue

used in this paper Variable Description

P power
Variable Description
Pi and Pn current power
αMPPT accuracy of MPPT controller
Pi-1 and Pb previous power
alpha, beta, and delta leadership positions in
α, β, and δ P&O perturb and observe
GWO
Pmax rated maximum Power
ηMPPT efficiency of MPPT controller
PPV actual photovoltaic power
∈MPPT relative tracking error of MPPT controller
r1 and r2 random vectors with values ranging from 0 to 1
σ2 variance
RS and RP series and parallel resistance respectively
Δ difference
t current generation number
two coefficient vectors for GWO to ensure the
A and C u and v uniform distribution matrices
balance between exploration and exploitation
V voltage
output and lift capacitors, respectively, of the
C1 and C2
super positive Luo converter Vi current voltage

d searching agent Vi-1 previous voltage

D duty cycle Vin input voltage

a vector representing the prey’s position for VL maximum system voltage

dp
GWO rated voltage of a module at the maximum
Vmpp
alpha, beta, and delta grey wolves’ leadership power point
Eα, Eβ, and Eδ
process variables for GWO Vo output voltage
I current Voc open circuit voltage
currents in D1 and D2 diodes of PV cell’s double VT thermal voltage
ID1 and ID2
diode
V Watt
Iin input current

rated current of a module at maximum power

Impp
point References
Io output current [1] Kamarulzaman A, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim N A (2021)
saturation currents of diodes D 1 and D 2 , Global advancement of solar drying technologies and its future
Io1 and Io2
respectively prospects: A review. Solar Energy, 221: 559-582
IPH photogenerated current [2] Kamarzaman N A, Tan C W (2014) A comprehensive review
of maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic
IPV actual photovoltaic current
systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37: 585-
Iscr short circuit current 598
minimum fitness function that is used to tune [3] Ali A, Almutairi K, Padmanaban S, et al. (2020) Investigation
jmin
PID parameters of MPPT techniques under uniform and non-uniform solar
irradiation condition–a retrospection. IEEE Access, 8: 127368-
searching agent order in the swarm for Cuckoo
k 127392
Search
[4] Sarvi M, Azadian A (2022) A comprehensive review and
K Boltzmann constant classified comparison of MPPT algorithms in PV systems.
proportional, integral, and derivative gain Energy Systems, 13: 281-320
Kp, Ki and Kd
coefficients for the PID controller [5] Kler D, Rana K P S, Kumar V (2018) A nonlinear PID controller
pumping inductor of the super positive Luo based novel maximum power point tracker for PV systems.
L1 Journal of the Franklin Institute, 355(16): 7827-7864
converter
[6] Nadeem, A, Hussain A (2021) A comprehensive review of global
MaxIter maximum iterations used in GWO
maximum power point tracking algorithms for photovoltaic
N1 and N2 idealist factors systems. Energy Systems, doi: 10.1007/s12667-021-00476-2
[7] Aldosary A, Ali Z M, Alhaider M M, et al. (2021) A modified

642
 Jinan Abdulhasan Salim et al. Hybrid MPPT approach using Cuckoo Search and Grey Wolf Optimizer for PV systems under variant operating conditions
shuffled frog algorithm to improve MPPT controller in PV
System with storage batteries under variable atmospheric
conditions. Control Engineering Practice, 112: 104831
[8] Fraunhofer I, Current and future cost of photovoltaics. Long-term
scenarios for market development, System prices and LCOE of
utility-scale PV systems. Study on behalf of Agora Energiewende.
Fraunhofer-Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) https://www.
ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/
studies/AgoraEnergiewende_Current_and_Future_Cost_of_PV_
Feb2015_web.pdf. 2015
[9] Green M A, Hishikawa Y, Warta W, et al. (2017) Solar cell
efficiency tables (version 50). Progress in Photovoltaics: Research
and Applications, 25(7): 668-676
[10] Xu L, Cheng R, Yang J, et al. (2020) A new MPPT technique
for fast and efficient tracking under fast varying solar irradiation
and load resistance. International Journal of Photoenergy, 2020:
6535372
[11] Eltamaly A M (2021) A novel musical chairs algorithm applied
for MPPT of PV systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 146: 111135
[12] Guo K, Cui L, Mao M, et al. (2020) An improved Gray Wolf
Optimizer MPPT algorithm for PV system with BFBIC converter
under partial shading. IEEE Access, 8: 103476-103490
[13] Rezk H, Aly M, Fathy A (2021) A novel strategy based on recent
equilibrium optimizer to enhance the performance of PEM fuel
cell system through optimized fuzzy logic MPPT. Energy, 234:
121267
[14] Rezk H, Al-Oran M, Gomaa R, et al. (2019) A novel statistical
performance evaluation of most modern optimization-based
global MPPT techniques for partially shaded PV system.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 115: 109372
[15] Mamun, M A A, Hasanuzzaman M, Selvaraj J (2017)
Experimental investigation of the effect of partial shading on
photovoltaic performance. IET Renewable Power Generation,
11(7): 912-921
[16] Eltamaly A M (2021) An improved Cuckoo Search algorithm for
maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic systems under
partial shading conditions. Energies, 14(4): 953
[17] Yang B, Zhu T, Wang J, et al. (2020) Comprehensive overview
of maximum power point tracking algorithms of PV systems
under partial shading condition. Journal of Cleaner Production,
268: 121983
[18] Messalti S, Harrag A, Loukriz A (2017) A new variable step
size neural networks MPPT controller: Review, simulation and
hardware implementation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 68: 221-233
[19] Soufi Y, Bechouat M, Kahla S (2017) Fuzzy-PSO controller
design for maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic system.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(13): 8680-8688
[20] Subiyanto S, Mohamed A, Hannan M A (2012) Intelligent
maximum power point tracking for PV system using Hopfield
neural network optimized fuzzy logic controller. Energy and
Buildings, 51: 29-38
[21] Kaced K, Larbes C, Ramzan N, et al. (2017) Bat algorithm based
maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic system under
partial shading conditions. Solar Energy, 158: 490-503
[22] Mohanty S, Subudhi B, Ray P K (2016) A new MPPT design
using Grey Wolf Optimization technique for photovoltaic
system under partial shading conditions. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 7(1): 181-188
[23] Sharma S, Kapoor R, Dhiman S (2021) A novel hybrid
Metaheuristic based on augmented Grey Wolf Optimizer and
Cuckoo Search for global optimization. Proceedings of 2021
2nd International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and
Communications
[24] Khan N M, Khan U A, Zafar M H (2021) Maximum power
point tracking of PV system under uniform irradiance and partial
shading conditions using machine learning algorithm trained
by Sailfish Optimizer. Proceedings of 2021 4th International
Conference on Energy Conservation and Efficiency
[25] Yang B, Zhong L, Zhang X, et al. (2019) Novel bio-inspired
memetic salp swarm algorithm and application to MPPT for PV
systems considering partial shading condition. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 215: 1203-1222
[26] Yang B, Yu T, Zhang X, et al. (2019) Dynamic leader based
collective intelligence for maximum power point tracking of PV
systems affected by partial shading condition. Energy Conversion
and Management, 179: 286-303
[27] BlueStorm, Solar Panel-Blue Storm, https://blue-storm.ca/
home/193-solar-panel.html Accessed 6 October 2021
[28] Bana S, Saini R P (2016) A mathematical modeling framework to
evaluate the performance of single diode and double diode based
SPV systems. Energy Reports, 2: 171-187
[29] El-Ghanam S M (2020) Design, implementation and performance
analysis of positive super-lift Luo-converter based on different
MOSFET types. Indian Journal of Physics, 94(6): 833-839
[30] Ss D, Balasubramanian M S, Krishnaveni L (2020) Performance
improvement of photo-voltaic panels by Super-Lift Luo converter
in standalone application. Materials Today: Proceedings, 37(2):
1163-1171
[31] Luo F, Ye H (2003) Positive output super-lift converters. IEEE
Transactions on Power Electronics, 18(1): 105-113
[32] Fan Y, Shao J, Sun G (2019) Optimized PID controller based on
Beetle Antennae Search algorithm for electro-hydraulic position
servo control system. Sensors, 19(12): 2727
[33] Yang X, Deb S (2010) Cuckoo Search via Lévy flights.
Proceedings of 2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically
Inspired Computing
[34] Mirjalili S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2014) Grey Wolf Optimizer.
Advances in Engineering Software, 69: 46-61
[35] Long W, Cai S, Jiao J, et al. (2020) A new hybrid algorithm
based on grey wolf optimizer and Cuckoo Search for parameter
extraction of solar photovoltaic models. Energy Conversion and
Management, 203: 112243
643
Global Energy Interconnection Vol. 5 No. 6 Dec. 2022

Biographies
Jinan Abdulhasan Salim is working toward
the M.Sc. degree at the College of Engineering,
Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad, Iraq. Her
research interests include artificial intelligence
and renewable energy.
Prof. Dr. Muwafaq Sh. Alwan received the
Ph.D. degree at University of Technology,
Baghdad, Iraq in 2012. He is working as
lecturer and researcher at the College of
Engineering, Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad,
Iraq. His research interests include thermal
performance of film cooling and renewable
energy.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Baraa Munqith Albaker Md. Hasanuzzaman received the B.Sc.
received the Ph.D. degree at University of degree in Mechanical Engineering from
Malaya, Malaysia, 2012. Presently, he works as Bangladesh University of Engineering and
the head of the Electrical Engineering department Technology (BUET), Bangladesh, in 2005,
at Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad, Iraq. His and the M. Eng. Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from
research interests include contemporary University of Malaya, Malaysia, in 2008 and
development in computer and control 2011, respectively. Dr. Hasanuzzaman is
applications. presently working as Associate Professor at the
UM Power Energy Dedicated Advanced Centre, Higher Institution
Centre of Excellence (HICoE), University of Malaya, Malaysia. He
was listed among the world’s top 2% scientists for the years 2020
and 2021. He received a University of Malaya Excellence Award
in 2012 for his remarkable achievement during his Ph.D. studies,
and received the Bangladesh Scholarship Council and the Nippon
Foundation (Japan, 2003–2004).

(Editor Yajun Zou)

644