sustainability

Article
A Novel Hybrid MPPT Approach for Solar PV Systems Using
Particle-Swarm-Optimization-Trained Machine Learning and
Flying Squirrel Search Optimization
Dilip Kumar 1, *, Yogesh Kumar Chauhan 2 , Ajay Shekhar Pandey 2 , Ankit Kumar Srivastava 1 , Varun Kumar 2 ,
Faisal Alsaif 3 , Rajvikram Madurai Elavarasan 4 , Md Rabiul Islam 5 , Raju Kannadasan 6
and Mohammed H. Alsharif 7, *

1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia
Avadh University, Ayodhya 224001, India
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, Kamla Nehru Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Sultanpur 228118, India
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University,
Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia
4 Research & Development Division (Power & Energy), Nestlives Private Limited, Chennai 600091, India
5 School of Electrical, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
6 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering,
Sriperumbudur, Chennai 602117, India
7 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Sejong University,
Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: dilip1987kumar@gmail.com (D.K.); malsharif@sejong.ac.kr (M.H.A.)

Abstract: In this paper, a novel hybrid Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) algorithm using
Citation: Kumar, D.; Chauhan, Y.K.;
Particle-Swarm-Optimization-trained machine learning and Flying Squirrel Search Optimization
Pandey, A.S.; Srivastava, A.K.;
(PSO_ML-FSSO) has been proposed to obtain the optimal efficiency for solar PV systems. The
Kumar, V.; Alsaif, F.; Elavarasan,
proposed algorithm was compared with other well-known methods viz. Perturb & Observer (P&O),
R.M.; Islam, M.R.; Kannadasan, R.;
Alsharif, M.H. A Novel Hybrid
Incremental Conductance (INC), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Cuckoo Search Optimization
MPPT Approach for Solar PV (CSO), Flower Pollen Algorithm (FPA), Gray Wolf Optimization (GWO), Neural-Network-trained
Systems Using Particle-Swarm- Machine Learning (NN_ML), Genetic Algorithm (GA), and PSO-trained Machine Learning. The
Optimization-Trained Machine proposed algorithm was modelled in the MATLAB/Simulink environment under different operating
Learning and Flying Squirrel Search conditions, for example, with step changes in temperature, solar irradiance, and partial shading. The
Optimization. Sustainability 2023, 15, proposed algorithm improved the efficiency up to 0.72% and reduced the settling time up to 76.4%.
5575. https://doi.org/10.3390/ The findings of the research highlight that PSO_ML-FSSO is a potential approach that outperforms
su15065575 all other well-known algorithms tested herein for solar PV systems.
Academic Editor: Miltiadis
(Miltos) Alamaniotis Keywords: DC–DC converter; MPPT algorithm; solar photovoltaic system

Received: 14 February 2023

Revised: 4 March 2023
Accepted: 20 March 2023
1. Introduction
Published: 22 March 2023
It is pretty concerning how dependent the world is becoming on energy. Alternative
energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal are urgently needed given the quick
degradation of traditional energy sources like coal, gas, and fossil fuels. Given that solar
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. energy is a plentiful, endless, and clean source of energy, it can serve as a feasible alternative
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. to produce electricity. In 2023, there will be a rise in the need for renewable energy across
This article is an open access article all industries, including heating, electricity, etc. These devices provide electricity to remote
distributed under the terms and
locations and places with low grid quality. In order to guarantee that the solar module
conditions of the Creative Commons
always utilizes its maximum capacity, MPPT is used [1].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Traditional algorithms include P&O, INC, fractional open-circuit voltage, and frac-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
tional short circuit currents. PV systems must operate at their maximum point of power
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065575 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 2 of 29

in order to minimize expenses and improve productivity. Typically, the PV array char-
acteristic curve (Ppv × Vpv ) simply displays a single MPP. However, whenever the PV
array is partially shaded, this curve reveals globally and locally peak power points. As a
result, most PV systems employ MPPT methods to achieve MPPs. Monitoring performance,
convergence rate, as well as power fluctuations in the stable state are some performance
indicators that may be used to evaluate different MPPT algorithms [2]. These methods’
performances are compared using computerized simulated results (MATLAB/Simulink)
for a PV system functioning in three distinct scenarios: I represents an actual test scenario
with homogeneous irradiation level and II and III represent partial shadow conditions.
Under shadow conditions, panels will not generate electricity and instead they will
consume a lot of energy and generate hot spots. In order to eliminate hotspots on panels,
bypass diodes are linked in parallel. However, this causes many local maxima (LMs) and a
single global maximum (GM) to appear on the I–V and P–V curves. The conventional MPPT
algorithms include hill-climbing (HC), INC, and P&O [3]. These are undervalued because
of their propensity to generate oscillations near MPPs, while being straightforward and
having quick tracking capabilities. However, these approaches have a slow convergence
rate and need explicit duty cycle management. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), GA,
Machine Learning (ML), and Fuzzy Logic Controllers (FLC) with Artificial Intelligence
foundations are presented in the literature. The effectiveness of these systems in monitoring
the global maxima depends on the proper training of the models, which consumes a lot
of computational resources and a lot of training time. Despite having a propensity to
repeatedly explore the same state space, the PSO algorithm spreads knowledge via social
iterations of swarm particles. The particle, however, heavily relies on co-efficient r to
modify the duty cycle on a regular basis, which results in a local maximum power point
(LMPP) [4]. In order to convey information, artificial bee colony (ABC) uses pheromones.
Since CS uses abrupt random values, instabilities result.
A new hybrid algorithm for an MPPT approach has been presented by Hassan et al. [5]
and is based on FOCV and GA. With various hybrid MPPT strategies like P&O and
INC, the performance of suggested algorithm was compared. Deverakonda et al. [6]
presented a hybrid model based on a neural network (NN) + P&O for PV systems and
the outcomes of the proposed method were compared with the P&O method, fuzzy logic
controller method (FLC), NN model, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)
method, which are most popular MPPT algorithms. Alshareef et al. [7] discussed a new
algorithm based on the falcon optimization algorithm (FOA) for the monitoring of GMPP.
The proposed algorithm was evaluated on the basis of performance tracking and the
result was compared with three well-known algorithms like P&O, PSO, and GWO. A new
Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA) that can extract the maximum power under
difficult shading conditions has been proposed by Sridhar et al. [8]. In order to eliminate
the undesirable content lower-order harmonic in the cascaded H-Bridge multilevel inverter,
Padmanaban et al. [9] suggested a hybrid algorithm for solar PV systems based on Artificial
Neural Network-Newton Raphson (ANN-NR). Nyarco et al. [10] introduced modified
variable-step-size INC method to address the issues of scale factors and step-size variation.
The proposed algorithm was divided in two parts: the autonomous scaling factor and the
slope change algorithm.
Castaño et al. [11] discussed the ABC-algorithm-based MPPT PV system using a DC–
DC converter. To improve the power generation of PV systems dealing with changeable
partial shade conditions (PSCs), Huang et al. [12] developed a unique data-driven MPPT
approach. This groundbreaking work presented a GMPPT algorithm employing a P–V
curve model based on natural cubic splines. A hybrid Enhanced Leader Particle Swarm
Optimization (ELPSO) approach with the help of a traditional P&O strategy was used
by Ram et al. [13] to discover global MPP zones. Obukhov et al. [14] introduced a new
algorithm for selecting the optimal parameters of the PSO algorithm as well as parameters
for the DC–DC converter to configure the solar panels. For a photovoltaic (PV) system’s
tracking direction and step size, Kermadi et al. [15] developed an improved MPPT algo-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 3 of 29

rithm based on PSO and adaptive P&O. Voltage, load, and power line were combined
by Li et al. [16]. A new GMPPT algorithm based on power increments was consequently
developed. Ahmed et al. [17] proposed a hybrid methodology of MPPT based on enhanced
adaptive perturb and observe (EA-P&O) for PV systems. By using an improved P&O
method with a checking algorithm, the impact of partial shading has been calculated by
Alik et al. [18] for PV systems. To find the global maximum power point, this checking
algorithm compared each peak that was present on the PV curve (GMPP). In conditions of
fast variation in solar irradiation and partial shadowing, Mohanty et al. [19] created a new
hybrid P&O and GWO-based MPPT algorithm to extract the most power possible from a
PV system PSCs. For the tracking of the MPP in both dynamic and steady state PSCs of a
solar PV system, Kumar et al. [20] presented a tracking algorithm based on the whale opti-
mization with a differential evolution (WODE) algorithm and inspired by humpback whale
hunting behavior. Saibal Manna et al. [21] presented a new adaptive control framework to
enhance the performance of MPPT, which will minimize the complexity in system controls
and efficiently manage uncertainties and disruptions in the environment and PV system.
Pradhan et al. [22] proposed a bio-inspired roach infestation optimization (RIO) algorithm
to extract the maximum power from the PV system (PVS). Awan et al. [23] introduced a
novel concept of data arrangement to improve the performance of the TCA in terms of
MPPT speed and efficiency for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.
Many literature reviews based on different optimization algorithms for MPPT al-
gorithms were published in previous years (see Table 1) but to the best of the authors’
knowledge, a hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO algorithm is used here for the first time for MPPT
algorithms for solar PV systems. The novel contributions made in this work are:
1. A novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO algorithm is used for MPPT in a solar energy conver-
sion system.
2. The performance of the algorithm is validated by comparing the results obtained from
other well-known algorithms viz. P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO, NN_ML, GA,
and PSO_ML for different operating conditions (irradiation and temperature).

Table 1. Summary of recently published research papers for MPPT algorithm for solar PV systems.

Sr. No. Year Author (Ref.) Strategies Involved DC–DC Converter Remarks
By controlling the inverter
voltage and frequency, the
Teaching–Learning- optimal performance to obtain
1. 2016 Elkholy et al. [24] Based Optimization Boost converter maximum power from PVs
(TLBO) algorithm with minimum motor losses
using TLBO algorithm was
achieved.
The MPPT algorithm based
on TS Fuzzy logic and INC
2. 2016 Palaniswamy et al. [25] T-S Fuzzy algorithm Boost converter
method were developed and
their efficiencies were tested.
Developed a new GWO-P&O
Hybrid-MPPT for maximum
Hybrid MPPT power from a PV system. The
3. 2016 Mohanty et al. [19] algorithm GWO Boost converter performance of the proposed
and P&O method was evaluated
through both simulation and
experimental methods.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 4 of 29

Table 1. Cont.

Sr. No. Year Author (Ref.) Strategies Involved DC–DC Converter Remarks
A hybrid algorithm based on
WO and DE evolutionary
WODE-technique-
techniques named WODE
4. 2017 Kumar et al. [20] based tracking Boost converter
was proposed for MPPT
algorithm
under partial shading
condition for PV systems.
The steady state
oscillation and Buck-Boost Proposed an EA-P&O MPPT
5. 2018 Ahmed et al. [17]
EA-P&O MPPT converter algorithm for PV systems.
algorithm
Enhanced PO Presented the impact of
algorithm and a partial shading to the PV
6. 2018 Alik et al. [18] hardware Boost Converter system and proposed an
implemented with enhanced P&O algorithm
Arduino Mega 2560 with a checking algorithm.
Discussed the performance of
the classical P&O method
under fast-changing solar
irradiation, including increase
The classical and
7. 2018 Salam et al. [26] Boost Converter or decrease of the irradiation
proposed P&O
level with small or large steps,
when the initial operating
point lies to the right or left of
the MPP.
Hybrid Adaptive
P&O and PSO, SSJ Presented a hybrid MPPT
Buck-boost
8. 2018 Kermadi et al. [15] Algorithm, and algorithm based on adaptive
Converter
Incremental P&O and PSO for PV systems.
Conductance
The fixed step P&O Proposed a novel solution to
and INC, balance the trade-off between
9. 2019 Yan et al. [27] Boost converter
support vector performance and cost of the
machine (SVM) MPPT algorithm.
Presented a new algorithm for
selecting the parameters of a
10. 2020 Obukhov et al. [14] PSO Algorithm Buck converter
buck converter connected to
a battery.
Proposed a novel MPPT
Modified PSO and approach based on modified
11. 2020 Ibrahim et al. [28] Boost converter
ANN algorithm PSO for PV systems
under PSCs
P&O, INC
algorithms
A new GOA has been
12. 2021 Sridhar et al. [8] Grasshopper Boost converter
presented in this study.
Optimization
Algorithm (GOA)
ANN-NR algorithm
Introduced a hybrid ANN-NR
based Selective
to mitigate the undesired
Harmonic
lower-order harmonic content
13. 2021 Padmanaban et al. [9] Elimination (SHE) Boost converter
in the cascaded H-Bridge
PWM, and
multilevel inverter for solar
P&O-based MPPT
PV systems.
Algorithm
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 5 of 29

Table 1. Cont.

Sr. No. Year Author (Ref.) Strategies Involved DC–DC Converter Remarks
Proposed the use of ABC
ABC MPPT algorithm for the MPPT of a
14. 2021 Castaño et al. [11] Boost converter
algorithm PV system using a DC–DC
converter.
Introduced a hybrid method
MPP algorithms, for MPPT technique based on
15. 2022 Devarakonda et al. [6] Boost converter
P&O, INC, FLC a neural network and P&O for
PV systems.
For the monitoring of GMPP,
a new strategy based on the
16. 2022 Alshareef et al. [7] FOA Boost converter
FOA was presented in this
work.
Performance of seven
PSO, HS, BA, ABC, meta-heuristic training
17. 2023 Kaya et al. [29] -
FPA, DE, and CS algorithms in the neuro-fuzzy
training for MPPT.

The paper is organized as follows. The system configuration and modeling are
explained in Section 2. Section 3 of the paper explains the proposed MPPT algorithm.
Section 4 shows the outcomes and performance of the proposed methodology. Findings
and concluding remarks are provided in Section 5.

2. System Configuration and Modeling

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 30
Equivalent Circuit Model of Solar Cell
The simplest equivalent circuit of a solar cell consists of a current source coupled in
series with a diode and a variable resistor as the load is depicted in Figure 1. When the
terminals areshorted
terminals are shorted together,
together, both
both the the output
output voltage
voltage asaswell
as well the as the voltage
voltage throughout
throughout
the diode are zero [30].
the diode are zero [30].

Figure 1. Equivalent circuit of solar PV system.

Figure 1. Equivalent circuit of solar PV system.
The output is then supplied with the total photocurrent (Iph ) generated by solar light.
The
A solar output
cell’s is thencurrent
maximum suppliedis (Iwith the total
sc ). When the photocurrent
load resistance(Iisph)raised,
generated by solar light
the voltage
A solar cell’s
throughout maximum
the p-n junction current is (Iincreases,
of the diode sc). When the load
a portion of resistance is raised,
the current passes the voltage
through
the diode, resulting
throughout the p-ninjunction
a corresponding
of the diodedecrease in output
increases, current. of
a portion When the load passes
the current resistorthrough
is open
the circuited
diode, and in
resulting thea whole photocurrent
corresponding is flowing
decrease through
in output the diode,
current. When thethe
output
load resistor
current is zero. The diode mathematical expression can be used to calculate
is open circuited and the whole photocurrent is flowing through the diode, the output the relationship
between current and voltage:
current is zero. The diode mathematical expression can be used to calculate the relation-
I pv = I ph − ID (1)
ship between current and voltage:
𝐼 =𝐼 −𝐼 (1)

𝐼
= 𝑁 𝐼 −𝑁 𝐼 𝑒 −1 (2)
100
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 6 of 29

qV pv
   
Ir
= Np ISC − Np I0 e nKTN s −1 (2)
100
Therefore,    
Ir
Ns nKT  Np Isc 100 − I pv
Vpv = ln + 1 (3)
q Np Io

where,
IPV is as the output of the current PV module;
I0 is the diode saturating current;
ID is the diode current;
ISh is the shunt current;
RS is the series resistance;
RSh is the shunt resistance;
VT is the thermal voltage;
Vpv is the PV array’s output voltage;
Ipv denotes the PV array’s output current;
NS is the number of linked series cells;
NP is the number of linked parallel cells;
K is the Boltzmann constant (whose value is 1.3806503 × 10−23 J/K);
Q represents the electron charge (calculated value is 1.60217646 × 10−19 C);
T is the temperature;
n is a constant and is the fill factor (ideally its value is 1).
An electric current is produced by a photoelectric effect. Once a p-n junction solar
cell is lit, the intersections become forward biases, resulting in the generation of a photo-
generated current, which can be represented by Iph [31].
Once the load resistor gets open circuited and the whole photocurrent passes through
the diode, the value of load current Ipv is 0. The diode’s mathematical expression can be
used to calculate the relationship between current and voltage

Eg Vpv + I pv Rs
   
ID = k s Tc3 exp. exp. (4)
nkT c nV t − 1

where, ks and n are derived by fitting parameters to the current–voltage (I–V) characteristics
of the solar module, ks is the photocurrent losses resulting from charge carrier diffusion,
and n is a non-physical diode ideality factor. “Eg ” is the material band gap energy (e.g., 1.12
eV for silicon) calculated from the Boltzmann’s constant (k = 1.38 × 10−23 ) and the electron
charge (q = 1.6 × 10−19 ), material band gap energy (1.12 eV for silicon, for example), and
thermal voltage (Vt ), which depends on cell temperature.
The electrical coupling of solar cells in series and/or parallel allows them to produce
higher voltages, currents, and power levels.

3. Proposed Methodology
A charge controller algorithm called MPPT is used to extract the maximum power from
a PV module in specific circumstances. The maximum power fluctuates with variations
in irradiation from the sun, outside temperatures, and solar cell temperature. The PV cell
absorbs light uniformly when there is coherent irradiance, irrespective of total radiation or
total shadowing. When the sun’s energy hits the PV panel in an uneven manner, partial
shadowing happens [32]. The block diagram of the MPPT-based solar PV system reported
in this work is depicted in Figure 2.
 from a PV module in specific circumstances. The maximum power fluctuates with varia-
tions in irradiation from the sun, outside temperatures, and solar cell temperature. The
PV cell absorbs light uniformly when there is coherent irradiance, irrespective of total ra-
diation or total shadowing. When the sun’s energy hits the PV panel in an uneven manner,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 partial shadowing happens [32]. The block diagram of the MPPT-based solar PV system 7 of 29
reported in this work is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Block diagram of MPPT-based solar PV system.

Figure 2. Block diagram of MPPT-based solar PV system.
The fundamental idea behind MPPT is to optimize the maximum amount of electricity
thatThe
a PV fundamental
module canidea behind
produce byMPPT
using isthetooptimum
optimize effective
the maximum amount
voltage. of electric-
In order to select
ity
thethat a PV power,
optimal modulewhichcan produce
allows the byPVusing the optimum
module to deliver effective
the maximumvoltage. In order
current into tothe
select the optimal power, which allows the PV module to deliver the
battery, MPPT first evaluates the output of the PV module and identifies it to the battery maximum current
into the battery,
voltage. MPPTdays
On smoggy first or
evaluates
in extremethe output of theisPV
heat MPPT module
utilized and identifies
to extract the mostit to the
power
battery voltage. On smoggy days or in extreme heat MPPT is utilized
from PV modules, which frequently function better at higher temperatures. To achieve to extract the most
power from PVenergy
the maximum modules, which
harvest, PVfrequently
systems must function better
therefore at higher
operate near temperatures.
their MPP because To
achieve
of the PVthe cell’s
maximum energy harvest,
low efficiency. PV systems
In contrast must therefore
to the open-circuit operatedirect
voltage’s near their MPP
correlation
because
with the cell temperature, the short-circuit current is only loosely correlated with cor-
of the PV cell’s low efficiency. In contrast to the open-circuit voltage’s direct solar
relation withHence,
irradiance. the cellittemperature,
is essential tothehave short-circuit currentwhich
a MPPT method, is only loosely correlated
continuously monitors withand
solar irradiance.
analyzes the MPP Hence, it is essential
to optimize the PVto have a renewable
system’s MPPT method, power. which
Using continuously
MPPT depends mon- on
itors and analyzes
the region, the direction,
solar field MPP to optimize the PV
season, and the system’s
time of dayrenewable
because power. Usingmodules
photovoltaic MPPT
depends on the region,
receive different amountssolar fieldirradiation.
of solar direction, Irradiance
season, and andthe time of day
temperature havebecause
similar
effects on the energy utilized by each solar cell. Modelling based analysis algorithms
are used to calculate V/I (voltage/current) at MPPs by employing observed voltage and
current values of the PV module as raw data. Such algorithms can also be employed under
uniform irradiation circumstances.

3.1. PSO-Trained Machine Learning and FSSO Hybrid

The PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization)-trained neural network is an efficient method-
ology for optimizing the performance of a MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking)-based
Solar PV (Photovoltaic) system. PSO is a stochastic optimization algorithm that is inspired
by the social behavior of birds in a flock, where particles (or birds) search for the best
solution to a given problem by exchanging information with their neighbors in the flock.
The PSO algorithm was used to train a neural network to identify the best operating point
of the solar PV system, in order to maximize its power output. This is done by using the
PSO algorithm to optimize the weights of the neural network, which are adjusted until the
best operating point of the system is identified. The Flying Squirrel Search Optimization
(FSSO) methodology is an alternative approach to identify the best operating point of the
solar PV system. This method uses an iterative approach to search for the optimal operating
point of the system, using a search pattern that resembles a squirrel flying in a spiral pattern.
The FSSO algorithm is used to optimize the parameters of the solar PV system, such as the
panel tilt angle and the panel azimuth angle, in order to maximize its power output. This
method is especially useful for systems with multiple PV panels, as it allows the user to
optimize the performance of the entire system, rather than just a single panel.
The PSO-trained neural network with flying squirrel search optimization (FSSO)
hybrid methodology in MPPT-based solar photovoltaic (PV) systems is a technique used to
optimize the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) of a solar PV system. It combines the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 8 of 29

advantages of PSO with FSSO to improve the tracking performance of the MPPT algorithm.
The PSO algorithm is used to optimize the parameters of a neural network model, which
is then used to predict the maximum power of a solar PV system. This prediction is
then used by the FSSO algorithm to adjust the PV system’s operating point to follow the
maximum power point. This hybrid methodology results in a higher efficiency in tracking
the maximum power point than conventional MPPT algorithms. The advantage of using
the PSO-trained neural network with FSSO hybrid methodology in MPPT-based solar PV
systems is that it can quickly and accurately track the maximum power point of the PV
system with less computational effort than the conventional methods. This makes it an
attractive option for optimizing the performance of PV systems.
An intelligent ANN-MPPT method utilizing a MATLAB/Simulink model is proposed
here. The ANN technique’s output is the maximum power measurement of the PV array
that is installed at the MPP, and its inputs are the weather’s G level and T operations. As
mentioned, how the network is trained has a significant impact on how well the ANN tool
can estimate PV power. To address this technique, we developed a hybrid PSO-trained
ANN with FSSO approach. The target function is also known as the mean square error.
A schematic picture shows the training procedure for the PSO-trained ANN with FSSO
algorithm. The flowchart of the PSO-trained ML and FSSO is shown in Figure 3.

3.2. The Best ANN System Architecture Was Determined to Be the PSO-Trained ANN Strategy
In the first stage of this update, the feed-forward ANN network’s optimal topology is
determined using the PSO method and the ANN model. A hybrid method was used to
assess the steadily rising number of neurons in the hidden layer without requiring the user
to precisely select the number, which may be incorrect. In this study, a single hidden layer
of a neural network with two inputs and one output was created with the least amount of
training error, and the ideal number of neurons in it was 10. This design will be used in the
review to establish the appropriate initial weights for the ANN model.

3.3. Calculating the Input Weights of the ANN Model Using the PSO-Trained Method and
FSSO Hybrid
The starting weights for the ANN model were enhanced. It has been demonstrated
that correcting the prior beginning weight values improves the model’s ability to forecast
output. To accomplish this, the ANN technique was used with the PSO algorithm. The
hybrid approach was used to obtain the enhanced beginning weights. The ANN model was
then trained using the optimal beginning weights and the MATLAB “nntool”/“nnstart”
function. The “nntool” box’s field’s starting weights were then switched from the enhanced
initial weights to the standard training weights. The output of the ANN model optimal
value training approach using real data thus achieves improved prediction compared to
classical ANN. The optimized ANN model’s 3D surface showed that the output power
increased progressively. This approach is fairly simple to design because it does not need
an additional unit during execution to guarantee completeness.
Further, the FSSO technique makes use of the flying squirrels’ ability to cooperate.
Furthermore, regardless of the hunter’s availability, the flying squirrel position is modi-
fied [33]. The previously mentioned cooperative characteristics of flying squirrels are what
led to the conversion trait. The following steps describe this strategy:
Step 1 The CFS was initially posed in the direction that was deemed to be the best option
by all.
Step 2 Additionally, a portion of AS is instructed to migrate to FS in the next step.
Step 3 The remaining AS switched to CFS in the last phase.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 30
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 9 of 29

Figure
Figure 3. Flowchart
3. Flowchart of PSO_NN
of PSO_NN and and
FSSOFSSO hybrid
hybrid algorithm.
algorithm.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 10 of 29

The following assumptions are considered when using the FSSO approach for MPPT
into practice:
1. The objective is analogous to the productivity of PV power in terms of the source of
food supply (Ppv ).
2. In the MPPT technique, the selection factor is viewed as a duty ratio (D) of the
converter used.
3. By removing the hunter availability, the FSSO approach is appropriately customized
to shorten the travel time to the GMPP.
Execution of the FSSO technique comprises several phase mechanisms.
1. Booting: Eventually, NFS FSs are positioned in the best possible locations, each of
which has a specific duty ratio value for the q ZS converter, as shown below:

(i − 1)[dmx − dmn ]
di = dmn + ; i = 1, 2, ..., N f s (5)
Nf s
where dmn and dmx represent the minimum and maximum duty ratios for boost operation
of the converter, which equate to 10% and 90% of the permitted duty ratio, respectively.
The following is how VVPV
0
= D− 1
D 0 establishes the duty ratio constraints and limitations:
0

0 < di < 0.5

2. Holistic Evaluation: The converter gradually utilize search duty ratio in this procedure
(i.e., the stance of each FS). A food source’s description provides the instantaneous PV
power yield (PPV) for each duty ratio (D). The MPPT’s desired holistic expression (F),
which is reproduced at each duty cycle, is written as follows:

F(D) = max( PPV (D))

3. Recognition and Classification: The hickory tree is deemed to have a duty cycle with
a peak PV output. The acorn tree is the next best site from FS. It is expected that the
remaining FS (NTFS) are situated in the typical trees.
4. Orientation upgrading: The duty cycle upgrade is communicated after examining
the infrequent looking at condition. If the obligation cycles are updated using I and
(OiCOmin ). The state of wellbeing is then evaluated.
Random penetrating action: This technique keeps the algorithm from being stuck in
neighboring maxima and preventing it from being caught. The periodic regular (OC) and
its base value (Omin ) are calculated for a single-dimensional space by:

OCi = Xat
i
− Xht (6)

10e−6
Omin = i
(7)
365 (im /2.5)
i +1 t
Xot = Xot +d (8)
y × ( Xht − Xot )
d=ε 1
(9)
Zγ

Action in the Trenches: The squirrel is still perched atop the hickory tree. From the
acorn tree, the squirrel is travelling in the direction of the hickory tree. While the rest (NTFS
RNTFS) gradually migrate away from the acorn, a few randomly selected squirrels (RNTFS)
travel from normal trees and approach the hickory tree. The duty Cycle that calls for a
connection are updated. In the equations that follow, it is written:
 
dkat+1 = dkat + gd Gc dkht − dkat (10)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 11 of 29

 
dnt
k +1 = d nt
k + g d Gc d ht
k − d nt
k (11)

dnt nt at nt


k +1 = dk + gd Gc dk − dk (12)
hg
gd = (13)
s f tanϕ
FD
tanϕ = (14)
FL
1 2
FD = ρV SC D (15)
2
1
FL = ρV 2 SC L (16)
2
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW k +1 k 11 of 30
PPV − PPV
k +1
≥ ∆P(%) (17)
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW PPV 11 of 30

5.ConsolidationVerification:
Consolidation Verification:Instead Insteadof of developing
developinginto into an an apex,
apex, each
each FS’s alteration
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWillustration becomes a little dot. Additionally, the upgraded approach is ended
ended 11 ifofthe
30
illustration becomes a little dot. Additionally, the upgraded approach is
allotted number
5. Consolidation
allotted number of
of iterations
Verification:
iterations has
hasbeen
Instead beenof achieved,
achieved,and
developing into
and the duty
an
the cycle
apex,
duty is generated
each
cycle isFS’s at the
alteration
generated at
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWlocation where the converter runs while adhering to GMPP. 11 of 30
illustration
the locationbecomeswhere the a little dot. Additionally,
converter runs while adhering the upgraded to GMPP. approach is ended if the
6. Consolidation
5.
6. Rebooting:
allotted
Rebooting: number When
When employing
Verification:
ofemploying
iterations theMPPT,
Instead
has
the MPPT,
been aatemporal
temporal
of developing
achieved, into
and variation
an duty
the
variationapex, optimization
each isFS’s
cycle
optimization strategy,
alteration
generated
strategy, at
the initial
illustration
the initial
location state
becomes
where
state changes
changes the regularly
a little
converter
regularly depending
dot. Additionally,
runs on
while adhering
depending on the
thethe weather.
upgraded
to GMPP.
weather. In these
approach circumstances,
is ended if the
In these circumstances,
5. theduty
dutynumber
6. Consolidation
allotted
Rebooting:
the ratios
When
ratios for
for FSs
Verification:
ofemployingare restarted
iterations
FSs are restarted
Instead
has MPPT,
the been in order
of
in order to find
developing
achieved,
a temporal
to findandaavariation
into brand-new
an duty
the apex,
brand-new GMPP.
each
cycle isFS’s
optimization
GMPP. alteration
generated
strategy, at
illustration
the location
initial becomes
where
state
The control parameters
The changes the
parameters useda little dot.
converter
regularly Additionally,
runs while
depending the
adhering
on upgraded
the to GMPP.
weather. approach
In
used in the PSO-trained neural network and flying squirrel these is ended
circumstances, if the
6.
search allotted
dutynumber
Rebooting:
theoptimization When
ratios for ofemploying
iterations
FSs
methodology hasan
the
are restarted
for been
MPPT,
in achieved,
a temporal
order
MPPT-based to find and
solar the
PV duty
avariation
brand-new
PV system cyclecanisinclude:
optimization
system GMPP.
can generated
include:strategy, at
the
The location
initial
controlPowerwhere
state changes
parameters the converter
regularly runs while
depending adhering
on the to GMPP.
weather. In these circumstances,
▪ Maximum
Maximum Power Pointused
Point in the(MPPT)
Tracking
Tracking PSO-trained
(MPPT) algorithm
algorithm neural network and
parameters
parameters such
such flying squirrel
as step
as step size,
size,
6.
search Rebooting:
the duty
optimization When
ratios for employing
FSs
methodology are the an
restarted
for MPPT,
in a temporal
order
MPPT-based to find a
solarvariation
brand-new
PV optimization
system GMPP.
can include:strategy,
maximumand
maximum andminimum
minimum voltage, voltage, and and power
power and and current
current limits.
limits.
the
The initial
control state changes
parameters regularly depending onsuch
the weather. In these circumstances,
▪ Particle
Maximum
Particle swarm
swarmPower Point used
optimization
optimization in(PSO)
(PSO)
Tracking the PSO-trained
parameters
(MPPT) algorithm
parameters neural
as
such network
population
parameters
as population and
suchflying
size, inertia
as squirrel
step
size, weight,
size,
inertia
search the
and duty ratios
optimization
cognitive for FSs
methodology
and socialare restarted
for
parameters.an in order
MPPT-based to find a
solar brand-new
PV system GMPP.
can include:
maximum
weight, andand minimum
cognitive andvoltage, and power and current limits.
social parameters.
▪ The
Maximumcontrol
Parameters
Particle
Parameters swarm parameters
forthe
Power
for the neural
Point
optimization
neural used in(PSO)
network
Tracking
network the(MPPT)
PSO-trained
such such as the
algorithm
parameters
as the numberneural
number ofnetwork
suchparameters
as
neurons, and
ofpopulation
neurons,such flying
learninglearning
as squirrel
step
size, rate,
size,
inertia
rate, mo-
search optimization
momentum,
maximum
weight,
mentum,and and
and andmethodology
activation
minimum
cognitive
activation and for
voltage, an
functions MPPT-based
and
and power
social parameters.
functions weights.
weights. solar PV
and current limits. system can include:
▪ Parameters
Maximum
Particle
Parameters swarm forthe
Power
for the
the flyingTracking
Point
optimization
neural
flying squirrel
network(PSO)
squirrel search
(MPPT)
such
search optimization
algorithm
parameters
asoptimization
the number methodology
suchparameters
ofas population
neurons,
methodology such such
learning
such as as
step
size, search
size,
inertia
rate,
as mo-
search
space,
maximum
weight,
mentum, population
and and
and minimum
cognitive size,
activation andand mutation
voltage,
social
functions
space, population size, and mutation rate. and rate.
power
parameters.
weights. and current limits.
▪ Particle
Parameters swarmfor the optimization
the neural
flying network (PSO)
squirrel such
searchparameters
asoptimization
the number suchof as population
neurons,
methodology learning
such size, inertia
rate,
as mo-
search
4. Result and Discussions
weight,
mentum,
4. Result
space, and andandcognitive
Discussions
population size,and
activation and social
functions
mutationparameters.
andrate.weights.
▪ The performance
Parameters for the
the investigation
neural
flying network
squirrel ofsearch
the MPPT
such algorithms
asoptimization
the number of for solar
neurons,
methodology PV
learning
such system
rate,
as was
mo-
search
The performance investigation of the MPPT algorithms for solar PV system was car-
carried
4. out
mentum,
Result in MATLAB
and activation environment
functions as shown
andrate.weights.in Figure 4. A 15 kW photovoltaic (PV)
ried out inand
space, Discussions
population
MATLAB size, and
environment mutation
as shown in Figure 4. A 15 kW photovoltaic (PV) system
system
▪was was fittedfor
Parameters with the PSO-trained
theinvestigation
flying squirrel neuraloptimization
search network andmethodologyflying squirrel such optimization
as search
The performance
fitted with the PSO-trained neuralof the MPPTand
network algorithms for solar
flying squirrel PV system
optimization was
method- car-
methodology
4. Result
space, and in MPPT
Discussions
population technology.
size, and Based
mutation on the
rate. MPPT method, a model was developed in
ried
ology outininMPPT
MATLAB environment
technology. Based as shown
on the in Figuremethod,
MPPT 4. A 15 kW photovoltaic
a model (PV) system
was developed in
MATLAB/Simulink to assess the efficiency of solar PV installations. A PV module, a boost
was The
fittedperformance
with
MATLAB/Simulink the investigation
PSO-trained
to assess theand neuralof the
efficiency MPPT
network algorithms
and
of solar flying for
squirrel
PV installations. solar PV system
optimization was
method- car-
converter,
4. Result an MPPT controller, a load were created as the partsAof a standalone
module, a boost solar
ried
ology outininand
converter, MPPT Discussions
MATLAB environment
technology. Based asashown
on in
thewere Figure
MPPT 4. Aas15the
method, kW photovoltaic
a parts
model was (PV) system
developed in
PV system. A solar module was used in this simulation model. Information about the solar
an MPPT controller, and load created of a standalone solar
was
PV The performance
fitted
system. with
MATLAB/Simulink A the module
solar investigation
PSO-trained
to assess was the neuralof the
efficiency
used in this MPPT
networkof solar algorithms
and
simulation PV flying for
squirrel
installations.
model. solar
A
Information PV system
optimization
module,
about was
method-
a
the car-
boost
solar
module is provided in Table 2.
ried
ology outinin
converter,
module MATLAB
isMPPT
an MPPT
provided environment
technology.
controller,
in Tablepanels2.Based
and asashown
onload in
thewere Figure
MPPT 4. Aas15the
method,
created kW photovoltaic
a parts
model was (PV) system
developed
ofMATLAB/Simulink
a standalone solarin
After selecting the solar block from the Simulink Library in the
was
PV fitted with
MATLAB/Simulink
system. A the module
solar PSO-trained
to assess was the neural
efficiency
used in network
this of and
solar
simulation PV flying squirrel
installations.
model. optimization
A
Information PV module,
about method-
a
the boost
solar
software 2018a, the specifications from Table 2 are inserted. The boost converter contains an
ology in MPPT
converter, aninput
MPPT technology.
controller, Based
and aon loadthewereMPPT method, a parts
model was developed in
module
inductor,isan provided in Table 2.
capacitor, a MOSFET, a diode,created
an output as the capacitor, ofanda standalone
a resistive solarload.
MATLAB/Simulink
PV system. A solar to
moduleassess was the efficiency
used in this of solar
simulation PV
It is connected to the PV block. To choose the blocks for each component, the Simulinkinstallations.
model. A
Information PV module,
about a
the boost
solar
converter,
module
Library was anused.
MPPT
is provided Thecontroller,
in Table 2. and
MATLAB a loadblock
Software were forcreated as thealgorithm
the MPPT parts of awas standalone solar
chosen using
PV system. A solar module was used in this simulation model.
the Simulink Library. This block contains the integrated code for the MPPT algorithm. The Information about the solar
module
PWM signal is provided
attachedintoTable the PWM 2. generator is the block’s output. The MATLAB Function
block’s inputs are the PV voltage and current.
 ried out in MATLAB environment as shown in Figure 4. A 15 kW photovoltaic (PV) system
was fitted with the PSO-trained neural network and flying squirrel optimization method-
ology in MPPT technology. Based on the MPPT method, a model was developed in
MATLAB/Simulink to assess the efficiency of solar PV installations. A PV module, a boost
converter, an MPPT controller, and a load were created as the parts of a standalone solar
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 12 of 29
PV system. A solar module was used in this simulation model. Information about the solar
module is provided in Table 2.

Figure4.4.Simulation
Figure Simulationdiagram
diagram of PV energy
energy conversion
conversionsystem
systemwith
withvarious
various MPPT
MPPT algorithms.
algorithms.

Table 2. System description of solar PV.

Parameter Value
No. of PV Modules 1
Maximum Power (PMPP) 249.927
Cell Per Module (Ncell) 72
Open Circuit Voltage (VOC) 44
Short Circuit Current (ISC) 7.636
Voltage at MPP (VMPP) 36.7
Current at MPP (IMPP) 6.81
Temperature Coefficient of VOC (β) −0.36901
Temperature Coefficient of ISC (α) 0.086998

The PWM generator is then fed the MOSFET switching device. The variation of the
PWM was continuously adjusted and designed to extract the maximum power from the
PV panel. Here, a DC–DC boost converter was employed to keep track of the solar PV
array’s maximum output. The converter has a resistive load of 2 Ω, a MOSFET power
device that switches at a 20 kHz frequency with a controlled duty cycle, an inductor of
0.045875 × 10−3 H, and a capacitor of 0.259725 F.
The PV module’s current and voltage readings were continuously read by the MPPT
algorithms, assessed, and used to determine the duty ratio of the ensuing switching signal.
The PWM signal and the Boost converter attached to the PV panel output were controlled
by the operating conditions and PV attributes.
The performance of the MPPT algorithms was carried out for following cases:
1. Constant temperature (25 ◦ C) and varying irradiation of 1000 W/m2 , 800 W/m2 ,
600 W/m2 );
2. Constant irradiation (1000 W/m2 ) and varying temperature (15 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 30 ◦ C);
3. Varying irradiation (800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 ) and varying temperature
(35 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, and 20 ◦ C);
4. Partial shading condition.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 13 of 29

1. Constant temperature (25 ◦ C) and varying irradiation (1000 W/m2 , 800 W/m2 ,
600 W/m2 ),
The performance of the proposed novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO was carried out for
a constant temperature (25 ◦ C) and varying irradiation (1000 W/m2 , 800 W/m2 , and
600 W/m2 ). To validate the performance, the proposed algorithm was compared with
well-known MPPT algorithms viz. the P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO, NN_ML, GA,
and PSO_ML reported in [34–38]. The results obtained for the above cases are depicted in
Figure 5. The performance of the various MPPT algorithms for constant temperature and
different irradiation levels, i.e., 1000, 800, and 600 W/m2 , are summarized in Tables 3–5,
respectively. From the tables, it is clear that the proposed hybrid algorithm increased
the efficiency of the PV system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in terms
of performance parameters like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc. The time of
tracking in PSO-trained neural networks and flying squirrel search optimization algorithm
was usually faster than the other techniques. This is because the PSO technique allows
the neural networks to quickly adapt to changes in the environment, resulting in faster
tracking. The proposed algorithm improved the efficiency up to 0.72% and reduced the
settling time up to 76.4%.
2. Constant irradiation (1000 W/m2 ) and varying temperature (15 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 30 ◦ C)
The performance of the proposed novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO was then carried out
for constant irradiation (1000 W/m2 ) and varying temperature (15 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C). To
validate the performance, the proposed algorithm was again compared with well-known
MPPT algorithms viz. the P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO, NN_ML, GA, and PSO_ML
reported in [30–34]. The results obtained for the above cases are depicted in Figure 6.
The performance of the various MPPT algorithms for constant irradiation and different
temperatures i.e., 15 ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 30 ◦ C are summarized in Tables 6–8, respectively. From
Sustainability 2023, 15, the tables,
x FOR it is clear that the proposed hybrid algorithm increased the efficiency of the PV15
PEER REVIEW of 30
system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in terms of performance parameters
like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc.

(a) Load Voltage

Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 14 of 29

(a) Load Voltage

(a) Load Voltage

(b) Load Current

(b) Load Current

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 30

(c) Load Power

(c) Load Power

(d) Actual current

Figure 5. Cont.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 15 of 29

(d) Actual current

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30

(e) Actual Voltage

(f) Actual Power

Figure
Figure 5. (a–f) 5. (a–f)
Results Results
of current of current
voltage voltageatand
and power power at
irradiance of irradiance
1000 W/mof2 , 800 W/m2 ,2,and
1000W/m 800 W/m2,
2
600 W/m atand 600 W/m
constant 2 at constant
temperature ◦
of 25temperature
C. of 25 °C.

2. Constant irradiation (1000 W/m2) and varying temperature (15 °C, 20 °C, and 30 °C)
The performance of the proposed novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO was then carried out
for constant irradiation (1000 W/m2) and varying temperature (15 °C, 20 °C and 30 °C). To
validate the performance, the proposed algorithm was again compared with well-known
MPPT algorithms viz. the P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO, NN_ML, GA, and PSO_ML
reported in [30–34]. The results obtained for the above cases are depicted in Figure 6. The
performance of the various MPPT algorithms for constant irradiation and different tem-
peratures i.e., 15 °C, 20 °C, and 30 °C are summarized in Tables 6–8, respectively. From
the tables, it is clear that the proposed hybrid algorithm increased the efficiency of the PV
system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in terms of performance parameters
like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 16 of 29

Table 3. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 1000 W/m2 at constant temperature of 25 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 148.4 159.6 86.8 79.8 12,881.12 12,736.08 98.874 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 170.99 170.1 85 85 14,534.15 14,458.5 99.479 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 171 170 85.05 85.05 14,543.55 14,458.55 99.415 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 171 170 85.053 85 14,543.55 14,450 99.356 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 171 170.11 85 85.05 14,535 14,468 99.539 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 171 170.11 85 85.05 14,535 14,468 99.539 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 171 170.15 85.05 85.056 14,543.55 14,472.3 99.510 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 171 170.15 85.05 85.056 14,543.55 14,472.3 99.510 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 171 170.15 85.05 85.056 14,543.55 14,472.3 99.510 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 [Present] 171 170.25 85.06 85.098 14,545.26 14,487.3 99.601 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08

Table 4. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 800 W/m2 at constant temperature of 25 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W) Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)

1 P&O [34,35,37] 129.24 120.833 64.62 52.68 8349.55 6365.482 76.237 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 140.29 139.42 69.712 52.276 9779.896 7288.32 74.523 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 140.295 139.421 69.713 52.277 9780.385 7288.5116 74.521 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 140.296 139.425 69.713 52.2776 9780.455 7288.80 74.524 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 140.299 139.426 69.714 52.279 9780.80 7289.052 74.524 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 140.34 139.43 69.73 52.283 9785.91 7289.819 74.493 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 140.54 139.48 69.743 52.289 9801.68 7301.78 74.495 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 140.56 139.487 69.744 52.35 9803.217 7302.14 74.487 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 140.61 139.52 69.756 52.42 9808.40 7313.64 74.565 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 140.61 139.72 69.857 52.62 9822.59 7352.066 74.848 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08
[Present]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 17 of 29

Table 5. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 600 W/m2 at constant temperature of 25 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 91.83 98.02 53.28 49.01 4892.70 4803.96 98.186 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 106.83 105.96 52.986 52.987 5660.494 5614.50 99.187 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 106.83 105.96 52.986 52.987 5660.494 5614.50 99.187 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 106.83 105.967 52.984 52.985 5660.46 5615.35 99.203 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 106.831 105.98 52.987 52.988 5660.65 5615.668 99.205 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 106.835 105.985 52.992 52.994 5661.4 5616.569 99.208 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 106.94 106.115 53.004 53.050 5668.248 5629.4 99.314 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 106.942 106.12 53.056 53.059 5673.91 5630.62 99.237 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 107.11 106.27 53.23 53.28 5701.4653 5662.0656 99.308 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 [Present] 107.11 106.45 53.43 53.40 5722.8873 5684.43 99.328 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08

Table 6. Performance analysis of simulation results at temperature of 15 ◦ C at constant irradiance of 1000 W/m2 .

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 147.885 158.3522 86.074 79.176 12,726.47 12,577.50 98.829 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 170.845 169.960 84.98 84.98 14,518.41 14,443.216 99.482 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 170.847 169.963 84.983 84.985 14,519.09 14,443.306 99.478 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 170.8458 169.9614 84.9823 84.9842 14,518.87 14,444.034 99.484 813.441 1.9 7.88 −0.24
5 FPA [36] 170.8475 169.9632 84.9842 84.9851 14,519.34 14,444.34 99.485 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 170.84788 169.9633 84.9851 84.9854 14,519.524 14,444.40 99.482 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 170.850 169.9701 84.987 84.9874 14,520.03 14,445.32 99.485 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 170.853 169.9709 84.9882 84.9887 14,520.49 14,445.61 99.484 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 170.855 169.9723 84.994 84.999 14,521.65 14,447.50 99.489 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 170.855 169.9923 85.003 85.001 14,523.18 14,449.51 99.492 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08
[Present]
 performance of the various MPPT algorithms for constant irradiation and different tem-
peratures i.e., 15 °C, 20 °C, and 30 °C are summarized in Tables 6–8, respectively. From
the tables, it is clear that the proposed hybrid algorithm increased the efficiency of the PV
system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in terms of performance parameters
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc. 18 of 29

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30

(a) Load Voltage

(b) Load Current

(c) Load Power

Figure 6. Cont.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 19 of 29

(c) Load Power

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30

(d) Actual Current

(e) Actual Voltage

(f) Actual Power

(a–f) Results ◦ C, 20 ◦ C, and 30 ◦ C at

Figure 6.Figure 6. (a–f) of voltage
Results currentcurrent
of voltage and power at temperatures
and power of 15 of
at temperatures 15 °C, 20 °C, and 30 °C at
constant constant
irradiation 1000 W/m 2
irradiation 1000. W/m2.
3. Varying irradiation (800 W/m2, 600 W/m2, and 400 W/m2) and varying temperature
(35 °C, 30 °C, and 20 °C)
The performance of the proposed novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO was then carried out for
varying irradiation levels (800 W/m2, 600 W/m2, and 400 W/m2) and varying temperature (35
°C, 30 °C, and 20 °C). To validate the performance, the proposed algorithm was again com-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 20 of 29

Table 7. Performance analysis of simulation results at temperature of 20 ◦ C at constant irradiance of 1000 W/m2 .

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 148.48 158.997 86.0516 79.498 12,777.32 12,640.11 98.926 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 170.181 169.066 84.96 85.090 14,458.58 14,385.83 99.496 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 170.182 169.068 84.964 85.091 14,459.34 14,386.165 99.493 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 170.1813 169.067 84.961 85.090 14,458.77 14,385.91 99.496 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24%
5 FPA [36] 170.1832 169.071 84.98 85.0913 14,481.11 14,386.471 99.346 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 170.1823 169.0714 84.982 85.0915 14,462.43 14,386.54 99.475 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 170.1834 169.0723 84.991 85.0922 14,464.057 14,386.734 99.465 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 170.18359 169.0726 84.997 85.0925 14,481.347 14,386.81 99.347 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 170.18421 169.0742 84.999 85.0934 14,465.488 14,387.099 99.458 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 [Present] 170.18421 169.0942 85.10 85.1905 14,482.6788 14,405.2194 99.465 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08

Table 8. Performance analysis of simulation results at temperature of 30 ◦ C at constant irradiance of 1000 W/m2 .

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W) Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)

1 P&O [34,35,37] 146.188 156.507 86.5 78.25 12,646.645 12,247.296 96.842 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 170.553 169.88 84.835 84.735 14,468.864 14,394.781 99.487 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 170.56 169.89 84.839 84.742 14,470.14 14,396.818 99.491 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 170.557 169.88 84.837 84.738 14,469.544 14,395.291 99.486 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 170.563 169.92 84.841 84.742 14,470.735 14,470.360 99.506 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 170.566 169.94 84.845 84.746 14,471.672 14,401.735 99.516 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 170.602 170.007 84.851 84.752 14,475.750 14,408.433 99.534 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 170.606 170.012 84.853 84.7532 14,476.431 14,409.061 99.534 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 170.613 170.025 84.857 84.7574 14,477.71 14,410.876 99.538 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 170.613 170.025 84.868 84.7813 14,479.584 14,414.889 99.553 461.888 1.6 7.76 2.08
[Present]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 21 of 29
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 3

3. Varying irradiation (800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 ) and varying temperature
(35 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, and 20 ◦ C)
3. Varying irradiation (800 W/m2, 600 W/m2, and 400 W/m2) and varying temperatur
The performance of the proposed novel hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO was then carried out for
(35 °C, 30 °C, and 20 °C)
varying irradiation levels (800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 ) and varying temperature
(35 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, and 20The◦ C).
performance of the
To validate theproposed novelthe
performance, hybrid PSO_ML-FSSO
proposed algorithm was then
was carried out fo
again
varying irradiation levels (800 W/m 2, 600 W/m2, and 400 W/m2) and varying temperature (3
compared with well-known MPPT algorithms viz. the P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO,
NN_ML, GA,°C, and30PSO_ML
°C, and 20 °C). To validate
reported the performance,
in [34–38]. the proposed
The results obtained algorithm
for the was again com
above cases
are depicted in Figure 7. The performance of the various MPPT algorithms for varying NN_ML
pared with well-known MPPT algorithms viz. the P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO,
GA, and PSO_ML reported in [34–38]. The results obtained for the above cases are depicted i
irradiation levels (800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 ) and varying temperatures of
Figure 7. The performance of the various MPPT algorithms for varying irradiation levels (80
35 C, 30 C, and 220 ◦ C are2 summarized2 in Tables 9–11, respectively. From the tables,
◦ ◦
W/m , 600 W/m , and 400 W/m ) and varying temperatures of 35 °C, 30 °C, and 20 °C are sum
it is clear that proposed hybrid algorithm increased the efficiency of the PV system and
marized in Tables 9–11, respectively. From the tables, it is clear that proposed hybrid algorithm
outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in terms of performance parameters like peak
increased the efficiency of the PV system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in
overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc.
terms of performance parameters like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc.

(a) Load Voltage

(b) Load Current

(c) Load Power

Figure 7. Cont.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 31
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 22 of 29

(d) Actual Current

(e) Actual Voltage

(f) Actual Power

Figure 7. (a–f) Results of voltage current and power at varying temperatures (35 ◦ C, 30 ◦ C, and 20 ◦ C)
and varying irradiation (800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 ).

4. Partial Shading Condition

A PV module was subject to a partial shading condition where irradiation levels are
not uniform over the PV module. The model presented in this work consists of 72 cells,
which are divided into three equal parts (i.e., each part consists of 24 cells) and connected
in series. Three different cases were considered for a partial shading condition for the PV
system for 800 W/m2 , 600 W/m2 , and 400 W/m2 irradiation. To show the effectiveness
of partial shading conditions, a comparison between a partial shading condition and
without partial shading condition (i.e., 1000 W/m2 irradiation and 25 ◦ C temperature)
was also considered in this work. The results obtained for the above cases are depicted
in Figure 8. The performance of the partial shading condition for the three different cases
is summarized in Table 12. From the tables, it is clear that proposed hybrid algorithm
increased the efficiency of the PV system and outperformed the other MPPT algorithms in
terms of performance parameters like peak overshoot, setting time, rise time, etc.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 23 of 29

Table 9. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 800 W/m2 at constant temperature of 35 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Voltage Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 111.828 110.121 56.139 55.914 6277.912 6157.305 98.078 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 140.519 139.649 69.830 69.824 9812.441 9750.851 99.372 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 140.515 139.645 69.830 69.824 9812.162 9750.572 99.372 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 140.516 139.646 69.830 69.825 9812.232 9750.781 99.373 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 140.516 139.646 69.828 69.824 9811.951 9750.642 99.375 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 140.519 139.649 69.830 69.824 9812.441 9750.851 99.372 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 140.519 139.646 69.829 69.825 9812.301 9750.781 99.373 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 140.516 139.649 69.830 69.824 9812.232 9750.851 99.371 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 140.519 139.650 69.830 69.824 9812.441 9750.9216 99.373 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 [Present] 185.681 184.890 77.711 77.590 14,429.477 14,345.619 99.418 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08

Table 10. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 600 W/m2 at constant temperature of 30 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W) Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)

1 P&O [34,35,37] 99.257 98.258 51.951 49.628 5156.500 4876.348 94.567 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 108.175 107.320 53.644 53.560 5802.939 5748.059 99.054 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 108.174 107.321 53.645 53.561 5802.994 5748.220 99.056 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 108.175 107.320 53.644 53.560 5802.939 5748.059 99.070 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 108.174 107.319 53.646 53.560 5803.102 5748.005 99.050 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 108.175 107.320 53.644 53.561 5802.939 5758.898 99.055 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 108.174 107.321 53.644 53.560 5802.886 5748.112 99.056 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 108.174 107.320 53.648 53.560 5803.318 5748.059 99.047 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 108.173 107.320 53.644 53.561 5802.832 5748.166 99.057 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 140.709 140.158 70.066 70.056 9858.9167 9818.908 99.594 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08
[Present]
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30

Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 24 of 29

(a) Load Voltage

(b) Load Current

(c) Load Power

Figure 8. Cont.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 30
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 25 of 29

(d) Actual Current

(e) Actual Voltage

(f) Actual Power

Figure 8.
Figure 8. (a–f)
(a–f) Results
Results of
of voltage
voltage current
current and
and power
power in
in partial
partial shading
shading condition.
condition.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 26 of 29

Table 11. Performance analysis of simulation results at irradiance of 400 W/m2 at constant temperature of 20 ◦ C.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)
Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W)
1 P&O [34,35,37] 67.888 65.806 35.769 32.903 2428.285 2165.214 89.166 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 72.109 71.273 35.635 35.027 2566.041 2496.479 97.289 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 72.109 71.273 35.635 35.331 2569.604 2518.146 97.997 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 72.109 71.373 35.635 35.136 2562.393 2507.762 97.868 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 72.109 71.273 35.635 35.136 2573.168 2504.248 97.321 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 72.109 71.173 35.635 35.436 2562.393 2522.086 98.427 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 72.109 71.273 35.635 35.136 2573.168 2504.248 97.321 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 72.109 71.373 35.635 35.236 2569.604 2514.899 97.871 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 72.109 71.273 35.635 35.136 2569.604 2504.248 97.456 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 [Present] 109.085 108.234 52.488 52.393 5725.653 5670.703 99.403 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08

Table 12. Performance analysis of simulation results for partial shading condition.

S. No Actual Load Actual Load Actual Load

Algorithm Voltage (V) Voltage (V) Current (A) Current (A) Power (W) Power (W) Efficiency (%) Rise Time (ms) Settling Time (s) Duty Cycle (%) Overshoot (%)

1 P&O [34,35,37] 91.998 98.224 53.379 49.112 4910.825 4824.030 98.232 1.158 6.8 8.9 22.62
2 INC [37] 106.083 105.230 52.619 52.615 5582.029 5536.759 99.189 461.888 2.9 7.86 2.08
3 PSO [34] 106.083 105.230 52.619 52.615 5581.592 5536.767 99.196 466.014 2.05 7.90 1.92
4 CSO [34] 106.083 105.230 52.614 52.615 5581.664 5536.769 99.195 813.441 1.9 7.88 0.24
5 FPA [36] 106.083 105.230 52.615 52.615 5581.654 5536.769 99.195 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
6 GWO [35] 106.083 105.230 52.669 52.615 5587.375 5536.753 99.093 461.899 1.8 7.8 2.09
7 NN_ML [38] 106.083 105.230 52.614 52.615 5581.559 5536.757 99.197 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
8 GA [37] 106.086 105.228 52.613 52.614 5581.308 5536.550 99.198 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
9 PSO_ML [38] 106.083 105.230 52.614 52.615 5581.559 5536.757 99.197 461.888 1.9 7.76 2.08
PSO_ML-FSSO
10 106.983 106.410 53.104 53.050 5681.229 5645.156 99.365 461.888 1.6 7.63 2.08
[Present]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 27 of 29

5. Conclusions
A novel hybrid MPPT algorithm based on PSO_ML-FSSO for solar PV systems has
been discussed. The optimal efficiency of the proposed algorithm for PV system was
achieved for four different cases. The first case was for a constant temperature and varying
irradiation levels, the second case was for a constant irradiation and varying temperatures,
the third case for varying irradiation levels and varying temperatures, and the last case
was for a partial shading condition. The validation of the proposed algorithm was carried
out by comparing the results with those obtained from other well-known MPPT algorithms
viz. P&O, INC, PSO, CSO, FPA, GWO, NN_ML, GA, and PSO_ML. The results from the
proposed algorithm improved the efficiency up to 0.72% and reduced the settling time up
to 76.4%. The results obtained from all four cases showed the superiority of the proposed
novel hybrid algorithm over the other MPPT algorithms.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.K., Y.K.C. and A.S.P.; methodology, D.K., Y.K.C. and
A.S.P.; software, D.K., A.K.S. and V.K.; validation, D.K., Y.K.C. and A.S.P.; formal analysis, D.K. and
A.K.S.; investigation, D.K., Y.K.C. and A.S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K. and A.K.S.;
writing—review and editing, D.K., A.S.P., Y.K.C., R.M.E., F.A., M.R.I., R.K. and M.H.A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Researchers Supporting Project (RSPD2023R646),
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ANFIS Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system

ABC Artificial bee colony
ANN-NR Artificial Neural Network-Newton Raphson
ANN Artificial Neural Network
CSO Cuckoo Search Optimization
DS Duty cycles
EA-P&O Enhanced adaptive perturb and observe
ELPSO Enhanced Leader Particle Swarm Optimization
FOA Falcon optimization algorithm
FPA Flower Pollen Algorithm
FLC Fuzzy Logic Controllers
GA Genetic Algorithm
GM Global maximum
GOA Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm
GWO Gray Wolf Optimization
HC Hill-climbing
INC Incremental Conductance
LM Local maxima
ML Machine learning
MPPT Maximum Power Point Tracking
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 28 of 29

NN_ML Neural-Network-trained Machine Learning

PSCs Partial shade conditions
PSO Particle swarm optimization
P&O Perturb & Observer
PV Photovoltaic
PSO_NN PSO-trained Machine Learning
PSO_ML-FSSO PSO-trained Machine Learning and Flying Squirrel Search Optimization
SHE Selective harmonic elimination
SAINCA Self-adaptive incremental conductance algorithm
SVM Support vector machine
TLBO Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization
WODE Whale optimization with differential evolution

References
1. Mendez, E.; Ortiz, A.; Ponce, P.; Macias, I.; Balderas, D.; Molina, A. Improved MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic systems based on
the earthquake optimization algorithm. Energies 2020, 13, 3047. [CrossRef]
2. Oufettoul, H.; Aniba, G.; Motahhir, S. MPPT techniques investigation in photovoltaic system. In Proceedings of the 2021 9th
International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC), Morocco, 23–27 November 2021; pp. 1–7.
3. Lian, K.L.; Jhang, J.H.; Tian, I.S. A maximum power point tracking method based on perturb-and-observe combined with particle
swarm optimization. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2014, 4, 626–633. [CrossRef]
4. Verma, P.; Alam, A.; Sarwar, A.; Tariq, M.; Vahedi, H.; Gupta, D.; Shah Noor Mohamed, A. Meta-heuristic optimization techniques
used for maximum power point tracking in solar pv system. Electronics 2021, 10, 2419. [CrossRef]
5. Hassan, A.; Bass, O.; Masoum, M.A. An improved genetic algorithm based fractional open circuit voltage MPPT for solar PV
systems. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1535–1548. [CrossRef]
6. Devarakonda, A.K.; Karuppiah, N.; Selvaraj, T.; Balachandran, P.K.; Shanmugasundaram, R.; Senjyu, T. A comparative analysis of
maximum power point techniques for solar photovoltaic systems. Energies 2022, 15, 8776. [CrossRef]
7. Alshareef, M.J. An Effective Falcon Optimization Algorithm Based MPPT Under Partial Shaded Photovoltaic Systems. IEEE
Access 2022, 10, 131345–131360. [CrossRef]
8. Sridhar, R.; Subramani, C.; Pathy, S. A grasshopper optimization algorithm aided maximum power point tracking for partially
shaded photovoltaic systems. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021, 92, 107124. [CrossRef]
9. Padmanaban, S.; Dhanamjayulu, C.; Khan, B. Artificial neural network and Newton Raphson (ANN-NR) algorithm based
selective harmonic elimination in cascaded multilevel inverter for PV applications. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 75058–75070. [CrossRef]
10. Owusu-Nyarko, I.; Elgenedy, M.A.; Abdelsalam, I.; Ahmed, K.H. Modified variable step-size incremental conductance MPPT
technique for photovoltaic systems. Electronics 2021, 10, 2331. [CrossRef]
11. González-Castaño, C.; Restrepo, C.; Kouro, S.; Rodriguez, J. MPPT algorithm based on artificial bee colony for PV system. IEEE
Access 2021, 9, 43121–43133. [CrossRef]
12. Huang, C.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Yeung, R.S.C.; Bensoussan, A.; Chung, H.S.H. A novel spline model guided maximum power
point tracking method for photovoltaic systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2019, 11, 1309–1322. [CrossRef]
13. Ram, J.P.; Pillai, D.S.; Rajasekar, N.; Strachan, S.M. Detection and identification of global maximum power point operation in
solar PV applications using a hybrid ELPSO-P&O tracking technique. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2019, 8, 1361–1374.
14. Obukhov, S.; Ibrahim, A.; Diab, A.A.Z.; Al-Sumaiti, A.S.; Aboelsaud, R. Optimal performance of dynamic particle swarm
optimization based maximum power trackers for stand-alone PV system under partial shading conditions. IEEE Access 2020, 8,
20770–20785. [CrossRef]
15. Kermadi, M.; Salam, Z.; Ahmed, J.; Berkouk, E.M. An effective hybrid maximum power point tracker of photovoltaic arrays for
complex partial shading conditions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 66, 6990–7000. [CrossRef]
16. Li, X.; Wen, H.; Chu, G.; Hu, Y.; Jiang, L. A novel power-increment based GMPPT algorithm for PV arrays under partial shading
conditions. Solar Energy 2018, 169, 353–361. [CrossRef]
17. Ahmed, J.; Salam, Z. An enhanced adaptive P&O MPPT for fast and efficient tracking under varying environmental conditions.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 9, 1487–1496.
18. Alik, R.; Jusoh, A. An enhanced P&O checking algorithm MPPT for high tracking efficiency of partially shaded PV module. Solar
Energy 2018, 163, 570–580.
19. Mohanty, S.; Subudhi, B.; Ray, P.K. A grey wolf-assisted perturb & observe MPPT algorithm for a PV system. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 2016, 32, 340–347.
20. Kumar, N.; Hussain, I.; Singh, B.; Panigrahi, B.K. MPPT in dynamic condition of partially shaded PV system by using WODE
technique. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2017, 8, 1204–1214. [CrossRef]
21. Manna, S.; Singh, D.K.; Akella, A.K.; Kotb, H.; AboRas, K.M.; Zawbaa, H.M.; Kamel, S. Design and implementation of a new
adaptive MPPT controller for solar PV systems. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1818–1829. [CrossRef]
22. Pradhan, C.; Senapati, M.K.; Ntiakoh, N.K.; Calay, R.K. Roach Infestation Optimization MPPT Algorithm for Solar Photovoltaic
System. Electronics 2022, 11, 927. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 5575 29 of 29

23. Awan, M.M.A.; Javed, M.Y.; Asghar, A.B.; Ejsmont, K. Performance optimization of a ten check MPPT algorithm for an off-grid
solar photovoltaic system. Energies 2022, 15, 2104. [CrossRef]
24. Elkholy, M.M.; Fathy, A. Optimization of a PV fed water pumping system without storage based on teaching-learning-based
optimization algorithm and artificial neural network. Solar Energy 2016, 139, 199–212. [CrossRef]
25. Palaniswamy, A.M.; Srinivasan, K. Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy approach for power optimization in standalone photovoltaic systems.
Solar Energy 2016, 139, 213–220. [CrossRef]
26. Abdel-Salam, M.; El-Mohandes, M.T.; Goda, M. An improved perturb-and-observe based MPPT method for PV systems under
varying irradiation levels. Sol. Energy 2018, 171, 547–561. [CrossRef]
27. Yan, K.; Du, Y.; Ren, Z. MPPT perturbation optimization of photovoltaic power systems based on solar irradiance data classifica-
tion. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2018, 10, 514–521. [CrossRef]
28. Ibrahim, A.W.; Shafik, M.B.; Ding, M.; Sarhan, M.A.; Fang, Z.; Alareqi, A.G.; Al-Rassas, A.M. PV maximum power-point tracking
using modified particle swarm optimization under partial shading conditions. Chin. J. Electr. Eng. 2020, 6, 106–121. [CrossRef]
29. Kaya, C.B.; Kaya, E.; Gokkus, G. Training Neuro-Fuzzy by Using Meta-Heuristic Algorithms for MPPT. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng.
2023, 45, 69–84. [CrossRef]
30. Zafar, M.H.; Khan, N.M.; Mirza, A.F.; Mansoor, M.; Akhtar, N.; Qadir, M.U.; Moosavi, S.K.R. A novel meta-heuristic optimization
algorithm based MPPT control technique for PV systems under complex partial shading condition. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2021, 47, 101367.
31. Ali, E.M.; Abdelsalam, A.K.; Youssef, K.H.; Hossam-Eldin, A.A. An enhanced cuckoo search algorithm fitting for photovoltaic
systems’ global maximum power point tracking under partial shading conditions. Energies 2021, 14, 7210. [CrossRef]
32. Chekired, F.; Larbes, C.; Rekioua, D.; Haddad, F. Implementation of a MPPT fuzzy controller for photovoltaic systems on FPGA
circuit. Energy Procedia 2011, 6, 541–549. [CrossRef]
33. Singh, N.; Gupta, K.K.; Jain, S.K.; Dewangan, N.K.; Bhatnagar, P. A flying squirrel search optimization for MPPT under partial
shaded photovoltaic system. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 2020, 9, 4963–4978. [CrossRef]
34. Ahmed, J.; Salam, Z. A Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) for PV system using Cuckoo Search with partial shading
capability. Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 118–130. [CrossRef]
35. Mohanty, S.; Subudhi, B.; Ray, P.K. A new MPPT design using grey wolf optimization technique for photovoltaic system under
partial shading conditions. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 181–188. [CrossRef]
36. Alam, D.F.; Yousri, D.A.; Eteiba, M.B. Flower pollination algorithm based solar PV parameter estimation. Energy Convers. Manag.
2015, 101, 410–422. [CrossRef]
37. Hadji, S.; Gaubert, J.P.; Krim, F. Real-time genetic algorithms-based MPPT: Study and comparison (theoretical an experimental)
with conventional methods. Energies 2018, 11, 459. [CrossRef]
38. Al-Majidi, S.D.; Abbod, M.F.; Al-Raweshidy, H.S. A particle swarm optimisation-trained feedforward neural network for
predicting the maximum power point of a photovoltaic array. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 92, 103688. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.