Evaluating the Efficacy of Intelligent Methods for Maximum Power Point Tracking in Wind Energy Harvesting Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As wind energy is widely available, an increasing number of individuals, especially in off-grid rural areas, are adopting it as a dependable and sustainable energy source. The energy of the wind is harvested through a device known as a wind energy harvesting system (WEHS). These systems convert the kinetic energy of wind into electrical energy using wind turbines (WT) and electrical generators. However, the output power of a wind turbine is affected by various factors, such as wind speed, wind direction, and generator design. In order to optimize the performance of a WEHS, it is important to track the maximum power point (MPP) of the system. Various methods of tracking the MPP of the WEHS have been proposed by several research articles, which include traditional techniques such as direct power control (DPC) and indirect power control (IPC). These traditional methods in the standalone form are characterized by some drawbacks which render the method ineffective. The hybrid techniques comprising two different maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithms were further proposed to eliminate the shortages. Furtherly, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based MPPT algorithms were proposed for the WEHS as either standalone or integrated with the traditional MPPT methods. Therefore, this research focused on the review of the AI-based MPPT and their performances as applied to WEHS. Traditional MPPT methods that are studied in the previous articles were discussed briefly. In addition, AI-based MPPT and different hybrid methods were also discussed in detail. Our study highlights the effectiveness of AI-based MPPT techniques in WEHS using an artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy logic controller (FLC), and particle swarm optimization (PSO). These techniques were applied either as standalone methods or in various hybrid combinations, resulting in a significant increase in the system’s power extraction performance. Our findings suggest that utilizing AI-based MPPT techniques can improve the efficiency and overall performance of WEHS, providing a promising solution for enhancing renewable energy systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".