JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (????????? 2024) 1-??

Journal of Renewable
Energy and Environment
Journal Homepage: www.jree.ir MERC

Research Article

Comparative Analysis of Dynamic and Steady State Performances of Hill Climbing and
Incremental Conductance MPPT Controllers for PV Systems
Noussaiba Mennaia*, Ammar Medoueda, Youcef Soufib

a Department of Electrical Engineering, LES Laboratory, University of 20 August 1955, Skikda, Algeria.
b Deportment of Electrical Engineering, LABGET Laboratory, Larbi Tebessi University, Tebessa, Algeria.

PAPER INFO
A B S T R A C T
Paper history:
Received 25 December 2023 The integration of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy into the utility grid is expanding progressively to meet
Revised 06 May 2024 increasing energy demand. A crucial aspect of optimizing the output of PV systems involves implementing
Accepted 23 June 2024 efficient maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controllers, necessary due to the nonlinear characteristics of
these systems. This study conducts a simulation-based comparative analysis of two prominent MPPT techniques:
hill climbing (HC) and incremental conductance (INC) methods. The emphasis is on the dynamic response and
Keywords: steady-state efficiency of these controllers. Using a modeled 500 kW PV array alongside both MPPT techniques
Photovoltaic Energy
MPPT
and other DC stage components, simulation tests were conducted in Matlab/Simulink under standard test
Hill Climbing conditions (STC) and varying meteorological conditions. The simulation results indicate that both techniques
Incremental Conductance successfully tracked the MPP. However, the INC algorithm exhibits superior speed, precision, and efficiency,
PV System Modeling particularly in scenarios involving sudden fluctuations in irradiance and temperature. Furthermore, investigating
the effect of perturbation step size on dynamic response and steady-state efficiency provided valuable insights
for enhancing MPPT controller performance.
https://doi.org/10.30501/jree.2024.432251.1788
adoption of a sophisticated maximum power point tracking
1. INTRODUCTION1
(MPPT) controller is essential. This controller continuously
Utilizing renewable energy sources (RES) is becoming a more adjusts the operating point to track the PV panel's maximum
appealing option to meet rising electricity demand (Geravandi power point (MPP) by controlling the DC-DC converter, even
& Moradi CheshmehBeigi, 2022). In this context, photovoltaic in the face of changing irradiance and temperature conditions
(PV) systems—which transform solar energy into electrical (Jately et al., 2021; Jha, 2022). However, as reviewed by (Al
power—have become quite well-known. The output power of Garni et al., 2024), their effectiveness in power point tracking
these systems is quite versatile; it can range from a few under varying conditions remains a concern, particularly for
milliwatts in applications such as scientific calculators to large-scale PV power plants. On the other hand, the design of
megawatts in solar farms (Jately et al., 2021), where PV arrays an MPPT controller must begin first by designing the boost
are formed by combining numerous modules. Solar farms, converter components, namely the inductance, the input, and
along with distributed generation (DG) and microgrid (MG) the output capacitance, then choosing the MPPT algorithm.
systems, play important roles in harnessing RES to satisfy the Many works have been published in this regard. The authors
growing demand for power. Indeed, despite the advantages of (Srdic et al., 2012) implemented the incremental conductance
reducing dependence on fossil fuels and the low-cost (INC) MPPT algorithm on a simplified PV string model and a
maintenance of PV systems, there are challenges related to 1 kW boost converter prototype; however, they did not provide
efficiency and the impact of external factors. The practical any comparison with other MPPT techniques, and the effect of
efficiency of PV modules is approximately 20%, and the temperature variation is missing. While S.V. Rajani and V.J.
production of energy is directly influenced by temperature and Pandya (Rajani & Pandya, 2015) focused their study only on
solar irradiation variations, significantly affecting the output comparing INC and perturb and observe (P&O) MPPT
power of PV arrays (Kumar et al., 2023; Priambodo et al., techniques via simulations in Matlab/Simulink, but did not
2022). Moreover, the operational point of a PV panel is located accurately model PV arrays or boost converter designs. On the
in the nonlinear region of current-voltage (I-V) characteristics. other hand, a model for DC components of a grid-connected PV
To address these challenges and optimize energy output, the system was developed in (Motan et al., 2018), including the PV

*Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected] (N. Mennai)

URL: https://www.jree.ir/article_199460.html
Please cite this article as: No need to fill, this section will be filled by the journal..
2423-7469/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by MERC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode).
 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

array, boost converter, and P&O MPPT controller. Still, the

analysis of the dynamics and steady-state behaviors of the
MPPT controller is limited, as in the referenced work (Kumar
et al., 2023). Conversely, some studies (Keong & Jamaludin,
2019) and (Mohamed & Abd El Sattar, 2019) omitted the
design details of DC-DC converter inductance and
capacitances.
This paper addresses these gaps by presenting a simulation-
based comparative study of hill climbing (HC) and incremental
conductance (INC) MPPT controllers, focusing on dynamic (a)
response and steady-state efficiency. Unlike previous studies
that focused on a single algorithm or lacked comprehensive
modeling and testing, our work models a large-scale 500 kW
PV array, iteratively determining series and parallel resistances
Rs and Rp of its PV modules. Boost converter parameters were
designed based on PV array data. Subsequently, MPPT
controllers were tested in Matlab/Simulink, integrating earlier (b)
DC stage components under standard test conditions (STC) and
Figure 2. (a) SDM of PV cell, (b) electrical circuit of an array
variable meteorological conditions. The study also examines composed of Nss x Npp modules.
the impact of perturbation step sizes on MPPT controller
dynamic response and steady-state efficiency. For any PV array composed of Nss and Npp identical modules,
the following equivalent I-V equation holds true (Malik &
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Chandel, 2021):
𝑁𝑠𝑠
2.1. Mathematical modeling of PV array and DC-DC 𝑉+𝐼.𝑅𝑠 (
𝑁𝑝𝑝
) 𝑉+𝐼.𝑅𝑠 .(
𝑁𝑠𝑠
𝑁𝑝𝑝
)
converter 𝐼 = 𝐼𝑝𝑣 . 𝑁𝑝𝑝 − 𝐼0 . 𝑁𝑝𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1] − 𝑁𝑠𝑠
(2)
𝑎.𝑉𝑡 .𝑁𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑝 .( )
𝑁𝑝𝑝

In the upcoming sections, we will model a DC stage consisting

The different mathematical relationships that make it possible
of a PV array, boost converter, and MPPT controller. Figure 1
to obtain the SDM parameters (IPV, I0, Rs, and Rp) according to
illustrates the block diagram of the PV system. Here, the DC-
the meteorological data (irradiation and temperature) are given
DC (or step-up) converter acts as a load adapter, regulating the
as follows:
output voltage of the PV array. This capability allows for
𝐼𝑠𝑐,𝑛 +𝐾𝑖 .∆𝑇
tracking the array's maximum power point (MPP) under 𝐼0 = 𝑉𝑜𝑐,𝑛 +𝐾𝑣 .∆𝑇 (3)
𝑒𝑥𝑝( )− 1
varying irradiance conditions (Kumar et al., 2023). 𝑎.𝑉𝑡
𝑁𝑠 .𝑘.𝑇
𝑉𝑡 = (4)
𝑞
𝐺
𝐼𝑝𝑣 = (𝐼𝑝𝑣,𝑛 + 𝐾𝑖 . ∆𝑇) (5)
𝐺𝑛

Finally, both parameters of I0 and IPV are used to obtain Eq. (6)
of the model current I m
𝑁𝑠𝑠
𝑉+𝐼.𝑅𝑠 ( )
𝑁𝑝𝑝
𝐼𝑚 = 𝐼𝑝𝑣 . 𝑁𝑝𝑝 − 𝐼0 . 𝑁𝑝𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1] (6)
𝑎.𝑉𝑡 .𝑁𝑠𝑠

2.1.1. Identification of Rs and Rp

Figure 1. Block diagram of PV system with MPPT controller. Given that the MPP of the mathematical curve, P max,m , is equal
to the experimental peak power, Pmax,e, there exists a unique pair
The PV array is a set of modules combined in series and in (Rs, Rp) that ensures this equality.
parallel to reach the voltage and current required by the targeted
applications. The module itself is formed from PV cells. Two 𝑞 𝑉𝑚𝑝 + 𝑅𝑠 .𝐼𝑚𝑝
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑚 = 𝑉𝑚𝑝 {𝐼𝑃𝑉 − 𝐼0 [𝑒𝑥𝑝. ( ) − 1] −
𝑘.𝑇 𝑎.𝑁𝑠
common mathematical models of PV cells have been developed 𝑉𝑚𝑝 + 𝑅𝑠 .𝐼𝑚𝑝
to represent their very strongly non-linear behavior due to the } = 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 (7)
𝑅𝑝
semiconductor junction, namely, the two-diode model and the
single-diode model (Mohamed & Abd El Sattar, 2019). To determine the remaining two unknown parameters in Eq.
(1), Rs and Rp, the authors in reference (Villalva et al., 2009)
In this study, the single-diode model (SDM) is chosen due to proposed an iterative approach. This iterative process is
its good agreement between precision and model simplicity and employed to adjust and find the values of Rs (and consequently
has been used in several previous works (Adak et al., 2023; Rp), requiring multiple iterations until Pmax,m=Pmax,e. The
Villalva et al., 2009). The electrical circuit of the PV cell and following equations for the solution:
that of the PV array are seen in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively.
𝑉𝑚𝑝 .(𝑉𝑚𝑝 +𝐼𝑚𝑝 .𝑅𝑠 )
𝑅𝑝 = 𝑞 (𝑉𝑚𝑝 + 𝑅𝑠.𝐼𝑚𝑝 ) (8)
The characteristic equation of a PV module containing Ns cells {𝑉𝑚𝑝 .𝐼𝑃𝑉 − 𝑉𝑚𝑝 .𝐼0 .𝑒𝑥𝑝[
𝑘.𝑇 𝑎.𝑁𝑠
] + 𝑉𝑚𝑝 .𝐼0 − 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑒 }
in series is as follows (Ayop & Tan, 2018): 𝑉𝑚𝑝 𝑉𝑜𝑐,𝑛 − 𝑉𝑚𝑝
𝑅𝑝,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = − (9)
𝐼𝑠𝑐,𝑛 −𝐼𝑚𝑝 𝐼𝑚𝑝
𝑞(𝑉+𝐼𝑅𝑠 ) 𝑉+𝐼𝑅𝑠
𝐼 = 𝐼𝑝𝑣 − 𝐼0 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1] − (1)
𝑎𝑘𝑇𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑝
 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

(𝑅𝑝 +𝑅𝑠 )
𝐼𝑝𝑣,𝑛 = 𝐼𝑠𝑐,𝑛 (10)
𝑅𝑝

Eq. (1) is solved through the Newton-Raphson method and the

current Ipv is given as a function of Vpv. During this process, Rs
must be slowly incremented from zero, while the initial value
of the parallel resistance is calculated by Eq. (9). Figure 3
depicts the flowchart of this iterative process.

(b)
Figure 4. (a) I-V and P-V curves at different solar irradiation; (b) I-V
and P-V curves at different temperatures.
Pulse width modulation (PWM) is employed to control the
DC-DC converter by modulating the on/off switches at a high
frequency. The input signals of PWM are generated using the
MPPT technique. For continuous current conduction, the
following formulas are utilized to calculate the boost
parameters: the inductance (L), the input capacitor (Ci), and the
output capacitor (Co) (Ayop & Tan, 2018; Kumar et al., 2023).
The results are summarized in Table 2.
𝑉𝑝𝑣 𝑉𝑝𝑣
𝑉𝑜 = →𝐷 =1− (11)
(1−𝐷) 𝑉𝑜
𝑉𝑜 2
𝑅= (12)
𝑃𝑜
𝑉𝑜
Figure 3. Iterative method flowchart for identifying Rs and Rp. 𝐼𝐿 = (13)
𝑅(1−𝐷)
𝐷.𝑉𝑝𝑣
The Simulink model of the PV array was designed using the 𝐿= (14)
𝑓𝑠𝑤 .𝛥𝐼𝐿
previous equations along with the data from the manufacturer 𝐷
𝐶𝑖 = ∆𝑉𝑚𝑝 2
(15)
SCHOTT Solar of the Perform Poly 230 PV module ("Schott 8𝐿( )𝑓𝑠𝑤
𝑉𝑚𝑝
𝐷
Datasheet parameters at 25 Adjsuted model parameters 𝐶𝑜 = ∆𝑉𝑜 (16)
𝑅( )𝑓
𝑉𝑜 𝑠𝑤
°C, 1.5AM, 1000 W/m2 Table 2. Parameters of DC-DC converter.
Imp 7.66 A
Rs 170 mΩ
V mp 30 V V pv (V mp.Nss) 660 V
P max,e 229.8 W Rp 186.690053 Ω Vo 1000 V
Isc 8.33 A P max,m 229.8 W P pv ≈ P o 500 kW
Voc,n 36.9 V I0 8.394565.10 -8 A fsw 10 kHz
Kv -0.32 %/K Ipv 8.337632 A ∆IL/IL 15 %
Ki 0.04 %/K ∆V mp/V mp = ∆Vo/Vo 1%
a 1.3
Ns 60 D 0.34
PV array parameters R 1.978 Ω
Nss 22 IL 766 A
Npp 100 L 196 µH
Perform Polycrystalline Solar Modules ", 2011) and the values Ci 218 µF
of Rs and Rp. All parameters of the 500 kw PV array used in Co 1719 µF
this work are shown in Table 1. The I-V and P-V characteristics
of this PV array are shown in Figure 4. 2.2. MPPT Techniques
Table 1. Parameters of the Schott Perform Poly 230 based PV array. In Figure 4, the output power of the PV array varies with
irradiation level and temperature, displaying a distinct
Maximum Power Point (MPP) characterized by V mp and Imp.
While the exact position of this point is not specified, it must
be identified by implementing an MPPT algorithm to ensure
optimal operation of the PV array at its MPP. There are various
methods available in the literature to track the MPP (Mohamed
& Abd El Sattar, 2019). This study compares two MPPT
strategies: Hill Climbing (HC) and Incremental Conductance
(INC).
(a) 2.2.1. Hill Climbing (HC) MPPT
The conventional HC algorithm follows a procedure similar to
the Perturb and Observe (P&O) algorithm. However, in HC, the
perturbation is applied to the duty ratio D, whereas in P&O, it
is applied to the voltage of the PV array. As depicted in Figure
5, the changes in PV power (dPpv) and PV voltage (dVpv)
 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

𝑑𝑖 𝑖 𝑑𝑝
determine the duty cycle perturbation in the HC algorithm 𝑖𝑓 = − = 0 𝑎𝑡 𝑀𝑃𝑃
𝑑𝑣 𝑣 𝑑𝑣
(Mohamed & Abd El Sattar, 2019). 𝑑𝑖 𝑖 𝑑𝑝
𝑖𝑓 < − < 0 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑃𝑃 (19)
𝑑𝑣 𝑣 𝑑𝑣
The duty cycle D is determined by the formula provided in 𝑑𝑖 𝑖 𝑑𝑝
Eq. (17), where k is the iteration number and ∆D is the {𝑖𝑓 𝑑𝑣
> −
𝑣 𝑑𝑣
> 0 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑃𝑃
perturbation step size. As a result of comparing di/dv and i/v, the incremental
𝐷(𝑘) = 𝐷(𝑘 − 1) ± ∆𝐷 (17) conductance, and instantaneous conductance, repectively, the
duty cycle D is also governed by Eq. (17), allowing for the
tracking of the MPP (Jately et al., 2021). Figure 6 shows the
flowchart of the INC approach.

Figure 5. Flowchart of HC.

2.2.2. Incremental Conductance (INC) MPPT

The slope of the P-V curve serves as the foundation for this Figure 6. Flowchart of INC.
strategy, which determines the tracking direction. The slope is
calculated using Eq. (18), and all cases are summarized by Eq. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(19) (Sharma et al., 2023). In order to test the relevance and performance of the MPPT
𝑑𝑝 𝑑(𝑣.𝑖) 𝑑𝑖 controllers mentioned above, the circuit depicted in Figure 1 is
= =𝑖+𝑣 (18)
𝑑𝑣 𝑑𝑣 𝑑𝑣 modeled in Matlab/Simulink, as shown in Figure 7. The
simulation of this PV array is conducted by implementing HC
and INC MPPT controllers during STC and variations in solar
irradiation and temperature at the input, followed by a
comparison between the two algorithms.
 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

Figure 7. Simulink model to test HC and INC based MPPT.

3.1. Test at 1000 W/m2 and 25 °C ( Standard Test

Conditions)

(a) output power (b) output voltage and current

(c) duty cycle (d) efficiency of HC and INC

Figure 8. Simulation results at 1000 W/m2 & 25°C & step size : 5e-4.

Table 3. Comparaison of HC and INC MPPT results at 1000 W/m2 & 25°C and different step size.
 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

MPPT HC INC

step size 1e-3 5e-4 1e-3 5e-4

Tr (ms) 48 76 17 24.73

76.1
∆P (kW) 16 18.8 13.9

At STC 62.4
1000 ∆V (V) 16.1 18.9 13.4
W/m2 &
25 °C 40.2
∆I (A) 8.1 9.5 7

Efficiency (%) 95.83 97.57 98.78 99.7

Based on the results obtained, both the Hill Climbing (HC) Additionally, another test was performed at Standard Test
and Incremental Conductance (INC) methods nearly achieve Conditions (STC) by increasing the perturbation step size from
Maximum Power Point (MPP). However, the INC method 5e-4 to 1e-3. The findings presented in Table 3 clearly delineate
achieves MPP more rapidly and accurately compared to HC. the impact of a larger step size on MPPT controllers: the
The boost action exhibits a delay of 50 ms relative to INC, as dynamic response quickens but introduces significant ripple
illustrated in Figures 8b and 8c. Table 3 indicates that INC around the MPP in steady state, thereby reducing MPPT
induces minimal power oscillations, resulting in higher controller efficiency.
efficiency at 99.7% compared to 97.57% with HC.
3.2. Test at variable irradiance and temperature

(a) irradiance profile (b) temperature profile

(c) output power (d) output voltage and current

 ?. ???????? et al. / JREE: Vol. ?, No. ?, (???????? 2024) 1-??

(e) duty cycle (f) efficiency of HC and INC

Figure 9. Simulation results at variable irradiance, temperature, and step size : 5e-4.

Table 4. Comparaison of HC and INC MPPT results at variable T & G.

MPPT HC INC
Tr (ms) 54.14 20
∆P (kW) 18.8 8.1
700 W/m2 & ∆V (V) 22.8 9.9
25 °C
∆I (A) 11.5 5.1
Efficiency (%) 98.29 99.31
step size 5e-4

Tr (ms) 68.2 11.1

∆P (kW) 14 11.5
900 W/m2 & ∆V (V) 14.9 12
25 °C
∆I (A) 7.5 6.1
Efficiency (%) 97.4 99.51
Tr (ms) 19 11.4
∆P (kW) 27.5 11.9
900 W/m2 & ∆V (V) 30.3 13
40°C
∆I (A) 15.2 6.7
Efficiency (%) 97.57 99.16

standard test conditions. Results showed that a larger step size

By applying a sudden increase in irradiance at 0.3s and
led to faster dynamic responses but also introduced higher
temperature at 0.7s, both MPPT controllers oscillated around
ripple around the MPP at steady-state, thereby reducing the
the new Maximum Power Point (MPP). However, as indicated
efficiency of both MPPT controllers. While this study focused
in Table 4, Figure 9c, and Figure 9d, the Hill Climbing (HC)
on evaluating HC and INC algorithms, opportunities for further
method exhibited higher output power ripple, longer response
improvement exist, particularly in addressing the limitations of
times, and lower efficiency compared to the Incremental
the INC method. Future research could explore adaptive step
Conductance (INC) MPPT. The INC MPPT showed superior
size techniques, hybrid approaches integrating fuzzy logic or
transient and steady-state responses during these sudden
neural networks, or predictive strategies that anticipate
changes.
environmental changes to optimize MPPT controller
performance further.
4. CONCLUSIONS
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study modeled a DC stage comprising a PV array, boost
converter, and MPPT controller. It evaluated and compared the The authors received no financial support for this research.
performance of two MPPT controllers, Hill Climbing (HC) and
Incremental Conductance (INC), under various meteorological
NOMENCLATURE
conditions. Simulation outcomes using the Matlab/Simulink
environment demonstrated that both HC and INC controllers Ipv Light-generated current
effectively tracked the Maximum Power Point (MPP) under I0 Saturation current
Vt Thermal voltage of the PV panel
fixed and variable solar irradiation and temperature conditions. Ns Number of cells in the module
However, during sudden changes in irradiance and Nss Number of modules connected in series in a
temperature, the HC method exhibited higher output power string
ripple, longer response times, and lower efficiency compared Npp Number of the strings in parallel
a Diode ideality factor, set at 1.3
to the INC MPPT, which demonstrated superior speed, Kv Voltage coefficient, V/K
accuracy, and overall efficiency. Additional testing involved Ki Current coefficient, A/K
increasing the perturbation step size of both algorithms under
 Ipv,n Light-generated current under standard test 12. Priambodo, N. W., Raharjo, J., & Rokhmat, M. (2022). Land Use for
conditions Renewable Energy Power Plant and the Impact of CO. International
T Actual temperature in kelvin, K Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 12(5), 457-465.
Tn Nominal temperature in kelvin, K https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13298
∆T Difference between T and Tn 13. Rajani, S. V., & Pandya, V. J. (2015). Simulation and comparison of
G Irradiation on the device surface, W/m2 perturb and observe and incremental conductance MPPT algorithms for
Gn Nominal irradiation, W/m2 solar energy system connected to grid. Sadhana, 40(1), 139-153.
D Duty ratio
R Resistive load, Ω 14. Schott Perform Polycrystalline Solar Modules (2011). In (pp. 02).
fsw Switching frequency, Hz https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecodirect_docs/SCHOTT/Schott_Perform_P
∆IL Inductor ripple current, A oly_220-240_BLACK.pdf: SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc.
∆Vmp Maximum power point voltage ripple,V 15. Sharma, A. K., Pachauri, R. K., Choudhury, S., Minai, A. F., Alotaibi,
∆Vo Output voltage ripple, V M. A., Malik, H., & Márquez, F. P. G. (2023). Role of metaheuristic
approaches for implementation of integrated MPPT-PV systems: a
comprehensive study. Mathematics, 11(2), 269.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020269
16. Srdic, S., Radakovic, Z., & Vojinovic, V. (2012). Implementation of the
Incremental Conductance MPPT Algorithm for Photovoltaic Systems. IX
REFERENCES Simposium Industrial Elektronics INDEL, 34-39.
17. Villalva, M. G., Gazoli, J. R., & Ruppert Filho, E. (2009). Modeling and
1. Adak, S., Cangi, H., Yilmaz, A. S., & Arifoglu, U. (2023). Development circuit-based simulation of photovoltaic arrays. 2009 Brazilian Power
software program for extraction of photovoltaic cell equivalent circuit Electronics Conference,
model parameters based on the Newton–Raphson method. Journal of
Computational Electronics, 22(1), 413-422.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10825-022-01969-8
2. Al Garni, H. Z., Sundaram, A., Awasthi, A., Chandel, R., Tajjour, S., &
Chandel, S. S. (2024). A Comprehensive Review of Most Competitive
Maximum Power Point Tracking Techniques for Enhanced Solar
Photovoltaic Power Generation. Journal of Renewable Energy and
Environment, -. https://doi.org/10.30501/jree.2024.408699.1638
3. Ayop, R., & Tan, C. W. (2018). Design of boost converter based on
maximum power point resistance for photovoltaic applications. Solar
energy, 160, 322-335.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2017.12.016
4. Geravandi, M., & Moradi CheshmehBeigi, H. (2022). The Problem of
Resilient Stochastic Unit Commitment with Consideration of Existing
Uncertainties Using the Rate of Change of Frequency. Journal of
Renewable Energy and Environment, 9(4), 34-47.
https://doi.org/10.30501/jree.2022.306473.1262
5. Jately, V., Azzopardi, B., Joshi, J., Sharma, A., & Arora, S. (2021).
Experimental Analysis of hill-climbing MPPT algorithms under low
irradiance levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150,
111467. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2021.111467
6. Jha, V. (2022). Comprehensive modeling and simulation of PV module
and different PV array configurations under partial shading condition.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Electrical
Engineering, 46(2), 503-535.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40998-022-00494-5
7. Keong, L. Y., & Jamaludin, F. A. (2019). Design and study the PV cell
characteristic and INC MPPT method under varying Irradiance and
Temperature in MATLAB/Simulink.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18377.80480
8. Kumar, K., Kumar, P., & Bohre, A. K. (2023). Performance Analysis of
IC MPPT Algorithm for Applications of Solar PV in DC Microgrid. SN
Computer Science, 4(5), 579.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-02022-6
9. Malik, P., & Chandel, S. S. (2021). A new integrated single-diode solar
cell model for photovoltaic power prediction with experimental
validation under real outdoor conditions. International Journal of Energy
Research, 45(1), 759-771.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5881
10. Mohamed, S. A., & Abd El Sattar, M. (2019). A comparative study of
P&O and INC maximum power point tracking techniques for grid-
connected PV systems. SN Applied Sciences, 1(2), 174.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/S42452-018-0134-4
11. Motan, N., Abu-Khaizaran, M., & Quraan, M. (2018). Photovoltaic array
modelling and boost-converter controller-design for a 6kW grid-
connected photovoltaic system-DC stage. 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2018 IEEE
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS
Europe),