Comparative Functional Analysis of Three MPPT Techniques Applied on a Stand-Alone Photovoltaic System with a Charging Battery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative functional analysis of a typical stand-alone photovoltaic system (SPV) with a charging battery. Considering the nonlinear behavior of the PV system, a specific methodology based on Tayler’s expansion series is opted for the modelling, control, and optimization. During the proposed steps, a practical PID controller is designed using a dynamic state space averaging approach. This controller is used to track the maximum power point (MPP) and control the battery charging process. To check the validity of this controller, it is applied with three disparate MPPT algorithms to enhance system performances by preventing drift phenomenon against fast changing in cell temperature and solar irradiance, and control the battery pack to conform with the load rating voltage. A typical 2525 W SPV is simulated in short term to capture fast dynamics transitional details. By comparison with practical manufacturer's specifications of the PV panel, the load, and the battery pack; simulation results show particularly, good performances with fuzzy logic controller in terms of speed tracking, MPPT tracking accuracy, voltage quality, and reducing transient fluctuations. The findings of this research substantiate its efficacy, which may serve as a prototype study for the design and realization of stand-alone photovoltaic systems with energy storage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".