Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems

Evaluation of Fuzzy Membership Function Effects for MPPT Technique of PV System

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Full Title: Evaluation of Fuzzy Membership Function Effects for MPPT Technique of PV System

Short Title: MPPT; FLC; membership function; dc-dc converter

Article Type: Research Article

Keywords: Maximum Power Point Tracking; Fuzzy Logic Control; membership function; high
gain voltage dc-dc converter

Corresponding Author: Tole Sutikno, Ph.D.

Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
Bantul, Yogyakarta INDONESIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Universitas Ahmad Dahlan

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Tole Sutikno, Ph.D.

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Tole Sutikno, Ph.D.

Arsyad Cahya Subrata

Ahmad Elkhateb, Ph.D

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Abstract: Photovoltaic generation systems (PGS) are considered a potential solar energy
harvesting system. However, the low conversion efficiency of PGS is one of the
challenges that must be resolved so that the potential for harvesting solar energy can
be maximized. One way to increase efficiency is with a technique called maximum
power point tracking (MPPT) which works by tracking the maximum power point
(MPP). Until recently, many methods were used in the MPPT to track MPP. One
method that is often used is fuzzy logic control (FLC) which is considered reliable and
easy to learn and implement. However, FLC has a membership function which is used
to build this algorithm. In this article, FLC was built using various membership
functions. The system built is then connected to a high gain voltage dc-dc converter to
compare the resulting performance.

Additional Information:

Question Response

Please enter the Word Count of your 4094

manuscript

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Evaluation of Fuzzy Membership Function Effects for MPPT Click here to access/download;Manuscript;JIFS-Eval Fuzzy
Technique of PV System Membership MPPT PV.pdf

Evaluation of Fuzzy Membership Function

Effects for MPPT Technique of PV System
Tole Sutiknoa,b*, Arsyad Cahya Subrataa,b and Ahmad Elkhatebc
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, 55191 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
b
Embedded Systems & Power Electronics Research Group, 55191 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
c
School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast BT9 5AH, United Kingdom

Abstract. Photovoltaic generation systems (PGS) are considered a potential solar energy harvesting system. However, the low
conversion efficiency of PGS is one of the challenges that must be resolved so that the potential for harvesting solar energy can
be maximized. One way to increase efficiency is with a technique called maximum power point tracking (MPPT), which works
by tracking the maximum power point (MPP). Until recently, many methods were used in the MPPT to track MPP. One meth-
od that is often used is fuzzy logic control (FLC) which is considered reliable and easy to learn and implement. However, FLC
has a membership function which is used to build this algorithm. In this article, FLC was built using various membership func-
tions. The system built is then connected to a high gain voltage dc-dc converter to compare the resulting performance.

Keywords: Maximum Power Point Tracking, Fuzzy Logic Control, membership function, high gain voltage dc-dc converter

1. Introduction the power conversion efficiency, the MPPT tech-

The demand for photovoltaic generation systems
(PGSs) shows a graph of significant improvement.
The need to meet global issues to reduce the harmful
effects of conventional power plants has led to an
increase in the demand for PGSs. As is well known,
traditional power plants, which usually use coal as
fuel, have negative effects such as the greenhouse
effect, pollution and solid and liquid waste. Also, the
development of necessary material processing tech-
nology for making photovoltaic (PV) itself has made
it increasingly produced and easily available.
However, PGSs that work by harvesting solar en-
ergy have a low power conversion. This is because
the performance of PV depends on ambient weather
conditions such as irradiation and changing tempera-
ture [1–3]. Under these varying weather conditions,
the maximum power point (MPP) received by PV
also varies. This is what causes the low PV power
conversion efficiency. To obtain high power conver-
sion efficiency, it must be ensured that the maximum
power can be extracted [4–6]. Therefore, techniques
have been developed by many researchers to track
MPP which is commonly known as maximum power
point tracking (MPPT) [7–45]. Apart from increasing
nique can also increase the lifetime of the PV module
[8].
There are various methods used in the MPPT
which have their respective advantages and disad-
vantages. However, a method capable of optimally
tracking MPP is preferred because it ensures maxi-
mum power extraction, making it reliable and effi-
cient [20,21]. Conventional methods such as Perturb
and Observe (P&O), Incremental Conductance
(IncCond), and Hill Climbing (HC) are generally
widely used even to commercial products because of
their simplicity. However, these methods are unstable
due to dynamic response and steady-state, thus caus-
ing oscillations around the MPP.
Another method that is often used because of its
reliability is the fuzzy logic controller (FLC) [22–27].
The FLC method is suitable to be applied to PV
MPPT because it can handle non-linear systems pro-
duced by the PV itself due to changing weather con-
ditions [28]. In addition, FLC is also popular because
it does not require knowledge of the PV system mod-
el [29–31].
Various studies on MPPT based on the FLC meth-
od have been carried out and compared with other
algorithms and tested by varying the irradiation.
These algorithms are built to regulate the duty cycle
of the dc-dc converter. Using a boost converter, FLC
has better tracking speed and drift avoidance than the
P&O, IncCond, and HC methods on dynamic re-
sponse and steady state (no oscillations) [32–34].
Another study has conducted by Bendib et al. [31]
that implemented FLC with a buck converter shown
a similar result. Khateb et al. [35] used a SEPIC type
converter which was tested with simulation and ex-
perimental works. The result obtained is that FLC
produces better tracking speed than P&O in both
tests. Even the combination of converters, such as
buck-boost by [36] and boost-SEPIC by [37,38]
shows that FLC performance is also superior. Other
researches were conducted to find the most reliable
but easy to develop FLC performance based on algo-
rithmic design. Hajighorbani et al. [39] evaluated a
subset of FLC applied to PV MPPT shown that FLC
with many subsets produces better efficiency. How-
ever, the more subsets that are used, the more the
computational burden will be due to the increasing
number of rule bases. Ali et al. [40] compares the
effect of the FLC membership function. Also, this
study was not evaluated for the purposes of PV
MPPT.
However, FLC has some disadvantages. One of
the shortcomings of FLC is the problem of efficiency
which depends on the performance of the system
design [16,41–43]. The inherent weakness of FLC is
more towards the design of the algorithm develop-
ment itself, i.e. subset, membership function, rules,
etc. In this research, FLC was employed to assist the
high-gain voltage dc-dc converter topology. The test
is done by varying the irradiation and switching fre-
quency of the converter. Furthermore, various mem-
bership functions are discussed and evaluated to find
the most suitable type.
2. Maximum Power Point Tracking
MPPT works by extracting the maximum power
from PV especially in irradiated weather conditions
and changing temperature. Due to varying weather
conditions, it causes PV to produce unstable voltage
and current [44,45]. Changes in weather conditions
cause changes in the characteristics of the V-I and V-
P curves. It can be noticed that when the solar irra-
diation changes, the maximum point is shifted. With
respect to the curve, the change in irradiation affects
the output current of PV meanwhile, the temperature
changes in PV cells, causing changes in the output
voltage. To get maximum power, MPPT works based
on moving the operating PV voltage or current [46].
This power extraction can be done by adjusting the
duty cycle of the converter so that it operates in ac-
cordance with the maximum point of the PV curve
[47].
3. High Gain Voltage DC-DC Converter
The converter used in this study was developed by
literature [48] which is based on a modified dc-dc
buck-boost converter modifications made to produce
a converter that has a high gain voltage. Figure 1
shows the high gain voltage dc-dc converter. The
resulting voltage ratio is
Vo 1 (1)
=
Ed 1 − α
This converter switching device can be operated to
reduce the ripple content of the switching device in a
two-phase converter. Equations (2) and (3) show the
RMS value of voltage ripple and the output voltage
ripple for the duty cycle of more than half of this
converter, respectively.
i̅o α(1 − 2α) (2)
̃o =
V
Cfs 2√3(1 − α)
i̅o (2α − 1) (3)
̃o =
V
Cfs 2√3
4. Fuzzy Logic Control
FLC is based on a statement in the form of a set
that is differentiated from other sets based on the
degree of membership. In set theory, objects are
members, which are denoted by “1”, and not mem-
bers, “0”, of a set with crips membership limits. In
the fuzzy set theory, the member of the degree of an
Fig 1. High gain voltage dc-dc converter
 4.1. Fuzzification

Fuzzification input in the form of crisp is then

converted into fuzzy numbers in the form of linguis-
tic values. The inputs are then grouped into a mem-
bership function. Membership functions used to be
observed is Triangular, Trapezoidal, Gaussian, and
Generalized Bell (GBell). Figure 2 shows the form of
the membership function used. The mathematical
equations for the Triangular, Trapezoidal, Gaussian
and GBell membership functions are displayed se-
Fig 2. Membership function quentially in Equations (6) through (10), respectively.
object in the set is possible to express the gradual 0 for x ≤ a (7)
x−a
transition of membership in the interval between “0” for a ≤ x ≤ b
and “1”. The fuzzy set, F, in X is expressed as an or- triangle (x; a, b, c) = bc −
−a
x
dered pair of the element x. The fuzzy set has the for b ≤ x ≤ c
membership degrees as c−b
{ 0 for x ≥ c
F = {(x, μF (x))|x ∈ X} (4)
0 for x ≤ a (8)
where μF (x) is the degree of membership x (between x−a
for a ≤ x ≤ b
0 and 1). b−a
In the MPPT technique, FLC is used to find MPP trapezoid (x; a, b, c, d) = 1 for b ≤ x ≤ c
with input in the form of error (E) and change of d−x
for c ≤ x ≤ d
error (∆E), while the output is in the form of PWM d−c
feed to control the converter duty cycle. The two { 0 for x ≥ d
inputs are obtained as −(x−c)2 (9)
gauss(x; σ, c) = e 2σ2
∆P P(k) − P(k − 1) (5) 1
Error, E(k) = = (10)
∆V V(k) − V(k − 1) bell(x; a, b, c) =
x − c 2b
1+| |
a
Change Error, ∆E(k) = E(k) − E(k − 1) (6)
where (k) is the sample time, P(k) is the power, 4.2. Inference
V(k) is the PV voltage. P(k − 1) and V(k − 1) are
the previous PV power and voltage, respectively. In this process, the grouped fuzzy input is entered
E(k) indicates the operating load point is located to into the rule base to determine the output. This rule
the left or right, while ∆E(k) in the direction of mo- base serves to define the desired relationship rules
tion of the point. between input and output variables. The number of
In building the FLC algorithm, there are three rules depends on the number of input membership
main components, namely fuzzification, inference, functions used. In this study, each input has five
and defuzzification. The fuzzy Mamdani (min-max) membership functions, so 25 rules are obtained. Ta-
model is used in making the algorithm ble 1 shows the rule base that was built.
Table 1
4.3. Defuzzification
Fuzzy rule base
E In the defuzzification process, fuzzy numbers are
NB NS Z PS PB converted into crips as the final output of the FLC.
NB NB NB Z PB PB The defuzzification process is based on the centre of
NS NS NS Z PS PS gravity obtained by Equation (11). The FLC output
∆E Z Z Z Z Z Z
PS PS PS Z NS NS
obtained is used to control the duty cycle (D) of the
PB PB PB Z NB NB high gain voltage dc-dc converter.

Fig 3. The system that has been built
∑ xi × μi
D= (11)
∑ μi
5. Result and Discussion
In this article, the FLC algorithm has been suc-
cessfully built on the MPPT technique for PV systems
connected to a high gain voltage dc-dc converter. Fig-
ure 3 shows a system consisting of a PV module, high
gain voltage dc-dc converter with an MPPT controller
connected to a load that has been created using
MATLAB/Simulink. The PV used is Trina Solar
TSM-250PA05.08 with the specifications shown in
Table 2.
The resulting slope of each system created is then
observed, and several vital parameters are recorded.
The parameters measured are 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , oscilla-
tion and tracking speed.
Testing is done by comparing the membership
functions of Triangular, Trapezoidal, Gaussian, and
GBell. The switching frequency of the converter is
varied for each membership function. The switching
frequencies used are 5 kHz, 10 kHz, and 20 kHz.
Furthermore, the irradiation variable is also varied at
each switching frequency. The irradiation variations
are 1000 W/m2, 800 W/m2, 600 W/m2, and 400 W/m2.
Figures (4)-(6) show the 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 , and 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡
slope of the four membership functions that were test-
ed with a switching frequency of 5 kHz, respectively.
It appears that Trapezoidal, Gaussian, and GBell pro-
duce a larger output than the Triangular. Furthermore,
the tracking speed of the three membership functions
is faster in reaching MPP. However, Gaussian has
more significant oscillations than the other three
memberships. In this test, the Trapezoidal and GBell
produce similar output, oscillations, and tracking
speeds.
Table 2
Block parameter Trina Solar TSM-250PA05.08
PV Parameter
Module data
Maximum Power (W) 249.86
Cells per module (𝑁𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 ) 60
Open circuit voltage 𝑉𝑜𝑐 (V) 37.6
Short-circuit current 𝐼𝑠𝑐 (A) 8.55
Voltage at maximum power point 𝑉𝑚𝑝 (V) 31
Current at maximum power point 𝐼𝑚𝑝 (A) 8.06
Temperature coefficient of 𝑉𝑜𝑐 (%/℃) -0.35
Temperature coefficient of 𝐼𝑠𝑐 (%/℃) 0.06
Model parameters
Light-generated current IL (A) 8.5795
Diode saturation current ID (A) 2.0381e-10
Diode ideality factor 0.99766
Shunt resistance 𝑅𝑠ℎ (Ω) 301.8149
Series resistance 𝑅𝑠 (Ω) 0.247
Trapezoidal and GBell performance is slightly
different in tests with a switching frequency of 10
kHz. Figures (7)-(9) show the slope 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 ,
and 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 for this test, respectively. At a steady-state,
the trapezoidal experiences periodic oscillations of
1.625% at 1000 W/m2 irradiation. However, the out-
put value, oscillation, and tracking speed are still
superior to Gaussian and Triangular.
In the test with a switching frequency of 20 kHz,
the performance decreased Trapezoidal and GBell in
the case of the resulting oscillations. The oscillations
of these two membership levels increase overall, at
high and low irradiation. At low irradiation levels,
𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 , hence 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , are generated with a lower GBell
than Trapezoidal. However, the resulting oscillations
are still within a tolerable range. Furthermore, 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 ,
hence 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , are produced with a higher GBell than
Trapezoidal. The output results in the form of
𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 , and 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 with a switching frequency of 20
kHz are shown in Figures (10)-(12).
Tables III-VII are the values for 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝐼𝑜𝑢𝑡 ,
an oscillation and a tracking speed of the test results
obtained. In Tables III, IV, V and VI, the color-
blocked values show the difference in values between
Trapezoidal and GBell. The color green represents a
better value than blue.

Fig 4. Pout with a switching frequency of 5 kHz

Fig 6. 𝐼𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 5 kHz

Fig 5. 𝑉out with a switching frequency of 5 kHz

Fig 7. 𝑃𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 10 kHz

Fig 8. 𝑉𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 10 kHz Fig. 9 𝐼𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 10 kHz

Fig 10. 𝑃𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 20 kHz

Fig 11. Vout with a switching frequency of 20 kHz

Fig 12. 𝐼𝐨𝐮𝐭 with a switching frequency of 20 kHz

Table 3

𝑃𝑂𝑈𝑇 at the switching frequency and irradiation are varied

Switching Frequency
5 kHz 10 kHz 20 kHz
Irradiance
1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400
Membership
Power (W)
Function
Triangular 122.52 76.55 44.25 19.02 130.50 88.010 46.43 22.74 155.30 115.80 60.86 25.44
Trapezoidal 162.75 104.52 58.98 26.27 221.60 145.20 82.05 36.62 229.50 166.00 105.70 54.90
Gaussian 162.75 104.52 58,98 26.27 171.70 135.10 82.05 36.41 219.30 129.30 68.80 33.57
GBell 162.75 104.52 58.98 26.27 221.60 145.20 82.05 36.62 229.80 172.90 106.20 51.76
 Table 4

𝑉𝑂𝑈𝑇 at the switching frequency and irradiation are varied

Switching Frequency
5 kHz 10 kHz 20 kHz
Irradiance
1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400
Membership
Voltage (V)
Function
Triangular 138.55 110.85 84.15 56.50 144.50 118.70 86.19 60.32 157.20 136.10 98.68 63.80
Trapezoidal 161.55 129.33 97.16 64.83 188.30 152.40 114.60 76.55 191.60 163.00 130.10 93.12
Gaussian 161.55 129.33 97.16 64.83 187.90 147.00 114.60 76.32 187.30 143.90 104.90 73.28
GBell 161.55 129.33 97.16 64.83 188.30 152.40 114.60 76.55 191.80 166.30 130.40 91.00

Table 5

𝐼𝑂𝑈𝑇 at the switching frequency and irradiation are varied

Switching Frequency
5 kHz 10 kHz 20 kHz
Irradiance
1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400
Membership
Current (A)
Function
Triangular 0.8843 0.6906 0.5258 0.3532 0.9030 0.7417 0.5387 0.3770 0.9853 0.8506 0.6108 0.3987
Trapezoidal 1.0086 0.8082 0.6070 0.4052 1.1770 0.9527 0.7161 0.4784 1.1980 1.0190 0.8130 0.5820
Gaussian 1.0086 0.8082 0.6070 0.4052 1.1750 0.9189 0.7161 0.4770 1.1710 0.8991 0.6557 0.4580
GBell 1.0086 0.8082 0.6070 0.4052 1.1770 0.9527 0.7161 0.4784 1.1980 1.0400 0.8149 0.5688

Table 6

Oscillation at the switching frequency and irradiation are varied

Switching Frequency
5 kHz 10 kHz 20 kHz
Irradiance
1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400
Membership
Oscillation (%)
Function
Triangular 1.816 1.550 0.384 0.321 7.279 3.815 0.258 0.164 12.680 1.036 0.657 0.314
Trapezoidal 0.184 0.171 0.169 0.166 1.625 0.076 0.016 0.013 0.653 0.392 0.378 0.364
Gaussian 13.820 12.460 0.169 0.166 12.500 8.952 0.116 0.113 11.990 8.348 0.291 0.089
GBell 0.184 0.171 0.169 0.166 0.049 0.046 0.016 0.013 0.392 0.231 0.188 0.077

Table 7

Tracking speed at the switching frequency and irradiation are varied

Switching Frequency
5 kHz 10 kHz 20 kHz
Irradiance
1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400 1000 800 600 400
Membership
Tracking Speed (s)
Function
Triangular 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.22 0.40 0.39 0.28 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.18 0.15
Trapezoidal 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.15
Gaussian 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.15
GBell 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.15

6. Conclusion
This article discusses the different membership
functions, namely Triangular, Trapezoidal, Gaussian
and GBell which are used to construct FLC for MPPT
PV. The high gain voltage dc-dc converter is connect-
ed to the building system. Several parameters were
observed after testing by changing the switching fre-
quency and irradiation variables. The results obtained
indicate that the application of Trapezoidal and
GBbell functions results in superior values than Tri-
angular and Gausian. Furthermore, these two mem-
berships have similar results when given the same
treatment at the 5 kHz and 10 kHz switching frequen-
cies. However, GBell shows superior performance
over Trapezoidal when given a switching frequency
of 20 kHz.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the Ministry of Re-
search and Technology/National Agency for Re-
search and Innovation, Republic of Indonesia, with
contract number: WCR-001/SKPP.ATJ/LPPM
UAD/VI2020.
References
[1] 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;68:221–33.
[2] Podder AK, Roy NK, Pota HR. MPPT methods for solar
PV systems: a critical review based on tracking nature. IET
Renew Power Gener 2019;13:1615–32.
[3] Abderrahim T, Abdelwahed T, Radouane M. Improved
strategy of an MPPT based on the sliding mode control for
a PV system. Int J Electr Comput Eng 2020;10:3074.
[4] Sundareswaran K, Peddapati S, Palani S. Application of
random search method for maximum power point tracking
in partially shaded photovoltaic systems. IET Renew Power
Gener 2014;8:670–8.
[5] Bizon N. Global Maximum Power Point Tracking
(GMPPT) of Photovoltaic array using the Extremum Seek-
ing Control (ESC): A review and a new GMPPT ESC
scheme. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:524–39.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.221.
[6] Kheldoun A, Bradai R, Boukenoui R, Mellit A. A new
Golden Section method-based maximum power point track-
ing algorithm for photovoltaic systems. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;111:125–36.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.12.
039.
[7] Koutroulis E, Kalaitzakis K, Voulgaris NC. Development
of a microcontroller-based, photovoltaic maximum power
point tracking control system. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2001;16:46–54.
[8] Appelbaum J. The operation of loads powered by separate
sources or by a common source of solar cells. IEEE Trans
Energy Convers 1989;4:351–7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/60.43235.
[9] Enslin JHR, Snyman DB. Combined low-cost, high-
efficient inverter, peak power tracker and regulator for PV
applications. IEEE Trans Power Electron 1991;6:73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1109/63.65005.
[10] Enslin JHR, Wolf MS, Snyman DB, Swiegers W. Integrat-
ed photovoltaic maximum power point tracking converter.
IEEE Trans Ind Electron 1997;44:769–73.
https://doi.org/10.1109/41.649937.
[11] Chiang SJ, Chang KT, Yen CY. Residential photovoltaic
energy storage system. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
1998;45:385–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/41.678996.
[12] Wu T-F, Chang C-H, Wu Y-J. Single-stage converters for
PV lighting systems with MPPT and energy backup. IEEE
Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 1999;35:1306–17.
https://doi.org/10.1109/7.805447.
[13] Kasa N, Lida T, Iwamoto H. Maximum power point track-
ing with capacitor identifier for photovoltaic power system.
IEE Proc - Electr Power Appl 2000;147:497–502.
https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-epa:20000641.
[14] Giraud F, Salameh ZM. Analysis of the effects of a passing
cloud on a grid-interactive photovoltaic system with battery
storage using neural networks. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
1999;14:1572–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/60.815107.
[15] Kuo Y-C, Liang T-J, Chen J-F. Novel maximum-power-
point-tracking controller for photovoltaic energy conversion
system. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2001;48:594–601.
https://doi.org/10.1109/41.925586.
[16] Seyedmahmoudian M, Horan B, Soon TK, Rahmani R,
Than Oo AM, Mekhilef S, et al. State of the art artificial in-
telligence-based MPPT techniques for mitigating partial
shading effects on PV systems – A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;64:435–55.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.053.
[17] Mohapatra A, Nayak B, Das P, Mohanty KB. A review on
MPPT techniques of PV system under partial shading con-
dition. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:854–67.
[18] Jusoh A, Alik R, Guan TK, Sutikno T. MPPT for PV sys-
tem based on variable step size p&o algorithm. Telkomnika
2017;15:79.
[19] Jusoh A, Sutikno T, Guan TK, Mekhilef S. A Review on
favourable maximum power point tracking systems in solar
energy application. Telkomnika 2014;12:6.
[20] Yang B, Zhu T, Wang J, Shu H, Yu T, Zhang X, et al.
Comprehensive overview of maximum power point track-
ing algorithms of PV systems under partial shading condi-
tion. J Clean Prod 2020:121983.
[21] Subudhi B, Pradhan R. A comparative study on maximum
power point tracking techniques for photovoltaic power
systems. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2012;4:89–98.
[22] Robles Algarín C, Taborda Giraldo J, Rodríguez Álvarez O.
Fuzzy logic based MPPT controller for a PV system. Ener-
gies 2017;10:2036.
[23] Youssef A, El Telbany M, Zekry A. Reconfigurable generic
FPGA implementation of fuzzy logic controller for MPPT
of PV systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:1313–9.
[24] Rezk H, Aly M, Al-Dhaifallah M, Shoyama M. Design and
Hardware Implementation of New Adaptive Fuzzy Logic-
Based MPPT Control Method for Photovoltaic Applications.
IEEE Access 2019;7:106427–38.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932694.
[25] Alajmi BN, Ahmed KH, Finney SJ, Williams BW. A Max-
imum Power Point Tracking Technique for Partially Shaded
Photovoltaic Systems in Microgrids. IEEE Trans Ind Elec-
tron 2013;60:1596–606.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2011.2168796.
[26] Rakhshan M, Vafamand N, Khooban M, Blaabjerg F. Max-
imum Power Point Tracking Control of Photovoltaic Sys-
tems: A Polynomial Fuzzy Model-Based Approach. IEEE J
Emerg Sel Top Power Electron 2018;6:292–9.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTPE.2017.2708815.
[27] Khateb A El, Rahim NA, Selvaraj J, Uddin MN. Fuzzy-
Logic-Controller-Based SEPIC Converter for Maximum
Power Point Tracking. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2014;50:2349–
58. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2014.2298558.
[28] Tang S, Sun Y, Chen Y, Zhao Y, Yang Y, Szeto W. An
enhanced MPPT method combining fractional-order and
fuzzy logic control. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2017;7:640–50.
[29] Yilmaz U, Kircay A, Borekci S. PV system fuzzy logic
MPPT method and PI control as a charge controller. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:994–1001.
[30] Sun Z, Yang Z. Improved maximum power point tracking
algorithm with cuk converter for PV systems. J Eng
2017;2017:1676–81. https://doi.org/10.1049/joe.2017.0617.
[31] Bendib B, Krim F, Belmili H, Almi MF, Boulouma S.
Advanced Fuzzy MPPT Controller for a stand-alone PV
system. Energy Procedia 2014;50:383–92.
[32] Rezk H, Eltamaly AM. A comprehensive comparison of
different MPPT techniques for photovoltaic systems. Sol
Energy 2015;112:1–11.
[33] Boukenoui R, Salhi H, Bradai R, Mellit A. A new intelli-
gent MPPT method for stand-alone photovoltaic systems
operating under fast transient variations of shading patterns.
Sol Energy 2016;124:124–42.
[34] Chen Y-T, Jhang Y-C, Liang R-H. A fuzzy-logic based
auto-scaling variable step-size MPPT method for PV sys-
tems. Sol Energy 2016;126:53–63.
[35] El Khateb AH, Abd Rahim N, Selvaraj J. Fuzzy logic con-
trol approach of a maximum power point employing SEPIC
converter for standalone photovoltaic system. Procedia En-
viron Sci 2013;17:529–36.
[36] Kermadi M, Berkouk EM. Artificial intelligence-based
maximum power point tracking controllers for Photovoltaic
systems: Comparative study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;69:369–86.
[37] Kalashani MB, Farsadi M. New structure for photovoltaic
systems with maximum power point tracking ability. Int J
Power Electron Drive Syst 2014;4:489.
[38] Kwan TH, Wu X. Maximum power point tracking using a
variable antecedent fuzzy logic controller. Sol Energy
2016;137:189–200.
[39] Hajighorbani S, Radzi MAM, Ab Kadir MZA, Shafie S,
Khanaki R, Maghami MR. Evaluation of Fuzzy Logic Sub-
sets Effects on Maximum Power Point Tracking for Photo-
voltaic System. Int J Photoenergy 2014;2014:719126.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/719126.
[40] Ali OAM, Ali AY, Sumait BS. Comparison between the
effects of different types of membership functions on fuzzy
logic controller performance. Int J 2015;76:76–83.
[41] Chiu C-S. TS fuzzy maximum power point tracking control
of solar power generation systems. IEEE Trans Energy
Convers 2010;25:1123–32.
[42] Ram JP, Babu TS, Rajasekar N. A comprehensive review
on solar PV maximum power point tracking techniques.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:826–47.
[43] Kandemir E, Cetin NS, Borekci S. A comprehensive over-
view of maximum power extraction methods for PV sys-
tems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;78:93–112.
[44] Hameed WI, Saleh AL, Sawadi BA, Al-Yasir YIA, Abd-
Alhameed RA. Maximum power point tracking for photo-
voltaic system by using fuzzy neural network. Inventions
2019;4:33.
[45] Hanzaei SH, Gorji SA, Ektesabi M. A Scheme-Based Re-
view of MPPT Techniques With Respect to Input Variables
Including Solar Irradiance and PV Arrays’ Temperature.
IEEE Access 2020;8:182229–39.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3028580.
[46] Karami N, Moubayed N, Outbib R. General review and
classification of different MPPT Techniques. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2017;68:1–18.
[47] Jordehi AR. Maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic
(PV) systems: A review of different approaches. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:1127–38.
[48] Dahono PA. New step-up DC-DC converters for PV power
generation systems. 2017 Int. Semin. Intell. Technol. Its
Appl., 2017, p. 187–92.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISITIA.2017.8124078.