## 7 Additional Configuration Testing  
To confirm the robustness and high performance of the proposed method for any PV array configuration under any irradiation fluctuation conditions, more configuration tests were executed with comprehensive comparisons in the overall performance between the suggested method and the conventional P&O and IC techniques under different shading conditions. The configuration of eight PV modules in series (8S) is presented in cases \"a\" and \"b\" of Figure 16 for two diverse shading conditions. Moreover, four modules in series (4S) is the PV configuration as illustrated in cases \"c\" and \"d\" of Figure 16 for two different shading situations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline Case Three (Strong Shading 0–0.4 s) & 257.4 W & 257.4 W & 100\% \\ \hline Case Two (Moderate shading 0.4–0.8 s) & 435.5 W & 435.5 W & 100\% \\ Case Four (Strong shading 0.8–1.2 s) & 260.3 W & 263.8 W & 98.67\% \\ Case One (Weak shading 1.2–1.6 s) & 490.9 W & 490.9 W & 100\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Performance analysis of the proposed algorithm under a sequence of four cases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Ref.** & **Year** & **Converter Type** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Steady State** \\ **Oscillations** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Speed of** \\ **Tracking** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Tracking** \\ **Efficiency** \\ \end{tabular} & **Complexity** \\ \hline Proposed algorithm & 2020 & Boost Converter & Nil & Highest & Highest & Very Low \\ \hline
[1] & 2019 &
\begin{tabular}{c} DC/DC Buck converter \\ \end{tabular} & Low & High & High & Reasonable \\ \hline
[27] & 2018 & Boost Converter & Low & High & High & High \\ \hline
[17] & 2015 & Boost Converter & Low & High & Average & Reasonable \\ \hline
[16] & 2015 & SEPIC converter & Low & High & Low & Medium \\ \hline
[18] & 2012 & Buck converter & High & High & Medium & High \\ \hline
[28] & 2018 & Boost converter & High & High & Medium & High \\ \hline
[10] & 2017 & Boost converter & Medium & High & Medium & High \\ \hline
[9] & 2016 & SEPIC converter & Low & High & High & High \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Performance evaluation of the proposed algorithm compared with well-known MPPT algorithms. The characteristic curves for all the configurations of Figure 16 with the acquired outputs of the different algorithms are presented in Figures 17-20. The powers at the GMPPs for cases \"a\" and \"b\" of the (8S) PV array were 246.2 W and 292.9 W, respectively. For cases \"c\" and \"d\" of the (4S) PV array, the powers at the GMPPs were 156 W and 119.7 W, respectively. These results prove the ability of the proposed technique to track the GMPP for each case with the best efficiency and accuracy with no oscillation or power loss in perfect tracking time, less than 0.14 s, working at the desired maximum voltage in all cases of shading conditions. Moreover, the results show that the proposed technique performed far better than both the IC and P&O techniques in terms of extracted power, speed, and efficiency. Figure 16: Shading condition cases of two configurations: (**a**) The first case of (8S); (**b**) The second case of (8S); (**c**) The first case of (4S); and (**d**) The second case of (4S). Figure 17: Cont. Figure 17: **(a)** Scenario of case “a” of the (8S) PV array; **(b)** The extracted power by the proposed technique and the conventional P&O and IC techniques; **(c)** The voltage at the boost converter output; **(d)** The duty cycle behaviors. Figure 18: _Cont._  
Figure 19: _Cont._  
Figure 18: **(a)** Scenario of case “b” of the (88) PV array; **(b)** The extracted power by the proposed technique and the conventional P&O and IC techniques; **(c)** The voltage at the boost converter output; **(d)** The duty cycle behaviors.