MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385320205 · doi:10.35833/mpce.2022.000245

An Improved Perturb and Observed Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for Photovoltaic Power Systems

2023· article· en· W4385320205 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kahani, Mohsin Jamil, M. Tariq Iqbal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuty cycleMaximum power point trackingMaximum power principlePhotovoltaic systemPower (physics)AlgorithmControl theory (sociology)Boost converterOscillation (cell signaling)Computer scienceMathematicsVoltageEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to improve the performance of the conventional perturb and observe (P&O) maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm. As the oscillation around the maximum power point (MPP) is the main disadvantage of this technique, we introduce a modified P&O algorithm to conquer this handicap. The new algorithm recognizes approaching the peak of the photovoltaic (PV) array power curve and prevents the oscillation around the MPP. The key to achieve this goal is testing the change of output power in each cycle and comparing it with the change in array terminal power of the previous cycle. If a decrease in array terminal power is observed after an increase in the previous cycle or in the opposite direction, an increase in array terminal power is observed after a decrease in the previous cycle; it means we are at the peak of the power curve, so the duty cycle of the boost converter should remain the same as the previous cycle. Besides, an optimized duty cycle is introduced, which is adjusted based on the operating point of PV array. Furthermore, a DC-DC boost converter powered by a PV array simulator is used to test the proposed concept. When the irradiance changes, the proposed algorithm produces an average ηMPPTof nearly 3.1% greater than that of the conventional P&O algorithm and the incremental conductance (InC) algorithm. In addition, under strong partial shading conditions and drift avoidance tests, the proposed algorithm produces an average ηMPPTof nearly 9% and 8% greater than that of the conventional algorithms, respectively.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations62
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Power Systems and Clean EnergySame topicsolar cell performance optimizationFrench-language works237,207