PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A novel strategy for the MPPT in a

photovoltaic system via sliding modes control
Itzel Contreras Carmona1, Belem Saldivar ID2*, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez ID1, Vı́ctor
Manuel Ramı́rez Rivera ID3,4, Leopoldo Gil Antonio5, Juan Manuel Jacinto-Villegas1,4
1 Facultad de Ingenierı́a, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, México, 2 Departamento de
Control Automático, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
México City, México, 3 Departamento de Energı́a Renovable, Centro de Investigación Cientı́fica de Yucatán
(CICY), Yucatán, México, 4 Investigadoras e Investigadores por México CONAHCYT, Ciudad de México,
México, 5 TecNM: Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Jocotitlán, Ejido de San Juan y San Agustı́n
a1111111111 Jocotitlán, México
a1111111111
a1111111111 * [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
This paper proposes a robust maximum power point tracking algorithm based on a super
twisting sliding modes controller. The underlying idea is solving the classical trajectory
OPEN ACCESS
tracking control problem where the maximum power point defines the reference path. This
Citation: Contreras Carmona I, Saldivar B, Portillo-
trajectory is determined through two approaches: a) using the simplest linear and multiple
Rodrı́guez O, Ramı́rez Rivera VM, Gil Antonio L,
Jacinto-Villegas JM (2024) A novel strategy for the regression models that can be constructed from the solar irradiance and temperature, and
MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes b) considering optimum operating parameters derived from the photovoltaic system’s char-
control. PLoS ONE 19(12): e0311831. https://doi. acteristics. The proposal is compared with the classical methods Perturbation and Observa-
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831
tion and Incremental Conductance, as well as with two recently reported hybrid algorithm
Editor: Chandan Kumar Shiva, SR University, based on Artificial Neural Networks: one uses the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm and the
INDIA
other applies Bayesian regularization to generate current and voltage references, respec-
Received: February 8, 2024 tively. Both use a Proportional-Integral-Derivative controller to solve the maximum power
Accepted: September 25, 2024 point tracking problem. Numerical simulations confirm the effectiveness of the method
Published: December 13, 2024 proposed in this work regarding convergence time, power efficiency, and amplitude of oscil-
lations. Furthermore, it has been shown that, although no significant differences in the sys-
Copyright: © 2024 Contreras Carmona et al. This is
an open access article distributed under the terms tem response are observed with respect to the Artificial Neural Networks-based methods,
of the Creative Commons Attribution License, the proposed algorithm with a reference generated through a linear regression constitutes a
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and low-complexity solution that does not require a temperature sensor to efficiently solve the
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
maximum power point tracking problem.
author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: The MATLAB files

required to reproduce the results presented in this
paper can be downloaded from: https://doi.org/10.
5281/zenodo.11372189. Introduction
Funding: The work of Itzel Contreras Carmona has There is an increasing demand for new supplies of clean, renewable energy that reduce the use
been supported by CONAHCYT Scholarship of resources harmful to the environment. Photovoltaic (PV) systems are a primary renewable
1078639. The work of Belem Saldivar has been
energy source [1]. The electricity production through PV energy and its efficient use contrib-
supported by CONAHCYT in 2023 under the grant
CF-2023-I-722. The funders had no role in study
ute to sustainable development.
design, data collection and analysis, decision to One of the main drawbacks of using PV systems is that the energy conversion efficiency
publish, or preparation of the manuscript. tends to be low; therefore, solar energy is not fully harnessed [2]. PV systems have variable

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 1 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Competing interests: The authors have declared operating points over time and depend on external factors such as irradiance and temperature.
that no competing interest exist. These factors decrease the PV system performance by affecting mainly the output power, the
fill factor, and the efficiency of the module [3].
In addition, PV systems installed in areas with obstacles that prevent proper reception of
solar irradiance tend to reduce electrical power generation. Therefore, it is necessary to use a
robust Maximum Power Point (MPP) tracker to obtain the maximum power of the photovol-
taic panels, considering variations in temperature and solar irradiance.
One of the classical methods to track the MPP is the Perturbation and Observation (P&O)
algorithm. Among its disadvantages we can mention that it provides an oscillatory response
around the MPP and does not work correctly in the event of sudden changes in irradiance or
temperature. Another classical method for the Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) is
the Incremental Conductance (INC) algorithm, which has the disadvantage of slow conver-
gence to the MPP when the increment size is small. Additionally, it can be unstable due to the
use of the derivative operation, and the results can be unsatisfactory at low levels of solar irra-
diance [4].
The different algorithms proposed in the literature to solve the MPPT problem can be clas-
sified as described below.
• Mathematical model-based algorithms: They use mathematical models to predict the duty
cycle (D) value at which a DC-DC converter extracts the maximum power from the PV as a
function of solar irradiance and temperature. Among them, we can mention the Fractional
Short Circuit Current (FSCC) [5], Fractional Open Circuit Voltage (FOCV) [6], and Extre-
mum Seeking Control (ESC)-based algorithms [7, 8].
• Sampled data-based algorithms: These algorithms do not use a PV model, they are easy
to implement in practice, and are, therefore, the most widely used. Their operation is
based on on the continuous measurement of the PV current, voltage, and power to predict
the D value at which a DC-DC converter extracts the maximum power. The most popular
methods based on sampled data are P&O [9, 10], INC [11], and Parasitic Capacitance
(PC) [12].
• Traditional regression algorithms: These algorithms use a regression model to approxi-
mate the relation between power output and solar panel input variables to predict the D
value at which a DC-DC converter will extract the maximum power. Regression techniques
include linear regression, polynomial regression, multiple regression, and non-parametric
regression [13, 14].
• Metaheuristic optimization algorithms: In these methods, the output power of a PV system
is represented as a cost function whose maximum value is defined by the MPP. Then, the
determination of the D value at which a DC-DC converter extracts the maximum power is
seen as an optimization problem. These algorithms seek to improve MPPT efficiency by
exploring different possibilities in the search space. Examples of this type of algorithms are
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [15–17], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [18], Firefly
Algorithm (FFA) [19], Simulated Annealing (SA) [20], Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm
[21], Golden Eagle Optimization (GEO) [22], Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm [23], and
Runge-Kutta Optimization [24], Marine Predator Algorithm [25].
• Intelligent Algorithms: These algorithms use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to determine the
MPP; among them, we can mention Artificial Neural Networks (ANN)-based methods
[26–31], Support Vector Machines (SVM) [32], Regression Trees (RT) [33], K-Nearest
Neighbor Regression (KNR) [34] and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) [35].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 2 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

• Hybrid algorithms: The hybrid approach combines the strengths of multiple MPPT algo-
rithms to mitigate the limitations of individual algorithms and provide a more robust and
adaptive solution for varying environmental conditions [36]. The hybrid algorithms setup
incorporates control strategies (Proportional-Integral (PI) controller [23, 32], Proportional-
Integral-Derivative (PID) controller [27, 28, 35], differential flatness-based controller [17],
nonlinear backstepping terminal sliding mode controller [31], nonlinear generalized global
sliding mode controller [30], and fuzzy logic-based controller [37, 38]), with intelligent and/
or metaheuristic optimization MPPT algorithms. The combined MPPT algorithms employ a
two-step tracking methodology. The first step entails estimating the MPP to define a set-
point, and the second step consists in determining the actual MPP using linear or nonlinear
controllers [36, 39–41].
This article proposes a new hybrid algorithm for solving the MPPT problem using a Super
Twisting Sliding Modes Controller (ST-SMC). The key idea is to solve the trajectory tracking
problem of a predefined reference that, in this case, corresponds to the voltage or current at
the MPP. This reference signal is generated through two different approaches:
1. By using multiple regressions with irradiance and temperature as inputs, and also consider-
ing a linear regression with irradiance as a single input.
2. By using a characterization of the PV system optimal operating parameters, considering the
relations given in [42, 43].
In order to assess the performance of the proposed hybrid algorithm in the presence of sud-
den variations of temperature and irradiance, comparisons are made with two classical meth-
ods (P&O [9] and INC [11]) and with two hybrid algorithms (ANN-PID). These hybrid
algorithms were recently reported in the literature, and both use an ANN to generate voltage
[27] or current [28] references, and both propose the use of a PID controller to solve the
MPPT problem.
The structure of the article is organized as follows. After the Introduction, the modeling of
the PV system is presented. Then, ST-SMC that solves the trajectory tracking problem is
described. Next, for the generation of reference signals to track the MPP, multiple and linear
regressions are derived. As explained in what follows, alternatively, the references can be char-
acterized in terms of the optimal operating parameters of the panel. Then, numerical simula-
tion results are presented to illustrate the performance of the proposed hybrid approach,
considering abrupt variations of temperature and irradiance. A comparative analysis with the
P&O and INC as well as with two ANN-PID algorithms is also presented. Finally, a discussion
and some concluding remarks are provided.

Modeling of the PV system

A PV cell generates electricity through the photoelectric effect. PV cells are connected in series
and parallel configurations to constitute a PV module and achieve efficient power output.
Depending on its complexity, a PV cell can be represented by several equivalent circuit models,
including the single-diode model, commonly used for its simplicity and reasonable accuracy.
The equivalent circuit of a PV cell is shown in Fig 1.
The circuit consists of a current source (Iph) which depends on the solar irradiance (Ir), a
diode with a reverse saturation current (Id), a parallel resistor (Rsh) expressing a leakage cur-
rent, and a series resistor (Rs) describing an internal resistance to current flow [44].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 3 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 1. Equivalent circuit of a PV cell.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g001

The PV module’s output current Ipv can be described by Eq (1), where it is assumed that
Rs < < Rsh [45],
2 0 �V RI
�1 3
q Npvs þ Ns ppv
Ipv ¼ Np Iph Np Io 4exp@ A 15 ð1Þ
KTc A

where:
Ipv is the output current of the module
Iph is the photo-generated current of each cell
Vpv is the output voltage of the module
Ns is the number of cells connected in series
Np is the number of cells connected in parallel
q is the electron charge (1.602 × 10−19C)
�
K is the Boltzmann’s constant 1:381 � 10 23 KJ
Tc is the temperature of the module in Celsius degrees
Io is the reverse saturation current of the diode
A is the diode ideality factor
Substituting in Eq (1) the parameters of a specific PV module, it is possible to generate its
Ipv-Vpv and Ppv-Vpv curves (for more details see [46]). From these curves, it is possible to deter-
mine the MPP, i.e., the values of Vpv or Ipv that must be present at the PV module terminals so
that maximum power is transferred to the load.
If the magnitude of Vpv is modulated, the magnitude of Ipv is adjusted according to Eq (1)
and vice versa, that is, if magnitude of Ipv is modulated, the magnitude of Vpv is automatically
adjusted. To modulate the signals Vpv or Ipv, a controllable and variable impedance between
the PV module and the load is needed. Buck and Boost DC-DC converters have been the most
widely used circuits for this purpose. The former reduces the voltage and increases the current
delivered to the load; the latter increases the voltage and reduces the current supplied to the
load. Both DC-DC converters have a high efficiency so that most of the power extracted from
the PV module can be delivered to the load [47]. The Boost converter has power efficiencies
ranging from 90% to 100% [48]. In PV systems, the Boost converter is used to increase the
voltage from the solar panel to a level suitable for charging batteries or powering electrical
devices, for example.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 4 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Table 1. Specifications of the Renesola JC2501 PV module.

Parameter Value
Ir 1000 W/m2
Io 1.9164 × 10−9 A
Rs 0.29838 O
Ns 60 cells
Im 8.21 A
Vm 30.1 V
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t001

In this paper, a Boost CD-CD converter is used to numerically determine the MPP of a
Renesola JC2501 PV module (its parameters are listed in Table 1). The Boost converter is con-
nected to a resistive load, as shown in Fig 2.
The topology of the circuit is shown in Fig 3, where Vpv is the input voltage and Vs is the
output voltage. The inductor current is assumed to be equal to the PV system current Ipv.
The components R, L, Ce, Cs, are the converter load, the inductance, the input capacitance,
and the output capacitance, respectively. The dynamics of the converter is described by a
model that combines the equations resulting from the activation and deactivation of the switch
u (control input). All components are assumed to be ideal (e.g., u has zero resistance when
closed and infinite resistance when open; therefore, it does not dissipate power).
The model is described by [49]:

dIpv Vpv ð1 uÞVs

¼ ð2Þ
dt L L

Fig 2. PV system under an MPPT controller.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g002

Fig 3. Boost converter topology.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g003

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 5 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

dVs ð1 uÞIpv Vs
¼ ð3Þ
dt Cs RCs

The model (2) and (3) can be represented as:

x_ ¼ f ðxÞ þ gðxÞu
y ¼ Cx

where
x = [x1x2]T = [IpvVs]T, u 2 [0, 1], and C = [01].

Super twisting sliding mode control

The ST algorithm is a second-order SMC applicable to systems with relative degree one,
derived from the variable structure theory. The advantage of this algorithm is that it does not
require the time-derivative of the sliding variables and significantly reduces the chattering phe-
nomena in the output signal [50].
Its ease of implementation, robustness, and good dynamic response are other significant
advantages of the ST-SMC. This technique has been successfully applied to DC-DC converters,
see for instance [51].
It is important to point out that there are no major assumptions to be taken into account in
applying this control strategy. Here, it is assumed here that the model accurately describes the
system and that the dynamics are known. However, the ST-SMC can operate satisfactorily
even in the presence of uncertainties and disturbances, if the controller gains are properly
tuned. In practice, it must be kept in mind that high frequency switching signals are involved
and a sufficiently fast sampling rate is required. Therefore, the selected hardware must be able
to operate considering these features.
Two steps are required for the development of the ST-SMC. The first step consists in
designing a sliding surface s such that when s = 0, the desired behavior of the DC-DC converter
is achieved. The second step is to design a control law that allows guaranteeing s = 0,
indefinitely.
The ST-SMC requires the formulation of a switching controller ust along with an equivalent
controller ueq, i.e.,
u ¼ ust þ ueq ð4Þ

The switching strategy is responsible for driving, through the available control action, the
state of the system towards the sliding surface. Once the state trajectory reaches the sliding sur-
face, the equivalent controller is responsible for keeping it evolving indefinitely on this surface.
In our case, the control objective is to steer Ipv to a current reference signal IMPP, corre-
sponding to the current at the MPP. A sliding surface can be defined as in [52] to deal with the
MPPT problem:
s1 ¼ Ipv IMPP ð5Þ

In an alternative scenario, the sliding surface can be designed to make the output voltage
Vpv reach a reference voltage VMPP, corresponding to the voltage at the MPP. In this case, the
sliding surface takes the form:
s2 ¼ Vpv VMPP ð6Þ

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 6 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

The equivalent control ueq is proposed as in [53] as:

Vpv
ueq ¼ 1 ð7Þ
Vs

where Vs is the system output voltage. The switching control ust is given by [54]:
Z t
1
ust ¼ ljsi j signðsi Þ Υ
2
signðsi ðdtÞÞdt ð8Þ
0

where si, i 2 {1, 2}, and λ, Υ are design parameters. This specific controller structure is known
as ST-SMC.
A stability analysis of the proposed ST-SMC that solves the trajectory tracking problem is
presented in the S1 Appendix.
In the following sections, two different approaches to generate the reference signals
required by the controller to achieve MPPT are presented.

Multiple and linear regressions

Linear and multiple regressions allow the identification of the relation between one or several
independent variables, respectively, to one dependent variable by fitting a linear model to the
available data. In our case, the independent variables correspond to the irradiance Ir and tem-
perature Tc while the dependent variables are IMPP and VMPP.
For the Renesola JC2501 PV module, the following regression models were fitted:
1. Two models (planes) to determine IMPP and VMPP from the panel’s irradiance and tempera-
ture using a multiple regression (MR),
2. A model (straight line) to determine IMPP from the panel’s irradiance using a linear regres-
sion (LR).
The characterization of the reference models to generate IMPP and VMPP is obtained from a
dataset of 63000 Ipv-Vpv and Ppv-Vpv curves. These curves were generated by considering varia-
tions of the irradiance Ir from 100 W/m2 to 1150 W/m2, with increments of 1 W/m2. For each
value of Ir, the temperature Tc was varied from 5˚C to 65˚C, with increments of 1˚C. For each
pair (Ir, Tc), Ipv values were determined through the variation of Vpv from 0 V to 38 V, with
increments of 0.1 V, by considering the relation (1).
In what follows, the subscripts LR and MR indicate that the references were obtained
through linear and multiple regressions, respectively.
The model for predicting VMPP from Ir and Tc is defined by Eq (9). In Fig 4, one can observe
that the data fits into a plane very well (R2 = 0.9912, RMSE = 0.3878); 1500 points with coordi-
nates (Ir, Tc, VMPPMR ) randomly sampled from the entire data set are shown.

VMPPMR ¼ a0 þ a1 Ir þ a2 Tc ð9Þ

the values for the coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds) are:
a0 = 33.9 (33.85, 33.96)
a1 = 0.002319 (0.002256, 0.002382)
a2 = −0.2195 (−0.2206, −0.2184)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 7 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 4. Regression model to predict VMPP from Ir and Tc using a MR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g004

The regression model that predicts IMPP from Ir and Tc is defined by Eq (9). As shown in
Fig 5, the data fits into a plane almost perfectly (R2 = 1.0, RMSE = 0.0116); 1500 points with
coordinates (Ir, Tc, IMPPMR ) randomly sampled from the entire data set are illustrated.

IMPPMR ¼ a0 þ a1 Ir þ a2 Tc ð10Þ

the following values of the coefficients (95% confidence bounds) were obtained:
a0 = 0.0332(0.03142, 0.03498)
a1 = 0.008241(0.008239, 0.008243
a2 = −0.001048(−0.001081, −0.001014)

Once the multiple regression models were exploited to characterize VMPP and IMPP, we
wanted to explore if a prediction of IMPP can be generated from a linear regression (straight
line), that is, if it is possible to characterize IMPP in terms of a single variable (Tc or Ir).
Analyzing the dataset, we found no correlation between IMPP and Tc (Pearson’s correlation
coefficient ρ = −0.0074). However, there is a perfect correlation between IMPP and Ir (ρ = 1.0),
i.e., IMPP can be characterized in terms of Ir through the model described by Eq (11). Fig 6
shows how data fits into a straight line (R2 = 0.9999, RMSE = 0.0218); 1500 points with coordi-
nates (Ir, IMPPLR ) randomly sampled from the entire data set are shown.

IMPPLR ¼ a0 þ a1 Ir ð11Þ

the following values for the coefficients (95% confidence bounds) were obtained:
a0 = −0.002116(−0.004697, −0.0004656)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 8 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 5. Regression model to predict IMPP from Ir and Tc using a MR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g005

Fig 6. Regression line to predict IMPP from Ir using a LR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g006

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 9 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

a1 = 0.008239(0.0082395, 0.0082420)

For the case of the VMPP reference, we found a weak correlation between VMPP and Ir (ρ =
0.1875), and a strong negative correlation between VMPP and Tc (ρ = −0.9787). A regression
was performed to determine VMPP as a function of Tc, the resulting model performed very
poorly (R = 0.9579, RMSE = 0.8133), so a linear model will not be used to generate the VMPP
reference.
Note that the RMSE of VMPPMR model (0.3878) is higher than the RMSE of IMPPMR (0.0116)
and IMPPLR (0.0218) models. Therefore, IMPPMR and IMPPLR models are expected to generate better
references to track the MPPT than the VMPPMR model. Because of its simplicity and similar
RMSE value, IMPPLR model was chosen over IMPPMR .
The reference signals VMPP and IMPP that will be considered for the numerical simulations
are the ones derived from the relation (9) for the reference voltage, and from (11) for the refer-
ence current.
The following section presents an alternative approach to generate the reference signals to
track the MPP.

Panel’s optimum operating parameters

This section explains how the reference signals IMPP and VMPP can be characterized in terms of
four optimum operating parameters of the panel:
• panel’s short-circuit current Isc,
• panel’s open circuit voltage Voc,
• panel’s output current Im,
• panel’s output voltage Vm.
The values of these parameters are determined under optimum or standard conditions, i.e.,
with an irradiance of 1000 W/m2 and a temperature of 25˚C [42, 43].
First, as explained below, the reference current IMPP is characterized.
The relation between Ipv and Vpv can be characterized by Eq (1).
By considering Np = 1 and Rs = 0 [55], Eq (1) simplifies to:
Ipv ¼ Iph Io ½expðBVpv Þ 1� ð12Þ

Ipv ffi Iph Io expðBVpv Þ ð13Þ

where:
q
B¼ ð14Þ
Ns KTc A

If the output terminals of the panel are short-circuited, i.e., Vpv = 0, then Ipv = Isc. Substituting
this condition in Eq (12), we obtain:
Isc ¼ Iph ð15Þ

Now, if the output terminals of the panel are in open circuit condition, i.e., Vpv = Voc, then Ipv
= 0. Substituting this condition and Eq (15) in Eq (13), we obtain:
Io ¼ Isc expð BVoc Þ ð16Þ

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 10 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

The optimal operating current and voltage parameters, denoted by Im and Vm, respectively,
which generate the maximum power at the panel’s standard conditions, are related to Isc and
Voc through Eq (17), which is derived from Eqs (12)–(16) [55].
Im ¼ Isc ½1 expðBðVm Voc ÞÞ� ð17Þ

Since the values of the parameters Isc, Voc, Im, and Vm can be found in the data-sheet provided
by the manufacturer, from Eq (17), the value of B can be determined as:
� �
1 Im
B¼ ln 1 ð18Þ
Vm Voc Isc

To properly characterize the MPP at the panel’s nonstandard conditions, additional param-
eters (Isc0 , Voc0 , Im0 , Vm0 , B0 ) must be considered. According to [56], these parameters are related
with Ir and Tc, as shown in the following equations:
Ir
Isc0 ¼ Isc þ ð1 þ aDTc Þ ð19Þ
Irref

Voc0 ¼ Voc ð1 cDTc Þlnðe þ bDIr ÞÞ ð20Þ

Ir
Im0 ¼ Im ð1 þ aDTc Þ ð21Þ
Irref

Vm0 ¼ Vm ð1 cDTc Þlnðe þ bDIr Þ ð22Þ

� �
Voc0 Im0
B0 ¼ ln 1 ð23Þ
Vm0 Voc0 Isc0

where Irref and Tcref are solar irradiance and temperature under the standard conditions, and
DTc ¼ Tc Tcref , DIr ¼ IrIr 1.
ref

The typical values of a, b, c are [42]:

a = 0.0025/˚C
b = 0.5 m2/W
c = 0.00288/˚C
As explained in [42], using the LambertW-function, it is possible to define the panel’s cur-
rent at the MPP based on its optimum operating parameters as:
� �
0
1
IMPPOC ¼ Isc 1 ð24Þ
LambertWðexpðB0 þ1Þ Þ

Similarly, the panel’s voltage at the MPP can be characterized through Eq (25) [43]:
1� 0 0 � �
VMPPOC ¼ LambertW eB Voc þ1 þ e 1 ð25Þ
B0

The subscript OC in (24) and (25) indicates that the reference signal (current or voltage)
was derived by using the panel’s operating parameters at optimum conditions. These reference
signals are considered for the ST-SMC to track the MPP, as will be explained in the next
section.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 11 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Numerical simulations results

This section presents numerical simulations results obtained by considering the PV system in
closed loop with the ST-SMC algorithm.
For the case of the sliding surface s1 defined in (5) (in terms of current), the reference sig-
nals that will be considered are:
1. Reference current derived through the linear regression technique IMPPLR defined in (11),

2. Reference current derived through the panel’s optimal operating parameters IMPPOC defined
in (24).
For the sliding surface s2 stated in (6) (in terms of voltage) the reference signals are:
1. Reference voltage derived through the multiple regression technique VMPPMR defined in (9),

2. Reference voltage derived through the panel’s optimal operating parameters VMPPOC defined
in (25).
Table 2 shows the numerical values of the Boost converter parameters. These values were
calculated based on the voltage and current delivered by the PV module and the load applied
to the system; in this case, a resistive load is taken.
The gains λ, Υ of the switching control ust defined in Eq (8) are chosen as in [57]: λ = 0.1,
Y = 0.01.
To challenge the performance of the ST-SMC strategy, abrupt variations of external condi-
tions (temperature and irradiance) are considered. The three different scenarios described
below were considered.
Case 1 (Temperature variations). From 0 to 1 s, the temperature is 25˚C; from 1 to 2 s, it
increases from 25˚C to 40˚C; and from 2 to 3 s, an increment from 40˚C to 60˚C is considered.
Solar irradiance remains constant at 1000 mW2 . This scenario is shown in Fig 7.
Case 2 (Irradiance variations). An initial solar irradiance of 1000 mW2 is considered, this
value is maintained from 0 to 1 s; from 1 to 2 s, the irradiance decreases from 1000 mW2 to 900 mW2 ;
in the interval from 2 to 3 s, the irradiance decreases from 900 mW2 to 800 mW2 . A constant temper-
ature of 25˚C is considered. This scenario is shown in Fig 8.
Case 3 (Temperature and irradiance variations). From 0 to 1 s, a temperature of 25˚C
and a solar irradiance of 1000 mW2 are considered; from 1 to 2 s, an increase of temperature from
25˚C to 40˚C is considered while the solar irradiance decreases from 1000 mW2 to 900 mW2 ; from 2
to 3 s, the temperature increases from 40˚C to 60˚C while the solar irradiance decreases from
900 mW2 to 800mW2 . This scenario is illustrated in Fig 9.
The three considered scenarios are not realistic. In practice, such abrupt variations will
never be seen. However, considering the above-mentioned cases allows us to challenge the
controller, that is, if the controller is capable of operating satisfactorily in these situations, it

Table 2. Boost converter parameters.

Parameter Value
Load resistance 12 O
Output capacitance 470 μf
Operation frequency PWM 45 Khz
Inductance 10 mH
Input capacitance 330 μf
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 12 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 7. Case 1. Temperature variations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g007

will be effective when dealing with normal operating conditions (smooth variations of irradi-
ance and temperature).
Figs 10–12 show the power response of the system considering Cases 1, 2, and 3, respec-
tively. In the figures, notation PPV indicates the maximum power that the panel is capable of
generating, while VMPPOC , IMPPOC , VMPPMR and IMPPLR denote the output power of the PV
ST ST ST ST

system using the ST-SMC considering the reference signals of voltage or current generated
through the use of optimal operating parameters (OC), multiple regression (MR) or linear
regression (LR).
To quantitatively assess the accuracy of the different reference signals and the performance
of the ST-SMC strategy, we use the following error metrics:
Rt 2
• Integral of the Squared Error (ISE) tiniend ðeðtÞÞ dt,
R tend 2
• Integral of Time multiplied by the Squared Error (ITSE) tini
tðeðtÞÞ dt,
R tend 2
• Integral of Absolute magnitude of the Error (IAE) tini
jeðtÞj dt,
R tend 2
• Integral of Time multiplied by Absolute Error (ITAE) tini
tjeðtÞj dt.

For these metrics, the error e(t) is calculated as the difference between the MPP value and
the delivered power; τini and τend, refer to the times at which the conditions of each case start
and end.
The obtained results are described below.
Case 1 (Temperature variations). The response of the system under the ST-SMC for dif-
ferent reference signals under changing temperature conditions is shown in Fig 10. Note that

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 13 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 8. Case 2. Irradiance variations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g008

the maximum power generated by the PV module in the interval from 0 to 1 s is 250.057 W.
Note that, although the difference in response time for the different references is not signifi-
cant, the system responds faster when considering the reference signal IMPPLR (at 0.016 s
approximately). Besides, the highest power was obtained also with this reference (250 W),
while the lowest power was generated with the references VMPPOC (237.8 W). With the tempera-
ture increase in the interval from 1 to 2 s, the maximum power generated by the PV system is
231.983 W. In this interval, the lowest power is generated with the reference VMPPOC (178.71
W) while with the references VMPPMR and IMPPLR , the generated power is very close to the maxi-
mum. Finally, when the temperature increases in the range of 2 to 3 s, the maximum power
the photovoltaic system can generate is reduced to 207.928 W. In this scenario, oscillations can
be observed in the signal generated with the reference IMPPOC , note also that with this reference
the lowest power is generated. In this last interval, the highest power is generated when consid-
ering the reference IMPPLR (207.067 W).
Table 3 shows the characteristics of the system response considering the operating condi-
tions described in Case 1. Table 4 shows the numerical values of the error-based performance

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 14 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 9. Case 3. Temperature and irradiance variations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g009

Fig 10. Case 1. Power generated considering a constant irradiance (1000W/m2) and a variable temperature using the reference signals IMPPOC , VMPPOC , IMPPLR , and
VMPPMR .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g010

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 15 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 11. Case 2. Power generated considering a constant temperature (25˚C) and a variable irradiance using the reference signals IMPPOC , VMPPOC , IMPPLR , and VMPPMR .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g011

Fig 12. Case 3. Power generated considering variable irradiance and temperature using the reference signals IMPPOC , VMPPOC , IMPPLR , and VMPPMR .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g012

metrics corresponding to Case 1. Note that the best performance was obtained when consider-
ing the reference IMPPLR .
Case 2 (Irradiance variations). The response of the system under the ST-SMC for different
reference signals under changing irradiance conditions is shown in Fig 11. As in the previous
case, the maximum initial power that the system can generate is 250.057 W (in the interval
from 0 to 1 s). The difference between the response times for the different reference signals is

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 16 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Table 3. Case 1. Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s.

Reference Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 237.865 178.71 160.87 94.01 96.34 96.55
IMPPOC 0.083 0.04 0.06 0.001 6.7 6.2 249.31 226.725 188.73 99.7 97.9 91.7
VMPPMR 0.015 0.012 0.026 0.092 0.017 3.2 247.91 231.227 202.532 99.3 99.90 97.72
IMPPLR 0.016 0.019 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.019 250.05 231.82 207.3 99.88 99.94 99.98

The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 231.983 W, c) 207.928 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t003

Table 4. Case 1. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Reference ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 838.3 390.177 825.078 78.734 195.653 409.9 14.9607 19.677 28.614 6.136 9.89 14.223
IMPPOC 946.203 33.8696 428.44 13.3367 15.5826 209.903 5.2328 5.68 19.1838 0.3605 2.79 9.5448
VMPPMR 37.691 0.2545 22.539 1.126 0.022 11.0686 1.781 0.225 4.729 0.742 0.105 2.3515
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.067 0.07 0.0346 0.0082 0.0004 0.319 0.1446 0.033 0.0035 0.0636 0.0139

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t004

not significant. In all cases the system responds in less than 0.1 s. An important aspect to high-
light is the fact that the power generated when considering the reference IMPPLR is the closest to
the maximum power in the range from 0 to 1 s (250 W), followed by IMPPOC with 249.31 W,
however, when the irradiance decreases to 800 W/m2 (interval from 2 to 3 s), the power gener-
ated with this reference not only decreases drastically, but also high frequency and magnitude
oscillations can be observed. Note that, in this last interval, the difference between the power
generated with the three remaining references is not significant. Table 5 shows the characteris-
tics of the system response considering the operating conditions described in Case 2.
Table 6 shows the numerical values of the error-based performance metrics corresponding
to Case 2. Note that, in general, the best performance was obtained when the references VMPPMR
and IMPPLR are considered.
Case 3 (Temperature and irradiance variations). The system response under the ST-SMC
for different reference signals under variations of irradiance and temperature is shown in
Fig 12. Note that a poor performance in terms of the generated power is obtained when the
reference VMPPOC is considered. Also, as in the previous cases, in the interval from 2 to 3s, an

Table 5. Case 2. Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s.

Reference Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.001 0.93 237.865 223.48 200.8 94.01 99.04 99.75
IMPPOC 0.083 0.05 0.04 0.001 0.01 3.625 249.31 222.96 188.787 99.7 98.8 93.9
VMPPMR 0.04 0.02 0.012 0.092 0.050 0.015 248.596 224.99 200.89 99.29 99.73 99.96
IMPPLR 0.016 0.02 0.024 0.001 0.005 0.001 250.05 225.6 200.8 99.88 99.99 99.91

The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 225.608 W, c) 200.977 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t005

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 17 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Table 6. Case 2. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Reference ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 838.3 4.663 0.35 81.40 2.27 0.171 14.9607 2.147 0.5 6.136 1.066 0.248
IMPPOC 946.203 5.39093 502.963 13.3367 2.71531 260.45 5.2328 2.3151 16.3399 0.3605 1.1651 8.3174
VMPPMR 37.691 0.384 0.012 1.126 0.192 0.002 1.781 0.619 0.072 0.742 0.31 0.034
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.165 0.5 0.0346 0.0005 0.009 0.319 0.04 0.18 0.0035 0.0005 0.061

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t006

Table 7. Case 3. Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s.

Reference Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.001 0.05 237.865 201.71 160.87 94.01 96.34 96.55
IMPPOC 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.001 0.001 0.81 249.31 209.2 164.599 99.7 99.3 98.5
VMPPMR 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.034 0.082 0.015 248.596 208.797 159.977 99.29 99.75 96.01
IMPPLR 0.014 0.014 0.012 0.006 0.014 0.018 249.86 209.109 166.28 99.81 99.96 99.91

The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 209.296 W, c) 166.541 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t007

Table 8. Case 3. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Reference ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
VMPPOC 838.3 59.567 34.162 78.34 29.023 16.089 14.7648 7.663 5.739 6.0103 3.81 2.837
IMPPOC 946.203 1.307 4.9528 13.3367 0.0071 1.4486 5.2328 0.1189 1.4747 0.3605 0.01259 0.6858
VMPPMR 37.691 0.472 45.387 1.126 0.123 21.57 1.781 0.519 6.632 0.742 0.248 3.2839
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.448 0.315 0.0346 0.0019 0.0079 0.319 0.079 0.153 0.0035 0.017 0.06

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t008

oscillatory response can be observed when the reference IMPPOC is considered. Table 7 shows
the characteristics of the system response considering the operating conditions of Case 3.
Table 8 shows the numerical values of the error-based performance metrics corresponding
to Case 3. Note that, in general, the reference that allows obtaining the best performance is
IMPPLR .
As we have observed, the ST-SMC considering the four reference signals allows solving the
MPPT problem, being the reference IMPPLR with which, in general, the best performance is
achieved.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposal with respect to other MPPT strategies, the
next section presents a comparative study considering the classical methods P&O and INC as
well as two recently introduced ANN-PID algorithms. The comparison will be developed con-
sidering the ST-SMC with the references that allowed better performance: IMPPLR and VMPPMR .

Comparison with P&O, INC and ANN-PID algorithms

This section presents a comparative analysis of the performance of the ST-SMC considering
the reference signals IMPPLR and VMPPMR obtained from the regression models with respect to the

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 18 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

classical P&O and INC methods. In addition, to evaluate the performance of the proposed
control strategy with respect to relevant and recent state-of-the-art solutions, a comparative
analysis considering the hybrid techniques studied in [27, 28] is presented.
In [27], Levenberg-Marquardt (LM), Bayesian Regularization (BR), and Scaled Conjugate
Gradient (SCG) training algorithms for ANNs are used to estimate a voltage reference to solve
the problem of MPPT of a PV system; a comparative analysis of the performance of the three
algorithms is presented. The paper concludes that the ANN training with the LM algorithm
performs better than the BR and SCG training algorithms in overall data processing. In [28],
an MPPT method based on ANN using BR training to generate the PV current reference for
the MPPT problem is proposed. In broad outline, both ANNs described in [27, 28] are used to
generate a dataset from a Simulink MATLAB diagram of the PV system, and by analyzing the
output characteristics of a solar cell, a neural network-based algorithm allows the tracking of
the MPP.
The hybrid ANN-based algorithms described above are considered to develop the compari-
son. Both hybrid algorithms are constituted of an ANN that generates references either of volt-
age (using 10 neurons in its hidden layer) [27] or current (using 15 neurons in its hidden
layer) [28]. Based on the generated references, a PID controller is used to solve the MPPT
problem. Both ANNs use the PV irradiance and temperature as independent variables to esti-
mate their output variable.
It is important to point out that the considered hybrid methods were chosen to develop the
comparative analysis since they constitute novel methods that use intelligent MPPT algorithms
and are based on the well studied ANN, see for instance [27–31].
The three cases described in the previous section are considered for the development of the
comparative analysis. Figs 13–15 show the simulation outcomes corresponding to Case 1, Case
2, and Case 3, respectively. In these figures, notation VMPPANN refers to the system response
PID

generated through the LM algorithm proposed in [27] which generates a voltage reference sig-
nal, and IMPPANN stands for the system response under the algorithm proposed in [28] which
PID

generates a current reference signal.

Case 1 (Temperature variations). The system response considering the algorithms P&O,
INC, ST-SMC and ANN-PID under changing temperature conditions is shown in Fig 13.
Table 9 shows the numerical values of the response characteristics. Note that a power close to
the desired one is generated when the algorithms ST-SMC (with reference IMPPLR ) and
ANN-PID are used, the former being the one that responds faster in the first interval. In 2 of
the 3 intervals, the poorest performance in terms of generated power is obtained with the P&O
algorithm. Although INC algorithm generates higher power compared to the P&O method, it
generates an undesirable oscillatory transient response in each interval.
Table 10 shows the error-based performance metrics corresponding to Case 1. As we have
seen, the worst-performing algorithms are P&O, INC, and VMPPMR while no significant differ-
ences can be observed among the remaining ones.
Case 2 (Irradiance variations). The system response under the algorithms P&O, INC,
ST-SMC and ANN-PID under changing irradiance conditions is shown in Fig 14. Table 11
shows the numerical values of the response characteristics. Note that the characteristics of the
generated power signal are similar to those of the previous case, that is, a transient oscillatory
response with large magnitude overshoots is observed when considering the INC method. In 2
of the 3 intervals, the worst performance in terms of generated power is obtained when consid-
ering the P&O algorithm. As in the previous case, a satisfactory performance is achieved when
the algorithms ST-SMC (with reference IMPPLR ) and ANN-PID (for both current and voltage
references) are considered. Note also that with the ST-SMC, considering the voltage reference

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 19 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 13. Case 1. Power generated considering a constant irradiance (1000 W/m2) and a variable temperature through the MPPT algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC and
ANN-PID.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g013

VMPPLR , although a slightly lower power is generated, good performance is observed in general.
Table 12 shows the error-based performance metrics corresponding to Case 2.
Case 3 (Temperature and irradiance variations). The system response under the algo-
rithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC and ANN-PID under changing temperature and irradiance

Fig 14. Case 2. Power generated considering a constant temperature (25˚C) and a variable irradiance through the MPPT algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC and
ANN-PID.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g014

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 20 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Fig 15. Case 3. Power generated considering variable conditions of irradiance and temperature through the MPPT algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC and ANN-PID.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.g015

Table 9. Case 1. Comparison of the algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC, and ANN-PID.
Algorithm Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 0.07 0.06 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 249.28 226.4 204.6 99.2 97.58 97.55
INC 0.12 0.05 0.1 124.05 31.978 35.5 250.05 230.92 205.57 96.54 99.45 99.01
VMPPMR 0.015 0.012 0.026 0.092 0.017 3.2 247.91 231.227 202.532 99.3 99.90 97.72
IMPPLR 0.016 0.019 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.019 250.05 231.82 207.3 99.88 99.94 99.98
VMPPANN 0.13 0.1 0.08 0.015 0.041 0.077 249.86 230.86 202.58 99.65 99.51 97.7
PID

IMPPANN 0.11 0.005 0.014 0.003 0.003 0.004 249.84 231.35 206.043 99.95 99.9 99.09
PID

Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s. The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 231.983
W, c) 207.928 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t009

Table 10. Case 1. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Algorithm ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 163 31.4 48.109 1.36 15.57 7.65 1.975 5.58 5.07 0.395 2.77 1.59
INC 1648 5.85 9.35 45.413 0.61 0.97 8.68 1.267 1.62 0.317 0.54 0.523
VMPPMR 37.691 0.2545 22.539 1.126 0.022 11.0686 1.781 0.225 4.729 0.742 0.105 2.3515
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.067 0.07 0.0346 0.0082 0.0004 0.319 0.1446 0.033 0.0035 0.0636 0.0139
VMPPANN 41.6065 1.394 22.95 0.1372 0.6433 11.352 0.8644 1.138 4.764 0.1 0.5671 2.382
PID

IMPPANN 63.099 0.09127 0.7176 0.1417 0.0359 0.3463 0.8362 0.2692 0.8148 0.03329 0.134 0.4160
PID

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t010

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 21 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Table 11. Case 2. Comparison of the algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC, and ANN-PID.
Algorithm Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.02 249.28 223.25 185.06 99.2 98.95 92.11
INC 0.12 0.1 0.08 124.05 321.32 80.28 250.05 225.46 200.5 96.54 97.29 98.5
VMPPMR 0.04 0.02 0.012 0.092 0.050 0.015 248.596 224.99 200.89 99.29 99.73 99.96
IMPPLR 0.016 0.02 0.024 0.001 0.005 0.001 250.05 225.6 200.8 99.88 99.99 99.91
VMPPANN 0.1 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 249.82 225.647 200.938 99.65 99.65 99.65
PID

IMPPANN 0.11 0.02 0.014 0.003 0.002 0.0001 249.84 225.62 200.778 99.95 99.98 99.99
PID

Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s. The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 225.608
W, c) 200.977 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t011

Table 12. Case 2. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Algorithm ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 163 5.57 252.48 1.36 2.785 126.34 1.975 2.35 15.85 0.395 1.18 7.95
INC 1648 1126.21 9.35 45.413 24.16 3.178 8.68 6.13 2.99 0.317 0.228 0.268
VMPPMR 37.691 0.384 0.012 1.126 0.192 0.002 1.781 0.619 0.072 0.742 0.31 0.034
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.165 0.5 0.0346 0.0005 0.009 0.319 0.04 0.18 0.0035 0.0005 0.061
VMPPANN 62.7832 0.00699 0.1192 0.1291 0.00023 0.0559 0.8392 0.02522 0.3360 0.0845 0.0106 0.1672
PID

IMPPANN 63.099 0.0887 0.1618 0.1417 0.00018 0.03125 0.8362 0.02764 0.2627 0.03329 0.00697 0.1248
PID

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t012

conditions is shown in Fig 15. Table 13 shows the numerical values of the response characteris-
tics. This case represents the most challenging of the considered scenarios, especially in the
range of 2 to 3 s, where the highest temperature (60˚C) and the lowest irradiance (800 mW2 ) are
considered. In the intervals from 0 to 1 s and from 1 to 2 s, there is no significant difference
between the values of generated power with the considered methods. However, in the 2 to 3 s
interval, the lowest power values are generated when considering voltage references(VMPPMR ,
ST

VMPPANN ) while current references (IMPPLR , IMPPANN ) reach the MPTT without significant
PID ST PID

Table 13. Case 3. Comparison of the algorithms P&O, INC, ST-SMC, and ANN-PID.
Algorithm Response time (s) Oscillation amplitude (W) Maximum power (W) Efficiency (%)
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.81 249.28 209.2 166.25 99.2 99.94 99.73
INC 0.12 0.12 0.08 124.05 167.716 51.71 250.05 208.82 166.5 96.54 97.76 99.75
VMPPMR 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.034 0.082 0.015 248.596 208.797 159.977 99.29 99.75 96.01
IMPPLR 0.014 0.014 0.012 0.006 0.014 0.018 249.86 209.109 166.28 99.81 99.96 99.91
VMPPANN 0.1 0.007 0.018 0.003 0.031 0.013 249.82 207.934 161.94 99.65 99.36 97.12
PID

IMPPANN 0.11 0.018 0.012 0.003 0.002 0.014 249.84 209.208 166.238 99.65 99.89 99.66
PID

Characteristics of the system response in the intervals a) 0 to 1 s, b) 1 to 2 s, c) 2 to 3 s. The theoretical maximum powers in each interval are: a) 250.057 W, b) 209.296
W, c) 166.541 W.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t013

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 22 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Table 14. Case 3. Error-based performance metrics for each algorithm.

Algorithm ISE ITSE IAE ITAE
a b c a b c a b c a b c
P&O 163 0.104 0.58 1.36 0.004 0.272 1.975 0.107 0.444 0.395 0.044 0.243
INC 1648 602.58 13.388 45.413 26.45 0.088 8.68 4.69 0.41 0.317 0.392 0.0057
VMPPMR 37.691 0.472 45.387 1.126 0.123 21.57 1.781 0.519 6.632 0.742 0.248 3.2839
IMPPLR 35.5167 0.448 0.315 0.0346 0.0019 0.0079 0.319 0.079 0.153 0.0035 0.017 0.06
VMPPANN 62.7832 1.677 11.20 0.1291 0.8007 5.561 0.8392 1.2627 3.3292 0.0845 0.0106 1.6682
PID

IMPPANN 63.099 0.067 0.8596 0.1417 0.0171 0.4099 0.8362 0.1769 0.9113 0.03329 0.00697 0.4527
PID

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831.t014

differences with the classical algorithms. Table 14 shows the error-based performance metrics
corresponding to Case 3. Note that the highest error values are obtained for the INC
algorithm.

Discussion
In the comparative analysis, different methods to solve the MPPT problem were evaluated.
Two classical algorithms: P&O and INC, and two hybrid methods: ST-SMC with references
generated through linear and multiple regressions, and PID with references generated through
ANN. The algorithms were challenged to operate under abrupt variations of irradiance and
temperature. As a result, the classical methods were outperformed by the hybrid approaches.
Oscillatory responses with large overshoots were obtained with the INC algorithm, resulting in
longer settling times, while the lowest values of generated power were obtained with the P&O
method.
Both classical algorithms work by dynamically adjusting the PV system operation to reach
the MPP under changing conditions. The P&O algorithm is a simpler and more widely imple-
mented approach that relies on disturbance and power observations to adjust its operation,
while the INC algorithm uses more detailed information to calculate the slope of the power-
voltage (Ppv-Vpv) curve with the objective of finding a maximum point, which makes its opera-
tion more complex compared to the P&O method.
The analyzed hybrid MPPT methods were shown to be more efficient in terms of generated
power and response time. An important aspect of their operation is determining the reference
signals that a controller must allow to track. For the ST-SMC proposed in this work, it was
shown that linear and multiple regressions are efficient in determining them.
The computational cost of an algorithm can be determined by the required number of
mathematical operations between scalars [58]. The multiple regression to determine the volt-
age reference VMPPMR in terms of irradiance and temperature involves two multiplications and
two additions. The linear regression to determine the current reference IMPPLR in terms of irra-
diance involves only one multiplication and one addition.
On the other side, for the hybrid method that uses an ANN to generate a voltage reference,
the following operations are required:
1. Normalization of two input variables in the interval [-1,1], which requires six subtractions,
two multiplications, two divisions, and one addition.
2. Computation of the ANN output from two input neurons, ten hidden layer neurons, and
one output neuron; this involves 20 multiplications and 11 additions. The resulting scalar is

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 23 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

the argument of the hyperbolic tangent activation nonlinear function, which is the ANN
output.
3. Calculation of the denormalizing process for the output variable (mapping from the interval
[-1,1] to the original one), which involves 3 subtractions, one multiplication, one division,
and one addition.
The whole process involves then 9 subtractions, 23 multiplications, three divisions, 13 addi-
tions, and one nonlinear operation. In addition, 30 parameters of the ANN and 12 parameters
for normalizing the input data and denormalizing the output data need to be stored in
memory.
Similarly, to generate the current reference for the ANN-PID method, 9 subtractions, 33
multiplications, two divisions, 18 additions, and one nonlinear operation are required. In this
case, 45 parameters of the ANN and 12 parameters for normalizing the input data and denor-
malizing the output data need to be stored in memory.
It is obvious that the proposed approach to generate the reference signals through multiple
and linear regression is much simpler in computational terms than the method that uses
ANN. However, some comments regarding the control approaches used to track these refer-
ence signals are in order.
An important aspect that must be considered when choosing a control strategy is the trade-
off between computational cost and performance. On one hand, it is well known that the
ST-SMC proposed in this work to solve the MPPT problem offers robustness and disturbance
rejection, however, its higher computational demand may limit its applicability in resource-
constrained embedded systems [59]. On the other hand, a PID controller provides a balance
between performance and computational complexity, making it more suitable for some real-
time embedded applications [60]. However, among its drawbacks we can mention the tuning
complexity and limited robustness against disturbances and external noise.
The proposal of combing the low-complexity regression method with the powerful
ST-SMC constitutes a resourceful approach to solve the MPPT problem that can be imple-
mented in resource-constrained embedded systems.
From Tables 9, 11 and 13, we can observe that the algorithms that are least efficient in
extracting the MPP are INC and P&O, followed by the hybrid algorithms based on voltage ref-
erences (VMPPANN and VMPPLR ). The most efficient algorithms are those hybrid based on cur-
PID ST

rent references; in most of the intervals, the efficiency obtained by IMPPLR is better than
ST

IMPPANN , which suggests that the current reference IMPPLR determined by linear regression,
PID

although not better (RMSE = 0.0218) than that obtained by the ANN (RMSE = 0.0061), is
counterbalanced by a better controller to reach the MPP.
In general, the ST-SMC algorithm with the current reference IMPPLR has shown to have sat-
isfactory performance, surpassing the other analyzed MPPT techniques in most cases. It
should be mentioned that the superiority of the proposed method (in terms of efficiency,
oscillations and response time) with respect to the ANN-based methods is not substantial.
However, the complexity involved in the generation of the reference signal is lower com-
pared to the one of the ANN-based methods. Besides, the ST-SMC algorithm with the cur-
rent reference IMPPLR does not require the implementation of a temperature sensor, which
reduces operating costs.
To implement the proposed ST-SMC algorithm in a real PV system, an irradiance sensor, a
Boost converter circuit and measurements of Ipv and Vpv are required. The control signal can
be generated using a PC equipped with a data acquisition card (see for instance [52, 54, 61]),
or alternatively, using an embedded system with microcontrollers (see for example [14, 15]).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 24 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

Conclusions
A novel strategy for solving the MPPT problem via the ST-SMC is presented. The novelty of
the method relies on the proposed approaches to define the reference signals that the ST-SMC
requires for proper tracking of the MPP in a PV system under abrupt variations of irradiance
and temperature. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is verified through numerical
simulations carried out in MATLAB. For the sake of completeness, a comparative analysis
with the methods P&O, INC and ANN-PID is presented. From the simulations, it has been
observed that, in general, the best approach to track the MPP, in view of the response time and
efficiency, is the ST-SMC with the current reference generated through a linear regression
model. In fact, with this proposal, no overshoots nor oscillations of important magnitude are
observed in the system response.
A major challenge of hybrid algorithms such as the one proposed in this work that uses irra-
diance measurements is the difficulty of solving the MPPT problem under partial shading con-
ditions. The difficulty lies in the impossibility of knowing exactly the shaded areas within the
panel and their corresponding irradiance values. To solve this problem, the implementation of
hybrid methods based on metaheuristics is proposed as a future work.

Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Stability analysis [62–65].
(ZIP)
S1 File. MATLAB files.
(ZIP)

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Belem Saldivar, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez, Vı́ctor Manuel Ramı́rez Rivera,
Leopoldo Gil Antonio, Juan Manuel Jacinto-Villegas.
Investigation: Itzel Contreras Carmona, Belem Saldivar, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez, Vı́ctor
Manuel Ramı́rez Rivera, Leopoldo Gil Antonio, Juan Manuel Jacinto-Villegas.
Methodology: Itzel Contreras Carmona, Belem Saldivar.
Supervision: Belem Saldivar, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez.
Validation: Itzel Contreras Carmona, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez.
Writing – original draft: Itzel Contreras Carmona.
Writing – review & editing: Belem Saldivar, Otniel Portillo-Rodrı́guez.

References
1. Silva, M. Modelado y estudio del impacto de sombras sobre paneles solares fotovoltaicos. (Universidad
Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ingenierı́a; Argentina, 2020)
2. Sampaio P. & González M. Photovoltaic solar energy: Conceptual framework. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews. 74 pp. 590–601 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.081
3. Garcıı́a Barrios, F. Efecto de los factores ambientales en la eficiencia de arreglos de paneles solares
fotovoltaicos. (Universidad Autónoma del Caribe, 2018)
4. Jately V., Azzopardi B., Joshi J., Sharma A., Arora S. & Others Experimental Analysis of hill-climbing
MPPT algorithms under low irradiance levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 150 pp.
111467 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111467

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 25 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

5. Fapi C., Wira P. & Kamta M. Real-time experimental assessment of a new MPPT algorithm based on
the direct detection of the short-circuit current for a PV system. Parameters. 145 pp. 24 (2021)
6. Baimel D., Shkoury R., Elbaz L., Tapuchi S. & Baimel N. Novel optimized method for maximum power
point tracking in PV systems using Fractional Open Circuit Voltage technique. 2016 International Sym-
posium On Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM). pp. 889–894
(2016) https://doi.org/10.1109/SPEEDAM.2016.7525984
7. Brunton S. L., Rowley C. W., Kulkarni S. R., & Clarkson C. Maximum power point tracking for photovol-
taic optimization using ripple-based extremum seeking control. Transactions on Power Electronics. 25,
10, 2531–2540 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2010.2049747
8. Tchouani Njomo A., Kenne G., Douanla R. & Sonfack L. A modified ESC algorithm for MPPT applied to
a photovoltaic system under varying environmental conditions. International Journal of Photoenergy. 1,
1956410 (2020)
9. Sher H., Murtaza A., Noman A., Addoweesh K., Al-Haddad K. & Chiaberge M. A new sensorless
hybrid MPPT algorithm based on fractional short-circuit current measurement and P&O MPPT. IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy. 6, 1426–1434 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.
2438781
10. Alik R. & Jusoh A. An enhanced P&O checking algorithm MPPT for high tracking efficiency of partially
shaded PV module. Solar Energy. 163 pp. 570–580 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.12.
050
11. Motahhir S., El Ghzizal A., Sebti S. & Derouich A. Modeling of photovoltaic system with modified Incre-
mental Conductance algorithm for fast changes of irradiance. International Journal of Photoenergy.
3286479 (2018)
12. Wu, T., Liu, W., Moo, C., Cheng, H. & Chang, Y. An electric circuit model of photovoltaic panel with
power electronic converter. 2016 IEEE 17th Workshop on Control and Modeling for Power Electronics
(COMPEL). pp. 1–6 (2016)
13. Mahesh P., Meyyappan S. & Alla R. A new multivariate linear regression MPPT algorithm for solar PV
system with boost converter. ECTI Transactions on Electrical Engineering, Electronics, and Communi-
cations. 20, 269–281 (2022) https://doi.org/10.37936/ecti-eec.2022202.246909
14. González-Castaño C., Lorente-Leyva L., Muñoz J., Restrepo C. & Peluffo-Ordóñez D. An MPPT strat-
egy based on a surface-based polynomial fitting for solar photovoltaic systems using real-time hard-
ware. Electronics. 10, 206 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10020206
15. Motahhir S., El Hammoumi A. & El Ghzizal A. The most used MPPT algorithms: Review and the suit-
able low-cost embedded board for each algorithm. Journal of Cleaner Production. 246 pp. 118983
(2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118983
16. Figueiredo S., Silva R. & Others Hybrid MPPT technique PSO-P&O applied to photovoltaic systems
under uniform and partial shading conditions. IEEE Latin America Transactions. 19, 1610–1617 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1109/TLA.2021.9477222
17. Li D., Wang X., Wang J. & Zhou Z. Differential flat & PSO based photovoltaic maximum power point
tracking control under partial shading condition. Measurement and Control. 57, 103–112 (2024) https://
doi.org/10.1177/00202940231194108
18. Krishnan G. S., Kinattingal S., Simon S. & Nayak P. MPPT in PV systems using ant colony optimisation
with dwindling population. IET Renewable Power Generation. 14, 1105–1112 (2020) https://doi.org/10.
1049/iet-rpg.2019.0875
19. Saad W., Hegazy E. & Shokair M. Maximum power point tracking based on modified firefly scheme for
PV system. SN Applied Sciences. 4, 94 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-022-04976-3
20. Belhachat F. & Larbes C. A review of global maximum power point tracking techniques of photovoltaic
system under partial shading conditions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 92 pp. 513–
553 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.094
21. Zhao W., Wang L. & Mirjalili S. Artificial hummingbird algorithm: A new bio-inspired optimizer with its
engineering applications. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 388 pp. 114194
(2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2021.114194
22. Pervez I., Antoniadis C. & Massoud Y. A Reduced search space exploration metaheuristic algorithm for
MPPT. IEEE Access. 10 pp. 26090–26100 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3156124
23. Mohamed M., Nasser Ahmed S. & Eladly Metwally M. Arithmetic optimization algorithm based maxi-
mum power point tracking for grid-connected photovoltaic system. Scientific Reports. 13, 5961 (2023)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32793-0 PMID: 37045948
24. Cikan M. & Dogansahin K. A Comprehensive evaluation of up-to-date optimization algorithms on MPPT
application for photovoltaic systems. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects. 45, 10381–10407 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2023.2245771

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 26 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

25. Zhang H., Wang X., Zhang J., Ge Y. & Wang L. MPPT control of photovoltaic array based on improved
marine predator algorithm under complex solar irradiance conditions. Scientific Reports. 14, 19745
(2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70811-x PMID: 39187564
26. Abouzeid A., Eleraky H., Kalas A., Rizk R., Elsakka M. & Refaat A. Experimental validation of a low-cost
maximum power point tracking technique based on artificial neural network for photovoltaic systems.
Scientific Reports. 14, 18280 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67306-0
27. Roy R., Rokonuzzaman M., Amin N., Mishu M., Alahakoon S., Rahman S., et al. A Comparative perfor-
mance analysis of ANN algorithms for MPPT energy harvesting in solar PV system. IEEE Access.
9 pp. 102137–102152 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3096864
28. Sharmin R., Chowdhury S., Abedin F. & Rahman K. Implementation of an MPPT technique of a solar
module with supervised machine learning. Frontiers in Energy Research. 10 pp. 932653 (2022) https://
doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.932653
29. Messalti S. & Others A new neural networks MPPT controller for PV systems. IREC2015 The Sixth
International Renewable Energy Congress. pp. 1–6 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1109/IREC.2015.7110897
30. Haq I., Khan Q., Ullah S., Khan S., Akmeliawati R., Khan M., et al. Neural network-based adaptive
global sliding mode MPPT controller design for stand-alone photovoltaic systems. Plos One. 17,
e0260480 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260480 PMID: 35051183
31. Khan Z., Khan L., Ahmad S., Mumtaz S., Jafar M. & Khan Q. RBF neural network based backstepping
terminal sliding mode MPPT control technique for PV system. Plos One. 16, e0249705 (2021) https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249705 PMID: 33831094
32. González-Castaño C., Marulanda J., Restrepo C., Kouro S., Alzate A. & Rodriguez J. Hardware-in-the-
loop to test an MPPT technique of solar photovoltaic system: A support vector machine approach. Sus-
tainability. 13, 3000 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063000
33. Omer Z. & Shareef H. Comparison of decision tree based ensemble methods for prediction of photovol-
taic maximum current. Energy Conversion and Management: X. 16 pp. 100333 (2022) https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100333
34. Mahesh P., Meyyappan S. & Alla R. Maximum power point tracking with regression machine learning
algorithms for solar PV systems. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research. (2022)
35. Nkambule M., Hasan A., Ali A., Hong J. & Geem Z. Comprehensive Evaluation of Machine Learning
MPPT Algorithms for a PV System Under Different Weather Conditions. Journal of Electrical Engineer-
ing & Technology. 16, 411–427 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-020-00598-0
36. Batarseh M. & Za’ter M. Hybrid maximum power point tracking techniques: A comparative survey, sug-
gested classification and uninvestigated combinations. Solar Energy. 169 pp. 535–555 (2018) https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.045
37. Priyadarshi N., Padmanaban S., Maroti P. & Sharma A. An extensive practical investigation of FPSO-
based MPPT for grid integrated PV system under variable operating conditions with anti-islanding pro-
tection. IEEE Systems Journal. 13, 1861–1871 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2817584
38. Priyadarshi N., Padmanaban S., Holm-Nielsen J., Blaabjerg F. & Bhaskar M. An experimental estima-
tion of hybrid ANFIS–PSO-based MPPT for PV grid integration under fluctuating sun irradiance. IEEE
Systems Journal. 14, 1218–1229 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2019.2949083
39. Ammar H., Azar A., Shalaby R. & Mahmoud M. Metaheuristic optimization of fractional order incremen-
tal conductance (FO-INC) maximum power point tracking (MPPT). Complexity. 2019 pp. 1–13 (2019)
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7687891
40. Macaulay J. & Zhou Z. A fuzzy logical-based variable step size P&O MPPT algorithm for photovoltaic
system. Energies. 11, 1340 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3390/en11061340
41. Sarvi M. & Azadian A. A comprehensive review and classified comparison of MPPT algorithms in PV
systems. Energy Systems. 13, 281–320 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-021-00427-x
42. Zhao J., Zhou X., Gao Z., Ma Y. & Qin Z. A novel global maximum power point tracking strategy
(GMPPT) based on optimal current control for photovoltaic systems adaptive to variable environmental
and partial shading conditions. Solar Energy. 144 pp. 767–779 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2017.02.017
43. Hou G., Ke Y. & Huang C. A flexible constant power generation scheme for photovoltaic system by
error-based active disturbance rejection control and perturb & observe. Energy. 237 pp. 121646 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121646
44. Granda-Gutiérrez E., Orta O., Dı́az-Guillén J., Jimenez M., Osorio M. & González M. Modelado y simu-
lación de celdas y paneles solares. Congreso Internacional de Ingenierıı́a Electrónica. 35 pp. 17–22
(2013)
45. Rekioua D. & Matagne E. Optimization of photovoltaic power systems: modelization, simulation and
control. ( Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 27 / 28

PLOS ONE A novel strategy for the MPPT in a photovoltaic system via sliding modes control

46. Gil-Antonio L., Saldivar B., Portillo-Rodrıiguez O., Vilchis J., Martinez-Rodrıiguez P. & Martıinez-Men-
dez R. Flatness-based control for the maximum power point tracking in a photovoltaic system. Energies.
12, 1843 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/en12101843
47. Smets A., Jäger K., Isabella O., Swaaij R. & Zeman M. Solar Energy: The Physics and Engineering of
Photovoltaic Conversion, Technologies and Systems. ( UIT Cambridge, 2016)
48. Erickson R. DC–DC power converters. Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
(2001)
49. Sira-Ramirez H. & Silva-Ortigoza R. Control design techniques in power electronics devices. ( Springer
Science & Business Media, 2006)
50. Ahmed S., Muhammad Adil H., Ahmad I., Azeem M., Huma Z. & Abbas Khan S. Supertwisting sliding
mode algorithm based nonlinear MPPT control for a solar PV system with artificial neural networks
based reference generation. Energies. 13, 3695 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143695
51. Li, Z., Ruan, M., Wang, H. & Zhang, S. Chaos Control of Boost Converter Based on Super-Twisting Slid-
ing Mode Control. 2019 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC). pp. 188–193 (2019)
52. Gil, L. Control de Convertidores para aplicaciones Fotovoltaicas. (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad
Autónoma del Estado de México. Facultad de Ingenierı́a; México, 2019)
53. Kchaou A., Naamane A., Koubaa Y. & M’sirdi N. Second order sliding mode-based MPPT control for
photovoltaic applications. Solar Energy. 155 pp. 758–769 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2017.07.007
54. Derbeli M., Barambones O., Ramos-Hernanz J. & Sbita L. Real-time implementation of a super twisting
algorithm for PEM fuel cell power system. Energies. 12, 1594 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3390/
en12091594
55. Mutoh N., Ohno M. & Inoue T. A method for MPPT control while searching for parameters correspond-
ing to weather conditions for PV generation systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. 53,
1055–1065 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2006.878328
56. Rauschenbach H.Solar cell array design handbook: The principles and technology of photovoltaic
energy conversion. ( Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)
57. Bouafassa A., Rahmani L. & Mekhilef S. Design and real time implementation of single phase boost
power factor correction converter. ISA Transactions. 55 pp. 267–274 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isatra.2014.10.004 PMID: 25457043
58. Flajolet, P., & Sedgewick, R. The average case analysis of algorithms: Complex asymptotics and gener-
ating functions (Doctoral dissertation, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
(INRIA), France, 1993).
59. Buttazzo G. Research trends in real-time computing for embedded systems. ACM SIGBED Review. 3,
1–10 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1145/1164050.1164052
60. Borase R., Maghade D., Sondkar S. & Pawar S. A review of PID control, tuning methods and applica-
tions. International Journal of Dynamics and Control. 9, 818–827 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40435-020-00665-4
61. Yahiaoui F., Chabour F., Guenounou O., Zaouche F., Belkhier Y., Bajaj M., et al. Experimental valida-
tion and intelligent control of a stand-alone solar energy conversion system using dSPACE platform.
Frontiers in Energy Research. 10 pp. 971384 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.971384
62. Moreno J. & Osorio M. Strict Lyapunov functions for the super twisting algorithm. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control. 57, 1035–1040 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2012.2186179
63. Polyakov A. & Poznyak A. Reaching time estimation for “super-twisting” second order sliding mode con-
troller via Lyapunov function designing. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 54, 1951–1955
(2009) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2009.2023781
64. Orlov Y., Aoustin Y. & Chevallereau C. Finite time stabilization of a perturbed double integrator—Part I:
Continuous sliding mode-based output feedback synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.
56, 614–618 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2010.2090708
65. Seeber R. & Horn M. Stability proof for a well-established super-twisting parameter setting. Automatica.
84 pp. 241–243 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2017.07.002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311831 December 13, 2024 28 / 28