## 4 Results: MPPT Techniques Review
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{284.5 pt}} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Analysis of Results** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2018 & With a PI controller, the average power is 16.9 kW and generator speed varies. With FLC the average power is 17.2 kW and the generator speed established at 14.2 rad/s. \\ \hline [PERSON], 2018 & Was compared the responses of the Fuzzy-PID and PID controllers. F-PID reduces rise time of 4.21 s to 0.63 s. PID has oscillations with a peak overshoot of 11.8\% and F-PID of 0.02\%. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2018 & Comparing PI, PDFPI and PIFPI controllers, the maximum settling time is 4 s, 4.7 s and 2 s respectively. The deviation (HZ) are \(-\)0.06 for IC, \(-\)0.04 for PI, \(-\)0.045 for PDFPI, and \(-\)0.01 for PIFPI. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & Pitch angle is smaller with PID-AOC (5.2\({}^{\circ}\)) than with PID controller (8.2\({}^{\circ}\)). Stator and rotor power increase significantly, 10.8 and 30.5\%, respectively. PID generates 2.5\% of overshooting, while PID-AOC reaches 0.8\%, increasing the performance in 68.0\%. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & According to error criteria compared between PID, diffuse and Hybrid (F-PID-5) controllers. The F-PID-5 obtained a minor error in the reference change. 66.16\% better than FLC basic controller and 2.4\% with respect to a PID. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & Results show that generator speed response improves from 3.68 s to 3.28 s on proposed method. Performance is improved in the attenuate oscillations of the actuator and the overshoot of the generator speed has been reduced. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & Graphic results demonstrated better performance for FLC schemes than a PI control. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & FLC reduces the overshoot by about 10\% compared with a PI controller. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & The adaptive FLC-PI controller shows a good performance and delivers more tracking speed and efficient maximum power tracking under fluctuating wind conditions than PI and fuzzy-PI controllers. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2017 & A ripple percentage of 2.13\% was obtained, 84.28\% lower than that of a P\&O controller, allowing to affirm that the FLC controller has a better result. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2016 & It was compared with a proposed PI with better response time of 130 s versus 400 s. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2016 & It compared with a PI controller. The settling time are Pitch angle 0.9 s for PI and 0.3 for FLC. Torque 1.0 s for PI and 0.25 s for FLC. Rotor speed 0.95 s for PI and 0.43 s for FLC. And EM torque 0.9 s for PI and 0.3 s for FLC. \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON], 2016 & It was compared with a PI control obtaining a better average error of 0.018\% to 0.0088\%, in absolute values it was reduced from 65.8\% to 29.02\% \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2016 & The results illustrate the robustness and the superiority of FFOPI+I over FOPI and conventional PI, since guarantee low current total harmonic distortion with small overshoot and fast settling time. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015 & A PI reached best response time, an error in 1\% in 1.5, FLC 3.5 s and FLC-PID in 0.35 s. Maximum Overshoot of the output power was reached to 790 kW-PI, 740 kW-FLC and 530 kW-FLC-PID. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015 & The proposed combined controller FLC-PI has a better response than the PI controller and the FLC, this has been proved with a lower error of 0.4\% compared to 0.66\% from the PI and 1.33\% from the FLC. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015 & According to simulations, the proposed controller provides better performance compared to a PID. Its behavior is better near the nominal wind speed reducing the power overshoot to 3\% than the cut-speed with only 0.4\%. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015 & The average power for a conventional controller and the proposed is 2.98 MW and 3.01 MW, respectively. The speed rotor reached by gross controller is 19.7 rpm, higher than speed cut. \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2015 & The average output power simulate in 2 MW PMSG with the proposed methods is 2.36\%, 1.07\% y 1.5\% respectively higher. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}