energies
Article
Comparative Study of Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Cuk and Zeta
DC-DC Converters Using Different MPPT Methods for
Photovoltaic Applications
Julio López Seguel 1 , Seleme I. Seleme, Jr. 2, * and Lenin M. F. Morais 2
Citation: Seguel, J.L.; Seleme, S.I., Jr.;
Morais, L.M.F. Comparative Study of
Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Cuk and Zeta
DC-DC Converters Using Different
MPPT Methods for Photovoltaic
Applications. Energies 2022, 15, 7936.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15217936
Academic Editor: Abu-Siada Ahmed
Received: 17 September 2022
Accepted: 18 October 2022
Published: 26 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 7936. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15217936
1 Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Arturo Prat University, Iquique 1100000, Chile
2 Department of Electronic Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
* Correspondence: seleme@cpdee.ufmg.br
Abstract: The power produced in a photovoltaic (PV) system is highly dependent on meteorological
conditions and the features of the connected load. Therefore, maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
methods are crucial to optimize the power delivered. An MPPT method needs a DC-DC converter for
its implementation. The proper selection of both the MPPT technique and the power converter for a
given scenario is one of the main challenges since they directly influence the overall efficiency of the
PV system. This paper presents an exhaustive study of the performance of four step-down/step-up
DC-DC converter topologies: Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Zeta and Cuk, using three of the most commonly
implemented MPPT techniques: incremental conductance (IncCond), perturb and observe (P&O) and
fuzzy logic controller (FLC). Unlike other works available in the literature, this study compares and
discusses the performance of each MPPT/converter combination in terms of settling time and tracking
efficiency of MPPT algorithms, and the conversion efficiency of power converters. Furthermore, this
work jointly considers the effects of incident radiation variations, the temperature of the PV panel
and the connected load. The main contribution of this work, other than selecting the best combination
of converter and MPPT strategy applied to typical PV systems with DC-DC power converters, is
to formulate a methodology of analysis to support the design of efficient PV systems. The results
obtained from simulations performed in Simulink/MATLAB show that the FLC/Cuk set consistently
achieved the highest levels of efficiency, and the FLC/Zeta combination presents the best transient
behavior. The findings can be used as a valuable reference for the decision to implement a particular
MPPT/converter configuration among those included in this study.
Keywords: Buck-Boost; SEPIC; Cuk; Zeta; MPPT methods; PV system
1. Introduction
Over the last few decades, photovoltaic (PV) energy has become one of the most relevant
sources of renewable energy. PV systems are top ranked among renewable energy supplies [1].
By the year 2021, the capacity of PV solar power installed in the world had reached approxi-
mately 942 GW, including both on-grid and off-grid capacity, according to [2]. Nevertheless, PV
panels convert only a small amount of the incident solar irradiation (15–20%), producing
electricity with a very low conversion efficiency [3], which reduces the cost-benefit ratio of
PV systems. Moreover, the power generation of a PV system depends on environmental
conditions such as solar radiation and temperature, along with the characteristics of the
connected load [4]. The power of a PV module is maximum at the inflection point of the P-V
characteristic, known as the maximum power point (MPP). To maximize the conversion
efficiency of a PV panel despite variations in environmental and load conditions, the use of
a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) method is indispensable [5].
Over the years, a variety of MPPT techniques have been developed, such as Hill Climb-
ing (HC), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Fractional Open Circuit Voltage (FOCV),
Incremental Conductance (IncCond), Fractional Short Circuit Current (FSCC), Perturb and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 2 of 26

Observe (P&O), Sliding Mode Control (SMC), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Genetic
Algorithm (GA), Cuckoo Search (CS), fuzzy logic controller (FLC) and Firefly Algorithm
(FA), among others [6–13]. All of those techniques vary in several respects, such as imple-
mentation complexity, effectiveness, tracking speed, tracking accuracy, cost, and hardware
requirements [14]. Among all of them, P&O, IncCond and FLC techniques, have been
widely used in practical applications [15–17]. P&O and IncCond, which are regarded as
conventional MPPT methods, have the advantages of being suitable for any PV genera-
tor. They work quite well under most conditions and they are simple to implement on a
low-cost digital controller [18]. However, both algorithms oscillate around the MPP and
fail to converge under sudden meteorological changes [19,20]. On the other hand, FLC is
a robust artificial intelligence (AI) method which can reach high MPP tracking efficiency
and accuracy [21]. This technique was conceived relying on human understanding of
process control and is based on qualitative rules [22]. The FLC method does not require
any mathematical model. Furthermore, its implementation is simpler when compared to
other AI techniques [23]. Nevertheless, the absence of a systematic method for formulating
the membership functions is the main drawback of an FLC method. They mainly are based
on the designers’ experience and knowledge about the system. In PV systems, the use of
an MPPT method requires for its implementation a DC-DC converter, which can be seen as
an impedance adapter between the PV panel and the connected load. The DC-DC power
converter is controlled through its electronic switch by a signal generated by the MPPT
technique called the duty cycle [24]. There are many DC-DC converters utilized for renew-
able energy applications and which can be classified into two categories, namely, isolated
and non-isolated converters [1]. Although both categories have their own advantages and
disadvantages, non-isolated DC-DC topologies are still a more advantageous and feasible
option to integrate with renewable energy systems [25].
Buck-Boost, Buck, Boost, SEPIC, Zeta and Cuk are the most frequently used non-
isolated converters for PV applications [26]. Among these converters, the topologies Boost
and Buck present simplicity, high efficiency and low-order circuits [27]. However, they
lack output voltage flexibility, which may limit their use. Indeed, the Boost converter can
only increase voltage and the Buck converter can only reduce voltage [28]. Therefore, in PV
system battery charging, for instance, both Boost and Buck converters are unfit to charge the
battery continuously with MPPT operation. If the battery voltage is lower than maximum
power voltage of the PV panel, MPP tracking is not possible in Boost converter; on the
other hand, if the battery voltage is greater than the maximum power voltage of the PV
panel, MPP tracking is not possible in a Buck converter [29]. Since Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Zeta
and Cuk topologies are capable of generating a higher or lower output voltage than the PV
generator, they can achieve MPP tracking regardless of changes in weather conditions and
connected load. Hence, those topologies are preferable for the MPPT principle [25,30].
Over the years, many comparative studies in the field of PV systems and concerned
with power converters and MPPT techniques have been conducted. The majority of these
works have focused on analyzing the tracking efficiency of the MPPT algorithms and their
impact on the power generation of the PV panel, as shown in [4,7,14,18,21,24,31–55]. On
the other hand, not much attention has been given to the behavior of the DC-DC power
converter, though the choice of the suitable DC-DC converter is essential because it has
a relevant role in the overall efficiency of the PV system and its reliability. It should be
noted that the behavior of the power converter varies depending on the parameters and its
operating conditions, such as switching frequency, duty cycle, voltage and current levels,
load impedance, continuous conduction mode (CCM) and discontinuous conduction mode
(DCM), among others. Thus, it is a task for researchers to define which MPPT/converter set,
from the conversion efficiency point of view, performs better in a given scenario. To the best
of the authors’ knowledge, there are few recent works taking this approach, as seen in [27],
where the authors compare the conversion efficiency of two DC-DC converters (Boost and
Buck) working with three different MPPT techniques (IncCond, P&O and Temp). This work
shows that the P&O/Boost combination performed with the highest power conversion
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 3 of 26

efficiency. In [56], the conversion efficiency of seven DC-DC converters (Buck-Boost, Boost,
Buck, Zeta, SEPIC, Luo and Cuk) is compared, but only operating with the P&O algorithm.
In this paper, the authors conclude that the Buck-Boost converter performed better than the
rest. In [57], the conversion efficiency of four DC-DC converters (Zeta, ZVS Zeta, SEPIC
and ZVS SEPIC) working with two MPPT techniques (IncCond and P&O) is compared.
This paper shows that the IncCond/ZVS Zeta configuration achieved the best performance.
Taking into account the abovementioned analysis, this work presents a new compara-
tive study between four non-isolated DC-DC converters (Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Zeta and Cuk)
operating with three of the most popular MPPT algorithms (IncCond, P&O and FLC). The
study compares and discusses the performance of each MPPT/converter set in terms of
their settling time and average steady-state efficiency. Unlike comparative studies available
in the literature, this work considers the effects of variations in incident radiation, PV panel
temperature and connected load on the performance of the MPPT methods and on the con-
version efficiency of each power converter. Thus, this paper provides valuable information
for choosing the most suitable MPPT/converter configuration, from the efficiency point of
view, for certain weather and load conditions.
The study has been conducted based on simulations implemented with MATLAB/
Simulink. In order to obtain more accurate and comparable results, all converters have been
designed to present the same inductor ripple current and capacitor ripple voltage levels for
a given operating condition. In addition, the passive components of each converter have been
simulated in the presence of non-idealities according to commercial values. Furthermore, a
precise model for the Kyocera KC85TS commercial PV module has been used.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 briefly describes a typical PV system
with MPPT controller. In Section 3, a concise description of the main characteristics of the
DC-DC converters as well as the sizing of their components is given. Section 4 provides
the principles of operation of the MPPT techniques. Simulated results and comparative
analysis are provided in Section 5. Section 6 summarizes the conclusions of the paper.

2. PV System Description
In a PV system, when the PV generator is connected directly to the load, its operation
point is determined by the generation and load curves’ intersection, which commonly does
not coincide with the MPP of the PV module. Moreover, on the one hand, radiation and
temperature variations impacts generation curve changes, while on the other hand, the
type of load connected to the PV module affects the load curve. Under these conditions,
the PV system is unable to operate at the MPP most of the time, with an ensuing loss of
available solar energy. To surmount this issue, a DC-DC converter is placed between the
load and the PV module, as is shown in Figure 1. Thus, an MPPT algorithm regulates the
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 11 of 34
converter’s duty cycle in order to match the apparent impedance of the PV panel to the
impedance at the MPP.

Figure 1. TypicalFigure 1. 1
PV system with DC-DC power converter and MPPT controller.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 4 of 26

3. DC-DC Converters
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 11 of 34
Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Zeta and Cuk are non-isolated DC-DC power converters which are
able to generate an output voltage larger or smaller than the input voltage magnitude, so
they are also called step-down/step-up converters. In comparison to step-down and step-
up topologies, step-down/step-up converters are able to cover the entire I–V characteristics
of a PV panel. This fact helps MPPT operation to be conducted perfectly in a PV system,
regardless of variations in atmospheric and load conditions.

3.1. Buck-Boost Converter

The Buck-Boost converter is simple and inexpensive to implement because it only
contains a capacitor and a coil as energy storage elements [28]. It should be noticed that its
input current is always discontinuous since the switch is in series with the generator, which
implies that the current has many harmonic components, high input ripple and significant
noise problems [58]. To handle this problem, large capacitors or LC filters are required.
Moreover, in a conventional Buck-Boost converter, the output voltage has opposite polarity
than the input voltage, which represents its main issue [59]. Figure 2a shows the structure
1. 1
of a conventional Figure
Buck-Boost converter.

Figure 2. 2 DC-DC power converters. (a) Buck-Boost. (b) SEPIC. (c) Cuk. (d) Zeta.
Figure 2. Step-down/step-up

3.2. Cuk Converter

Unlike the Buck-Boost converter, where energy transfer is associated with the inductor,
energy transfer for the Cuk converter depends on the capacitor C1 as shown in Figure 2c.
The inductor L1 on the input filters the DC supply current, preventing large harmonic
content [60]. Its continuous input current reduces the size of the input filter capacitor by
reducing the current stress on it. In addition, this topology also guarantees the continuity of
the output current [61]. Another advantage of this converter is that the control terminal of
the electronic switch is grounded, which simplifies the gate drive design. On the other hand,
like the Buck-Boost converter, the Cuk converter generates an inverted output voltage [62].

3.3. Single-Ended Primary Inductance Converter (SEPIC)

Just like Cuk converter, the SEPIC converter has an inductor at the input. Hence,
the input current waveform is continuous with a low ripple level [63], which is suitable
to achieve high-precise MPPT performance. Another benefit of this configuration is the
isolation between Figure
the output
3. 3 and the input by the capacitor C1 , as shown in Figure 2b. The
capacitor C1 protects against a short circuit or an overload of the output [64]. Moreover,
the classical SEPIC topology has the advantage (when compared to Buck-Boost and Cuk
topologies) that both output and input voltages have the same polarity [65]. In addition,
the SEPIC converter, like the Cuk converter, has the advantageous feature of the switch
control terminal connected to ground [58]. On the other hand, the SEPIC converter has a
discontinuous output current, which implies that a large output capacitor filter is necessary
to smooth the current.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 5 of 26

3.4. Zeta Converter

The Zeta converter, similar to the SEPIC converter, does not suffer from the polarity
reversal problem [66]. Furthermore, the Zeta topology not only has low output voltage
ripple, which facilitates the output regulation task, but also its uniform output current
allows the use of smaller capacitors, which improves the load performance [25,67]. Those
features make the Zeta converter a better candidate when voltage quality and output power
is critical [68]. On the other hand, the Zeta converter, like the Buck-Boost converter, suffers
from the drawback of having a discontinuous input current [69], which can affect the MPPT
performance. Another important issue that must be considered in this converter is that
the control terminal is not grounded. Thus, a complex high side switch driver circuit is
required [26]. Figure 2d shows the structure of the Zeta converter.

3.5. Design of the DC-DC Converters

The passive components of each converter were calculated by using the equations
in Table 1. All converters were sized to present the same inductor ripple current (∆IL )
and capacitor ripple voltage (∆VC ) levels for certain operating conditions. The operation
conditions were set as follows: ∆IL1 = 10%, ∆IL2 = 20%, ∆VC1 = 5%, ∆VC2 = 2%, DC power
supply voltage Vs = 17.4 V, output voltage magnitude Vo = 12 V, load resistor R = 2 Ω and
PWM switching frequency f = 30 kHz. In order to incorporate the effect of the losses in
the passive components, the calculated values were replaced by the most similar commercial
values, so as to include the DC resistance (DCR) of the inductors and the equivalent series
resistance (ESR) of the capacitors. It should be noted that the losses in the semiconductors were
partially estimated, since only the value of static drain-to-source on-resistance (RDS(on)), in the
case of the mosfet, and both forward slope resistance (Ron) and forward voltage drop (VF), in
the case of the diode, were considered. Table 2 shows the summary of the passive components
of each converter. Table 3 shows the values of the commercial semiconductors used.

Table 1. Setting equations.

Parameter Buck-Boost Cuk SEPIC Zeta

Vo
Vs − 1−DD − 1−DD D
1− D
D
1− D
L1 Vs · D Vs · D Vs · D Vs · D
∆IL1 · f ∆IL1 · f ∆IL1 · f ∆IL1 · f
L2 - Vs · D Vs · D Vs · D
∆IL2 · f ∆IL2 · f ∆IL2 · f
C1 Vo · D Vo · D Vo · D Vo · D
∆VC1 · f · R ∆VC1 · f · R ∆VC1 · f · R ∆VC1 · f · R
C2 - Vo (1− D ) Vo · D Vs · D
8·∆VC2 · L2 · f 2 ∆VC2 · f · R 8·∆VC2 · L2 · f 2

Table 2. Passive components of the DC-DC converters.

Buck-Boost Cuk SEPIC Zeta

Calculated Commercial Calculated Commercial Calculated Commercial Calculated Commercial
Parameter
Value Value Value Value Value Value Value Value
220 µH 560 µH 560 µH 560 µH
DCR = 75 mΩ DCR = 90 mΩ DCR = 90 mΩ DCR = 90 mΩ
L1 233.5 µH 572.1 µH 572.1 µH 572.1 µH
Coilcraft Coilcraft Coilcraft Coilcraft
PCV-2-224-05L PCV-2-564-08L PCV-2-564-08L PCV-2-564-08L
180 µH 180 µH 180 µH
DCR = 48 mΩ DCR = 48 mΩ DCR = 48 mΩ
L2 - - 197.3 µH 197.3 µH 197.3 µH
Coilcraft Coilcraft Coilcraft
PCV-2-184-10L PCV-2-184-10L PCV-2-184-10L
330 µF 150 µF 150 µF 150 µF
ESR = 22 mΩ ESR = 42 mΩ ESR = 42 mΩ ESR = 42 mΩ
C1 340.1 µF 136.1 µF 136.1 µF 136.1 µF
Panasonic Panasonic Panasonic Panasonic
EEUFR1H331L EEUFR1H151 EEUFR1H151 EEUFR1H151
22 µF 330 µF 22 µF
ESR = 340 mΩ ESR = 22 mΩ ESR = 340 mΩ
C2 - - 20.8 µF 340.1 µF 20.8 µF
Panasonic Panasonic Panasonic
EEUFR1H220 EEUFR1H331L EEUFR1H220
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 6 of 26

Table 3. Semiconductor devices.

Component Description
IRF540Z
Mosfet
Static Drain-to-Source On-Resistance RDS(on) = 26.5 mΩ
Figure 1. 1 MBR20100CT
Diode Forward Voltage Drop VF = 0.8 V
Forward Slope Resistance Ron = 15.8 mΩ

4. Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithms

4.1. Perturb and Observe (P&O) Method
This technique is extensively applied in commercial devices and is the basis of most
of the more sophisticated algorithms presented in the literature [48]. The P&O method is
widely utilized because of its low cost and simplicity of implementation [70]. This technique
consists of disturbing the PV panel voltage in a certain direction through a disturbance of
the duty cycle of the DC-DC converter (∆d), and then observing the behavior of its output
power. If the power increases, the disturbance continues in the same direction; otherwise,
the system is perturbed in the opposite direction. The process is repeated periodically,
so in steady state the power oscillates around the MPP, thus wasting some of the energy
available in the PV panel. To guarantee proper behavior both dynamic and in steady state,
a suitable size for ∆d must be carefully selected [71]. The main drawback of this method is
the occasional
Figure 2. 2 shift of MPP due to rapid changes in climatic conditions, such as in the case
of moving clouds [72]. Figure 3 shows the flowchart of this technique.

3. 33. Flowchart of P&O MPPT method.

Figure
Figure

4.2. Incremental Conductance (IncCond) Method

The IncCond technique is widely utilized because of its high steady-state tracking
accuracy and good adaptability for rapid changes in weather conditions [6,73]. This
algorithm is based on
 the principle
 that the slope of the P-V characteristic of the PV module
dP
is zero at the MPP dV = 0 , negative on the right and positive on the left [21]. Thus:

dP dI ∼ ∆I
= I+V = I+V (1)
dV dV ∆V
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 7 of 26

Then (1) can be written as:

∆I I
= − (at the MPP) (2)
∆V V
∆I I
> − (left of the MPP) (3)
∆V V
∆I I
< − (right of the MPP) (4)
∆V V
 
The MPP is traced by comparing the instantaneous conductance VI with the incre-
 
∆I
mental conductance ∆V . When the MPP is reached, the converter’s duty cycle must
remain unchanged because the PV panel voltage (VPV ) coincides with the maximum power
voltage of the PV module (VMPP ). In this case, ∆V is zero and the incremental conductance
calculation must be omitted, and only the PV panel current must be evaluated. In the event
that the MPP changes, a perturbation in the duty cycle must be performed to seek the new
MPP. The main disadvantage of this algorithm (compared to P&O) is the increase in hardware
and software complexity, due to the mathematical operations required. This latter causes an
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 12 of 34
increase in computation times, which limits the sampling rate for the measurement of voltage
and current signals [70]. Figure 4 shows the flowchart of this algorithm.

Figure4.4. 4Flowchart of IncCond MPPT method.

Figure

4.3. Fuzzy Logic Controller (FLC) MPPT Method

FLC is a type of AI strategy that uses heuristic logic for solving complex problems.
Because of its simplicity and effectiveness, this approach has become very popular for the
control of both linear and non-linear systems. Over the years, this method has demonstrated
its outstanding features for the design of high-performance MPPT controllers with the
advantage of not requiring any mathematical model of the PV system [74,75]. However, this
control approach does not provide a systematic method; instead, it bases its design according
to the trial and error method and information that comes from an expert’s knowledge of the
system, which represents its main drawback [16,76]. Takagi–Sugeno and Mandami are two of
the most frequently used fuzzy inference systems for developing an FLC [77].
Figure 5. 5
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 8 of 26

Figure 5 shows the block diagram of a typical FLC. In the fuzzification phase, the input
signals are transformed into linguistic variables. In the inference phase, the control actions
are executed by means of the knowledge base, which is described in terms of If-Then rules
and their membership functions. In the defuzzification phase, the fuzzy information is
converted Figure
back to4.numerical
4 information using some defuzzification method, such as center
of gravity (CoG), or Mean of Maxima (MoM), among other [78–80].

Figure 5. Block diagram

Figure 5. 5 of an FLC controller.

For the FLC used in this work, the fuzzy inputs were determined as the slope (S) and
the power variation (∆PPV ) defined from the Power-Voltage curve of a PV panel. S and
∆PPV are described by Equations (5) and (6), respectively. For the output variable, the duty
cycle increment (∆D) was determined, which allows calculation of the duty cycle value
to control the DC-DC power converter. The duty cycle value is defined by Equation (7).
Figure 6 shows the membership functions for the output and inputs of the FLC. For both
output and inputs, asymmetrical triangular membership functions were adopted, and their
Entropy 2022, 24, values
1132 adjusted by trial and error employing the MATLAB Fuzzy Logic Toolbox. Table 4
13 of 34
shows the fuzzy rule base used. Details of the FLC design can be found in [23].

Figure 6. Triangular
Figuremembership
6. 6 functions of the FLC. (a) Input S. (b) Input ∆PPV . (c) Output ∆D.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 9 of 26

Table 4. Rules for the FLC.

S NB NS ZO PS PB
∆PPV
NB PB PS ZO NS NB
NS PB PS ZO NS NB
ZO PS PS ZO NS NS
PS PB PS ZO NS NB
PB PB PS ZO NS NB

∆PPV (n) I (n)·VPV (n) − IPV (n − 1)·VPV (n − 1)

S(n) = = PV (5)
∆VPV (n) VPV (n) − VPV (n − 1)
∆PPV (n) = PPV (n) − PPV (n − 1) (6)
D (n) = D (n − 1) + ∆D (n) (7)
where n is the sampling time, PPV (n) is the PV module power, VPV (n) is the PV module
voltage, IPV (n) is the PV module current and D(n) is the duty cycle of the power converter.

5. Simulations
This section presents the results of the simulations carried out. The general scheme
of the PV system shown in Figure 1 was implemented. The PV array was made of one
Kyocera KC85TS module. Table 5 presents its main electrical specifications. Details of
its modeling can be found in [4]. Figure 7 shows the power-voltage curves obtained for
the PV panel at different levels of radiation and temperature. The values of the passive
components and semiconductors used in each converter are those shown in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. The PWM switching frequency was set at 30 kHz. It should be noted that the
switch drivers were not considered, they were simulated as ideal components. Moreover,
a capacitor was connected between the PV panel and the DC-DC converters to suppress
input voltage ripple and filter ripple current. A value corresponding to the commercial
Panasonic EEUFR1H102 capacitor (C = 1000 µF, ESR = 16 mΩ) was used.

Table 5. Electrical characteristics of the Kyocera KC85TS commercial PV panel [81].

Parameters Values
Maximum power current (IMPP ) 5.02 A
Maximum power voltage (VMPP ) 17.4 V
Maximum power (PMPP ) 87 W ± 10%
Short circuit current (ISC ) 5.34 A
Open circuit voltage (VOC ) 21.7 V
Temperature coefficient of ISC 2.12 × 10−3 A/◦ C
Temperature coefficient of VOC −8.21 × 10−2 V/◦ C
Max system voltage 600 V

Figure 8 shows the simulation scheme developed for testing the SEPIC converter operat-
ing with the FLC controller. A similar structure was implemented for the other converters and
MPPT methods studied in this work. To test the steady-state follow-up efficiency, different
tests were performed. First, sudden changes in the radiation profile were applied, keeping a
constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. The radiation was varied between 250 W/m2 and 1000 W/m2 ,
as shown in Figure 9a. Next, abrupt variations in the temperature profile were applied, keep-
ing a constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 . The temperature was varied between 15 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C,
as shown in Figure 9b. Both tests were performed considering four different load resistance
values (R = 2 Ω, R = 5 Ω, R = 10 Ω and R = 20 Ω). Each MPPT/converter configuration
was compared in terms of efficiency in power produced by the PV panel and the conversion
efficiency of the converters, according to the expressions (8) and (9), respectively. Figure 10
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 10 of 26

shows the waveforms of PV panel current (IPV ), duty cycle, PV panel voltage (VPV ), PV
panel power (PPV ) and converter output power (Pout ) for the Buck-Boost converter acting
under
Figureradiation
6. 6 variations; Figures 11–13 show the same waveforms for the Cuk, SEPIC
and Zeta converters, respectively.

7 P–V characteristic curves simulated for the Kyocera KC85TS module. (a) Variable temperature
Figure7.7.The
Figure
and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2. (b) Variable radiation and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C.

∑in=1 PPV
ηMPPT = × 100 (8)
∑in=1 PMPP
where PPV is the power produced by the PV panel, and PMPP is the ideal maximum power
generated by the PV panel.

∑in=1 Pout
ηconverter = × 100 (9)
∑in=1 PPV

where Pout is the output power provided by the converters.

((a)

(b)

Figure 8. (a) Simulation scheme developed for the PV system operating with the SEPIC converter
and the FLC-MPPT algorithm. (b) Internal block diagram of the FLC.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 11 of 26
Figure 8. 8

Figure 9. (a) Radiation

Figureprofile.
9. 9 (b) Temperature profile.

Figure 10. PV system operating with Buck-Boost topology and MPPT methods for radiation variations
and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 12 of 26

Figure 11. PV system operating with Cuk topology and MPPT methods for radiation variations and
constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

Figure 12. PV system operating with SEPIC topology and MPPT methods for radiation variations
and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 13 of 26

Figure 13. PV system operating with Zeta topology and MPPT methods for radiation variations and
constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

5.1. MPPT Tracking Efficiency under Radiation Variations

Figure 14 shows the summary of the results obtained for the tracking efficiency of
the MPPT algorithms for variations in incident radiation. It can be observed that the
best performance was achieved by the FLC algorithm operating with the Cuk converter
and a connected load of 5 Ω, reaching 99.94% efficiency (Figure 14b), while the worst
performance was presented by the P&O algorithm working with the Zeta converter and
2 Ω load, reaching an efficiency of 98.76% (Figure 14a). Figure 15 shows the average
efficiency achieved by each MPPT algorithm considering all load conditions. It can be
observed that, regardless of the converter used and the value of the connected load, the
highest percentages of efficiency were achieved by the FLC algorithm, with the FLC/Cuk
configuration being the one that achieved the best performance with an average efficiency
of 99.87%.
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 On the other hand, the worst performance was presented by the P&O/SEPIC
17 of 34
configuration, reaching an average efficiency of 99.18%.

Figure 14. MPPT trackingFigureefficiency

14. 14 for radiation variations and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω.
(b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 14 of 26
Figure 14. 14

15. Average ◦
FigureFigure 15. 15MPPT tracking efficiency for radiation variations and constant temperature of 25 C.

5.2. Converter Efficiency under Radiation Variations

Figure 16 shows the summary of the results obtained for the conversion efficiency
of the converters for variations in incident radiation. One can observe the influence of
the value of the connected load on the performance of the converters. It is clear that the
conversion efficiency of the converters tends to be reduced as the value of the load resistance
reduces. On the other hand, it can be seen that the best performance was achieved by
the Cuk converter when operating with the FLC algorithm and a connected load of 20 Ω,
reaching an efficiency of 91.67% (Figure 16d). The lowest performance was presented by the
Buck-Boost converter when working with the P&O algorithm and a load of 2 Ω, reaching
an efficiency of 80.09% (Figure 16a). Figure 17 shows the average efficiency achieved by
each converter considering all load conditions. It can be observed that regardless of the
algorithm used and the value of the connected load, the highest percentages of efficiency
were achieved by the Cuk converter. The FLC/Cuk configuration was the one that achieved
the best performance with an average conversion efficiency of 89.43%. On the other hand,
the
Entropyworst performance was presented by the P&O/Buck-Boost configuration, reaching
2022, 24, 1132 18 of 34 an
average efficiency of 87.26%.

Figure 16. 16
Figure 16. Converter efficiency for radiation variations and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω.
(b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 Figure 16. 16 15 of 26

Figure 17. Average converter efficiency for radiation variations and constant temperature of 25 ◦ C.
Figure 17. 17
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132Figures
18–21 show the behavior of the Buck-Boost, Cuk, SEPIC and Zeta topologies, 19 of 34

respectively, for temperature variations.

Figure 18. PV system operating

Figure 18. 18 with Buck-Boost topology and MPPT methods for temperature
variations and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 . (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 16 of 26
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 20 of 34

19. PV system
Entropy 2022, Figure
24, 1132 operating
Figure 19. 19 with Cuk topology and MPPT methods for temperature variations
21 of 34
2
and constant radiation of 1000 W/m . (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

Figure 20. PV system operating

Figure 20. 20 with SEPIC topology and MPPT methods for temperature variations
and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 . (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 17 of 26
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 22 of 34

Figure 21. PV system

Figure 21. operating
21 with Zeta topology and MPPT methods for temperature variations
and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 . (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

5.3. MPPT Tracking Efficiency under Temperature Variations

Figure 22 shows the summary of the results obtained for the tracking efficiency of
MPPT algorithms operating at different temperatures. It can be seen that the best perfor-
mance was achieved by the FLC algorithm, reaching an efficiency of 99.94% operating
with either the Cuk converter or the SEPIC converter, and with a connected load of 2 Ω
in both cases (Figure 22a). The worst performance was presented by the P&O algorithm
operating with the SEPIC converter and a load of 20 Ω, reaching an efficiency of 98.57%
(Figure 22d). Figure 23 shows the average efficiency achieved by each MPPT algorithm
considering all load conditions. It can be seen that, regardless of the converter used and
the value of the connected load, the highest percentages of efficiency were achieved by
the FLC algorithm, with the FLC/Cuk configuration being the one that achieved the best
performance
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 with an average efficiency of 99.77%. On the other hand, the23lowest
of 34 average
efficiency was presented by the P&O/SEPIC configuration, reaching a value of 98.98%.

Figure 22. MPPT tracking

Figureefficiency
22. 22 for temperature variations and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 .
(a) R = 2Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 18 of 26
Figure 22. 22

Figure 23. Average

Figure 23. 23 MPPT tracking efficiency for temperature variations and constant radiation of
1000 W/m2 .

5.4. Converter Efficiency under Temperature Variations

Figure 24 shows the summary of the results obtained for the conversion efficiency
of the converters for variations in the temperature of the PV panel. As can be seen, the
value of the connected load has a direct effect on the performance of converters, with
converters achieving lower efficiency when operating at higher load current levels (lower
load resistance). On the other hand, the best performance was achieved by the Cuk
converter when operating with the FLC algorithm and a connected load of 20 Ω, reaching
an efficiency of 91.63% (Figure 24d). The lowest performance was presented by the Buck-
Boost converter when working with the P&O algorithm and a load of 2 Ω, reaching an
efficiency of 79.67% (Figure 24a). Figure 25 shows the average efficiency achieved by
each converter considering all load conditions. It can be observed that, regardless of the
algorithm used and the value of the connected load, the highest percentages of efficiency
were achieved by the Cuk converter, with the FLC/Cuk configuration being the one that
achieved the best performance with an average conversion efficiency of 89.51%. On the
contrary, the worst performance was presented by the P&O/Buck-Boost configuration,
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 24 of 34
reaching an average efficiency of 86.89%.

Figure 24. 24 for temperature variations and constant radiation of 1000 W/m2 .
Figure 24. Converter efficiency
(a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 19 of 26
Figure 24. 24

Figure 25.25. Average

Figure 25 converter efficiency for temperature variations and constant radiation of
1000 W/m2 .

5.5. Transient Tracking Time

The following test was performed in order to analyze the transient behavior: the
PV system was simulated considering an incident radiation of 1000 W/m2 and PV panel
temperature of 25 ◦ C. For each MPPT/converter configuration, the convergence time (τ)
was determined as the instant in which the power reached 95% of the ideal maximum
power in the PV module, as recommended in [37]. Figures 26–29 show the responses of the
MPPT techniques acting with the Buck-Boost, Cuk, SEPIC and Zeta converters, respectively.
The test was carried out for each of the load resistance values used above (R = 2 Ω, R = 5 Ω,
R = 10 Ω and R = 20 Ω). Figure 30 shows the summary of the results obtained, from which
it is observed that the MPPT algorithms respond faster to lower load resistance values. The
FLC/Zeta combination with a connected load of 2 Ω presented the fastest transient response
with τ = 57.78 ms (Figure 30a), whereas the P&O/SEPIC configuration with a connected
load of 20 Ω presented the slowest response with τ = 303.20 ms (Figure 30d). Figure 31
shows the average transient tracking time obtained for each MPPT/converter configuration,
where it can be observed that the FLC/Zeta combination was the one that reached the
fastest average response with τ = 70.91 ms, whereas the P&O/SEPIC configuration
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 25 of 34
was the
one that presented the slowest average response with τ = 288.38 ms.

Figure 26. 26
Figure 26. Convergence time of the MPPT techniques working with the Buck-Boost converter at
1000 W/m2 and 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 20 of 26
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 26 of 34

27. Convergence time27 of the MPPT techniques working with the Cuk converter at 1000 W/m 2
Entropy 2022, Figure
24, 1132 Figure 27. 27 of 34
◦
and 25 C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

Figure 28. Convergence time

Figure 28. 28 of the MPPT techniques working with SEPIC converter at 1000 W/m2
◦
and 25 C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 21 of 26
Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 28 of 34

Entropy 2022, 24, 1132 Figure 29. Convergence time

Figure 29. 29 of the MPPT techniques working with the Zeta converter at of 34 W/m2
29 1000
◦
and 25 C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω. (d) R = 20 Ω.

Figure 30. Settling time of MPPT methods at 1000 W/m2 and 25 ◦ C. (a) R = 2 Ω. (b) R = 5 Ω. (c) R = 10 Ω.
Figure 30. 30
(d) R = 20 Ω.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 22 of 26
Figure 30. 30

Figure 31. Average settling time of MPPT methods at 1000 W/m2 and 25 ◦ C.
Figure 31. 31
6. Conclusions
The setup of K-Means on top of S-Bert, which is the only setup that is compet
This work enables the
sIB quality-wise, selection of the
is substantially best due
slower combination of converter
to the neural and MPPT
vectorization on CPU. On
strategy applied to typical PV systems with standard DC-DC power converters and the
this setup is 200 times slower than sIB. More generally, the S-Bert model is mo
most commonly used MPPT techniques. An exhaustive analysis of the performance of four
demanding than any other representation type evaluated here, and for practical
topologies of non-isolated step-down/step-up DC-DC converters (Buck-Boost, SEPIC, Zeta
especially
and Cuk), onwith
operating largethree
datasets such
different MPPTas DBPedia and Yahoo!
methods (P&O, IncCondAnswers,
and FLC), it is likely
used to to n
a GPU
maximize or evenpower
the electrical moreproduced
than one. A generation
in PV chart of the total has
systems, run-time measurements
been presented. The is
study in Appendix B.
was developed based on simulations in Simulink/MATLAB. The transient response
and average steady-state efficiency of each MPPT/converter combination were analyzed
Discussionconsidering variations in incident radiation, PV panel temperature and
and compared,
connected load.
The results emphasize the premise of the sIB implementation proposed in t
The results obtained showed that the value of the connected load has a significant
impact delivering a clustering
on the overall efficiencyanalysis that is as good
of the photovoltaic as canItbe
system. obtained
was possiblebytoaverify
state-of-the-
that, in general, when a lower load value is used, the efficiency of the converters and
the response times of the MPPT algorithms decrease. On the other hand, regardless
of the converter used, all MPPT techniques present excellent performance, with all of
them reaching average efficiencies above 98%. Although the three techniques produce
similar efficiencies, FLC was slightly superior among them all, followed by IncCond and
then P&O. Additionally, it appears that regardless of the MPPT algorithm used, the Cuk
converter presented the highest conversion efficiency among all converters; consequently,
the FLC/Cuk combination had the best performance of all. On the contrary, the Buck-
Boost converter showed the lowest conversion efficiencies, with the P&O/Buck-Boost
configuration being the worst. Regarding convergence time, the FLC/Zeta configuration
showed the lowest average response time to reach MPP and the P&O/SEPIC configuration
had the slowest response.
Finally, this research can be used as a valuable reference for making decisions about
whether to implement a particular MPPT/converter configuration among those included
in this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L.S.; Methodology, J.L.S.; Software, J.L.S.; Writing—Original

draft preparation, J.L.S.; Visualization, J.L.S.; Investigation, J.L.S.; Writing—Reviewing and Editing, S.I.S.J.
and L.M.F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 23 of 26

Nomenclature

Abbreviations
PV Photovoltaic
MPPT Maximum power point tracking
MPP Maximum power point
P&O Perturb and observe
IncCond Incremental conductance
FLC Fuzzy logic controller
FOCV Fractional open circuit voltage
FSCC Fractional short circuit current
HC Hill climbing
SMC Sliding mode control
ANN Artificial neural network
GA Genetic algorithm
PSO Particle swarm optimization
FA Firefly algorithm
CS Cuckoo search
AI Artificial intelligence
CCM Continuous conduction mode
DCM Discontinuous conduction mode
PWM Pulse width modulation
CoG Center of gravity method
MoM Mean of Maxima method
Symbols
VMPP Maximum power voltage of the PV panel (V)
PMPP Maximum power of the PV panel (W)
IPV PV panel current (A)
VPV PV panel voltage (V)
PPV Power of the PV panel (W)
Pout Output power converter (W)
∆IL Inductor ripple current (A)
∆VC Capacitor ripple voltage (V)
VS DC power supply voltage (V)
VO Output voltage of the power converter (V)
R Load resistor (Ω)
f PWM switching frequency (Hz)
DCR DC resistance of the inductor (H)
ESR Equivalent series resistance of the inductor (Ω)
RDS(on) Static drain-to-source on-resistance of the mosfet (Ω)
Ron Forward slope resistance of the diode (Ω)
VF Forward voltage drop of the diode (Ω)
D Duty cycle of the power converter
∆D Duty cycle increment
n Sample n
n−1 Sample n − 1
S Slope of the P-V curve
∆PPV Power variation of the PV panel (W)
∆VPV Voltage variation of the PV panel (V)
ηMPPT Efficiency of the MPPT algorithm (%)
ηconverter Efficiency of the CD-CD power converter (%)
τ Convergence time of the MPPT technique (s)

References
1. Osmani, K.; Haddad, A.; Lemenand, T.; Castanier, B.; Ramadan, M. An investigation on maximum power extraction algorithms
from PV systems with corresponding DC-DC converters. Energy 2021, 224, 120092. [CrossRef]
2. Renewables Global Status Report 2022. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2022_Full_
Report.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2022).
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 24 of 26

3. Kandeal, A.; Algazzar, A.; Elkadeem, M.; Kumar, A.; Abdelaziz, G.; El-Said, E.; Elsaid, A.; Meng, A.; Kandel, R.; Fawzy, H.; et al.
Nano-enhanced cooling techniques for photovoltaic panels: A systematic review and prospect recommendations. Solar Energy
2021, 227, 259–272. [CrossRef]
4. López, J.; Seleme, I.; Donoso, P.; Morais, L.; Cortizo, P.; Severo, M. Comparison of the performance of MPPT methods applied in
converters Buck and Buck-Boost for autonomous photovoltaic systems. Ingeniare 2021, 29, 229–244.
5. Rajesh, R.; Mabel, C. A comprehensive review of photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 231–248. [CrossRef]
6. Karami, N.; Moubayed, N.; Outbib, R. General review and classification of different MPPT Techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2017, 68, 1–18. [CrossRef]
7. Reisi, A.; Moradi, M.; Jamasb, S. Classification and comparison of maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic
system: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 19, 433–443. [CrossRef]
8. Messalti, S.; Harrag, A.; Loukriz, A. A new variable step size neural networks MPPT controller: Review, simulation and hardware
implementation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 221–233. [CrossRef]
9. Chekired, F.; Larbes, C.; Rekioua, D.; Haddad, F. Implementation of a MPPT fuzzy controller for photovoltaic systems on FPGA
circuit. Energy Procedia 2011, 6, 541–549. [CrossRef]
10. Robles, C.; Liñán, R.; Ospino, A. Implementation of a cost-effective fuzzy MPPT controller on the Arduino board. Int. J. Smart
Sens. Intell. Syst. 2018, 11, 1–10.
11. Mohammed, S.; Devaraj, D.; Imthias, T. A novel hybrid Maximum Power Point Tracking Technique using Perturb & Observe
algorithm and Learning Automata for solar PV system. Solar Energy 2016, 112, 1096–1106.
12. Wang, J.; Rong, J.; Yu, L. Dynamic prescribed performance sliding mode control for DC–DC buck converter system with
mismatched time-varying disturbances. ISA Trans. 2022, 129, 546–557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Wang, J.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Wu, B.; Li, Q. Extended state observer-based sliding mode control for PWM-based DC–DC buck power
converter systems with mismatched disturbances. IET Control. Theory Appl. 2015, 9, 579–586. [CrossRef]
14. Mohanty, P.; Bhuvaneswari, G.; Balasubramanian, R.; Dhaliwal, N. MATLAB based modeling to study the performance of
different MPPT techniques used for solar PV system under various operating conditions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38,
581–593. [CrossRef]
15. Zakzouk, N.; Elsaharty, M.; Abdelsalam, A.; Helal, A.; Williams, B. Improved performance low-cost incremental conductance PV
MPPT technique. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2016, 10, 561–574. [CrossRef]
16. Nabipour, M.; Razaz, M.; Seifossadat, S.; Mortazavi, S. A new MPPT scheme based on a novel fuzzy approach. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 1147–1169. [CrossRef]
17. Suganthi, L.; Iniyan, S.; Samuel, A. Applications of fuzzy logic in renewable energy systems—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2015, 48, 585–607. [CrossRef]
18. Sera, D.; Mathe, L.; Kerekes, T.; Viorel, S.; Teodorescu, R. On the Perturb-and-Observe and Incremental Conductance MPPT
Methods for PV Systems. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2013, 3, 1070–1078. [CrossRef]
19. Esram, T.; Chapman, P. Comparison of photovoltaic array maximum power point tracking techniques. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.
2007, 22, 439–449. [CrossRef]
20. Allah, A.; Saied, M.; Mostafa, M.; Abdel, T. A Survey of Maximum PPT Techniques of PV Systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE
Energytech, Cleveland, OH, USA, 29–31 May 2012.
21. Gupta, A.; Chauhan, Y.; Kumar, R. A comparative investigation of maximum power point tracking methods for solar PV system.
Sol. Energy 2016, 136, 236–253. [CrossRef]
22. Oudda, M.; Hazzab, A. Fuzzy Logic Control of a SEPIC Converter for a Photovoltaic System. J. Fundam. Renew. Energy Appl. 2016,
6, 1000212. [CrossRef]
23. López, J.; Seleme, I. Robust Digital Control Strategy Based on Fuzzy Logic for a Solar Charger of VRLA Batteries. Energies 2021,
14, 1001.
24. Ba, A.; Ould, C.; El Mamy, M.; Hamdouna, O.; Elhassena, A. Comparative Study of Different DC/DC Power Converter for
Optimal PV System Using MPPT (P&O) Method. Appl. Sol. Energy 2018, 54, 235–245.
25. Mumtaz, F.; Zaihar, N.; Tanzim, S.; Singh, B.; Kannan, R.; Ibrahim, O. Review on non-isolated DC-DC converters and their control
techniques for renewable energy applications. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 3747–3763. [CrossRef]
26. Dileep, G.; Singh, S. Selection of non-isolated DC-DC converters for solar photovoltaic system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,
76, 1230–1247.
27. Zaions, D.; Balbino, J.; Baratieri, C.; Stankiewicz, A. Comparative analysis of buck and boost converters applied to different
maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic systems. In Proceedings of the Brazilian Power Electronics Conference
(COBEP), Juiz de Fora, Brazil, 19–22 November 2017.
28. Dursun, M.; Gorgun, A. Analysis and Performance Comparison of DC-DC Power Converters Used in Photovoltaic Systems.
In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Electrical and Electronic Engineering (ICEEE), Ankara, Turkey, 8–10 April 2017.
29. Reshma, R.; Sreejith, S. Converter topologies in photovoltaic applications—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
30. Hossaina, M.; Rahim, N.; Selvaraj, J. Recent progress and development on power DC-DC converter topology, control, design and
applications: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 205–230. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 25 of 26

31. Coelho, R.; Concer, F.; Martins, D. A Study of the basic DC-DC converters applied in maximum power point tracking. In Proceedings of
the Brazilian Power Electronics Conference (COBEP), Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, 27 September–1 October 2009.
32. Pant, S.; Saini, R. Comparative Study of MPPT Techniques for Solar Photovoltaic System. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Electrical, Electronics and Computer Engineering (UPCON), Aligarh, India, 8–10 November 2019.
33. Sah, B.; Satish, G. A Comparative study of different MPPT techniques using different dc-dc converters in a standalone PV system.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), Singapore, 22–25 November 2016.
34. Soedibyo. Ashari, M. Soedibyo. Ashari, M. The comparative study of Buck-boost, Cuk, Sepic and Zeta converters for maximum
power point tracking photovoltaic using P&O method. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Information
Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE), Semarang, Indonesia, 16–18 October 2015.
35. Soriano, L.; Ponce, P.; Molina, A. Analysis of DC-DC Converters for Photovoltaic Applications based on conventional MPPT
Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic
Control (CCE), Mexico City, Mexico, 20–22 September 2017.
36. Surya, P.; Irawan, D.; Zuhri, M. Review and Comparison of DC-DC Converters for Maximum Power Point Tracking System in
Standalone Photovoltaic (PV) Module. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Mechatronics, Intelligent
Manufacture, and Industrial Automation (ICAMIMIA), Surabaya, Indonesia, 12–14 October 2017.
37. Jain, S.; Agarwal, V. Comparison of the performance of maximum power point tracking schemes applied to single-stage
grid-connected photovoltaic systems. IET Electr. Power Appl. 2007, 1, 753–762. [CrossRef]
38. Yu, G.; Jung, Y.; Choi, J.; Kim, G. A novel two-mode MPPT control algorithm based on comparative study of existing algorithms.
Solar Energy 2004, 76, 455–463. [CrossRef]
39. Yen-Jung, M.; Hu, A.; Nirmal-Kumar, N. Evaluation of Micro Controller Based Maximum Power Point Tracking Methods
Using dSPACE Platform. In Proceedings of the Australian University Power Engineering Conference, Melbourne, Australia,
10–13 December 2006.
40. Faranda, R.; Leva, S. Energy comparison of mppt techniques for pv systems. WSEAS Trans. Power Syst. 2008, 3, 446–455.
41. Lamnadi, M.; Trihi, M.; Bossoufi, B.; Boulezhar, A. Comparative study of IC, P&O and FLC method of mppt algorithm for grid
connected pv module. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2016, 89, 242–253.
42. Houssamo, I.; Locment, F.; Sechilariu, M. Experimental analysis of impact of MPPT methods on energy efficiency for photovoltaic
power systems. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2013, 46, 98–107. [CrossRef]
43. Mosaad, M.; Osama, M.; Mahmoud, A.; Banakher, F. Maximum Power Point Tracking of PV system Based Cuckoo Search
Algorithm; review and comparison. Energy Procedia 2019, 162, 117–126. [CrossRef]
44. Ibrahim, H. Comparison between Fuzzy and P&O Control for MPPT for Photovoltaic System Using Boost Converter. J. Energy
Technol. Policy 2012, 2, 1–11.
45. Shadlu, M. Comparison of Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) Algorithms to Control DC-DC Converters in Photovoltaic
Systems. Recent Adv. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2019, 12, 355–367. [CrossRef]
46. Hussaian, C.; Rani, C. Different Conventional and Soft Computing MPPT Techniques for Solar PV Systems with High Step-Up
Boost Converters: A Comprehensive Analysis. Energies 2020, 13, 371.
47. Rezk, H.; Eltamaly, A. A comprehensive comparison of different MPPT techniques for photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy 2015,
112, 1–11. [CrossRef]
48. Bendib, B.; Belmili, H.; Krim, F. A survey of the most used MPPT methods: Conventional and advanced algorithms applied for
photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 637–648. [CrossRef]
49. Kchaou, A.; Naamane, A.; Koubaa, Y.; Sirdi, N. Comparative Study of Different MPPT techniques for a Stand-alone PV System.
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control & Computer Engineering
(STA), Sousse, Tunisia, 19–21 December 2016; pp. 629–634.
50. El mentaly, L.; Amghar, A.; Sahsah, H. Comparison between HC, FOCV and TG MPPT algorithms for PV solar systems using
buck converter. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Technologies, Embedded and Intelligent Systems
(WITS), Fez, Morocco, 19–20 April 2017.
51. Basoglu, M.; Çakir, B. Hardware based comparison of buck-boost converter topologies in MPPT systems. In Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ELECO), Bursa, Turkey, 26–28 November 2015.
52. de Brito, G.M.; Sampaio, L.; Luigi, G.; Guilherme, A.; Canesin, C. Comparative Analysis of MPPT Techniques for PV Applications.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Clean Electrical Power (ICCEP), Ischia, Italy, 14–16 June 2011.
53. Ghalib, A. Comparative Study of MPPT Algorithms under Variable Resistive Load. In Proceedings of the 2016 International
Conference on Applied and Theoretical Electricity (ICATE), Craiova, Romania, 6–8 October 2016.
54. Sarvi, M.; Azadian, A. A comprehensive review and classified comparison of MPPT algorithms in PV systems. Energy Syst. 2022,
13, 281–320. [CrossRef]
55. Zongo, O. Comparing the Performances of MPPT Techniques for DC-DC Boost Converter in a PV System. Walailak J. Sci. Technol.
2021, 18, 6500. [CrossRef]
56. Jotham, L.; Chia, A.; Teh, J. Non-isolated conventional DC-DC converter comparison for a photovoltaic system: A review.
J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2020, 12, 013502. [CrossRef]
57. Raj, A.; Raj, S.; Gupta, J. Solar PV array-based DC–DC converter with MPPT for low power applications. Renew. Energy Focus
2020, 34, 109–119. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7936 26 of 26

58. Taghvaee, M.; Radzi, M.; Moosavain, S.; Hashim, H.; Hamiruce, M. A current and future study on non-isolated dc–dc converters
for photovoltaic applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 17, 216–227. [CrossRef]
59. Veerachary, M. Design and Analysis of Split-inductor Based Buck-Boost Converters. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Sapporo, Japan, 26–29 May 2019.
60. Hart, D. Power Electronics; McGraw Hill: Valparaíso, IN, USA, 2011; pp. 196–264.
61. Gholizadeh, H.; Gorji, S.; Afjei, E.; Sera, D. Design and Implementation of a New Cuk-Based Step-Up DC–DC Converter. Energies
2021, 14, 6975. [CrossRef]
62. Farahat, M.; Metwally, H.; Abd-Elfatah, A. Optimal choice and design of different topologies of DC-DC converter used in PV
systems, at different climatic conditions in Egypt. Renew. Energy 2012, 43, 393–402. [CrossRef]
63. Kumar, V.; Ghosh, S.; Swami, N.; Kamal, S.; Saket, R.; Nagar, S. Load voltage-based MPPT technique for standalone PV systems
using adaptive step. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 128, 106732. [CrossRef]
64. Necaibia, S.; Samira, M.; Labar, H.; Necaibia, A.; Castronuovo, E. Enhanced auto-scaling incremental conductance MPPT method,
implemented on low-cost microcontroller and SEPIC converter. Sol. Energy 2019, 180, 152–168. [CrossRef]
65. Pop-Calimanu, I.; Popescu, S.; Lascu, D. A New SEPIC-Based DC-DC Converter with Coupled Inductors Suitable for High
Step-Up Applications. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 178. [CrossRef]
66. Vuthchhay, E.; Bunlaksananusorn, C. Modeling and Control of a Zeta Converter. In Proceedings of the The 2010 International
Power Electronics Conference—ECCE ASIA, Sapporo, Japan, 21–24 June 2010.
67. Bayat, F.; Karimi, M.; Taheri, A. Robust output regulation of Zeta converter with load/input variations: LMI approach. Control.
Eng. Pract. 2019, 84, 102–111. [CrossRef]
68. Arbi, J.; Ben, M.; Moussa, S. Comparative study of Boost and Zeta converters in DC microgrid applications. In Proceedings of the
2020 6th IEEE International Energy Conference (ENERGYCon), Gammarth, Tunisia, 28 September 2020–1 October 2020.
69. Ferrera, M.; Pérez, S.; Durán, E.; Enrique, J. New Single-Input, Multiple-Output Converter Topologies: Combining Single-Switch
Nonisolated dc-dc Converters for Single-Input, Multiple-Output Applications. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2016, 10, 6–20. [CrossRef]
70. Femia, N.; Petrone, G.; Spagnuolo, G.; Vitelli, M. Optimization of perturb and observe maximum power point tracking method.
IEEE Transtra. Power Electron. 2005, 20, 963–973. [CrossRef]
71. Subudhi, B.; Pradhan, R. A comparative study on maximum power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power systems.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 89–98. [CrossRef]
72. Osakada, M.; Hussein, K.; Muta, I.; Hoshino, T. Maximum photovoltaic power tracking: An algorithm for rapidly changing
atmospheric conditions. IEE Proc.—Gener. Transm. Distrib. 1995, 142, 59–64.
73. Liu, F.; Duan, S.; Liu, B.; Kang, Y. A variable step size INC MPPT method for pv systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2008, 55,
2622–2628.
74. Sharma, K.; Kumar, D. Robust controller design for DC-DC converters using fuzzy logic. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Signal Processing, Computing and Control (ISPCC), Solan, India, 21–23 September 2017.
75. Messai, A.; Mellit, A.; Guessoum, A.; Kalogirou, S. Maximum power point tracking using a GA optimized fuzzy logic controller
and its FPGA implementation. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 265–277. [CrossRef]
76. Boutouba, M.; El Ougli, A.; Miqoi, S.; Tidhaf, B. Design and Experimentation of a Control System Implemented on Raspberry Pi
3 Board for Photovoltaic Systems Using SEPIC Converter. J. Electr. Syst. 2017, 13, 661–677.
77. Luta, D.; Raji, A. Comparing fuzzy rule-based MPPT techniques for fuel cell stack applications. Energy Procedia 2019, 156, 177–182.
[CrossRef]
78. Cheng, P.; Peng, B.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Huang, J. Optimization of a Fuzzy-Logic-Control-Based MPPT Algorithm Using the Particle
Swarm Optimization Technique. Energies 2015, 8, 5338–5360. [CrossRef]
79. Subiyanto, S.; Mohamed, A.; Hannan, M. Intelligent maximum power point tracking for PV system using Hopfield neural
network optimized fuzzy logic controller. Energy Build. 2012, 51, 29–38. [CrossRef]
80. Robles, A.; Giraldo, J.; Rodríguez, O. Fuzzy Logic Based MPPT Controller for a PV System. Energies 2017, 10, 2036.
81. Kyocera Corporation KC85TS Datasheet. Available online: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/387909/Kyocera-Kc85ts.html
(accessed on 15 October 2022).