MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392362231 · doi:10.18280/jesa.570104

Enhanced Incremental Conductance Maximum Power Point Tracking Algorithm for Photovoltaic System in Variable Conditions

2024· article· en· W4392362231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asnil Asnil, Krismadinata Krimadinata, Erita Astrid, Irma Husnaini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada MasyarakatUniversitas Negeri Padang
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemConductanceMaximum power point trackingVariable (mathematics)Tracking (education)Maximum power principlePower (physics)AlgorithmPoint (geometry)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)MathematicsEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incremental conductance method is susceptible to overshoot, oscillation, convergence errors, and the inability to adapt to rapidly changing conditions; therefore, innovation is required to ensure that this algorithm operates efficiently.This study investigates how the incremental conductance algorithm can be modified to enhance its performance, particularly in situations involving rapid environmental changes.The algorithm's performance is evaluated through simulation and subsequently compared to conventional methods and incremental conductance methods developed by previous researchers to determine how much performance increase can be achieved using the modified algorithm.The simulation results show that the second improved technique may significantly eliminate oscillations during maximum power point (MPP) tracking while also speeding up the convergence time.The results reveal that the proposed algorithm achieves an efficiency of 98.83%, which is higher than the conventional and first modified algorithms, which have efficiency values of 92.04% and 97.84%, respectively.Therefore, the second modification outperforms the other algorithms in terms of oscillation and efficiency.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207