MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901418499 · doi:10.3390/en11123263

Study of the Intelligent Behavior of a Maximum Photovoltaic Energy Tracking Fuzzy Controller

2018· article· en· W2901418499 on OpenAlexaff
Gul Filiz Tchoketch Kebir, Chérif Larbès, Adrian Ilinca, Thameur Obeidi, Selma Tchoketch Kebir

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Maximum power point trackingFuzzy logicPhotovoltaic systemRobustness (evolution)MATLABMaximum power principleComputer scienceController (irrigation)Fuzzy control systemControl engineeringVoltageEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) strategy is commonly used to maximize the produced power from photovoltaic generators. In this paper, we proposed a control method with a fuzzy logic approach that offers significantly high performance to get a maximum power output tracking, which entails a maximum speed of power achievement, a good stability, and a high robustness. We use a fuzzy controller, which is based on a special choice of a combination of inputs and outputs. The choice of inputs and outputs, as well as fuzzy rules, was based on the principles of mathematical analysis of the derived functions (slope) for the purpose of finding the optimum. Also, we have proved that we can achieve the best results and answers from the system photovoltaic (PV) with the simplest fuzzy model possible by using only 3 sets of linguistic variables to decompose the membership functions of the inputs and outputs of the fuzzy controller. We compare this powerful controller with conventional perturb and observe (P&O) controllers. Then, we make use of a Matlab-Simulink® model to simulate the behavior of the PV generator and power converter, voltage, and current, using both the P&O and our fuzzy logic-based controller. Relative performances are analyzed and compared under different scenarios for fixed or varied climatic conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207