## 4 Results
### Test Results  
All algorithms were subjected to steady-state tests, step variation in irradiance, and two fast and slow transience scenarios. Variation of 6000 W/m\({}^{2}\)/s was considered fast transient variation, while 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\)/s was considered slow variation. Each of the algorithms was adapted to obtain maximum power extraction, and thus, an accurate comparison of the results. The irradiance conditions applied to the PV in the simulation tests are shown in Figure 12, and are described throughout the Results section. A step variation test was performed to better compare the obtained results with the published ones, as the step test is widely used in the literature. At the beginning of the step test, the irradiance is 400 W/m\({}^{2}\); at 0.133 s, this value increases to 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\), and at 0.266 s, another transition occurs, with a final value of 600 W/m\({}^{2}\). The step variation simulation results of each algorithm are presented in Figures 13 and 14, which contain the HIL results. These results were obtained using a Tektronix DPO 2014B oscilloscope. Figure 12: Irradiance level applied to PV to simulate different scenarios: (**a**) steady state; (**b**) step variation; (**c**) fast variation; and (**d**) slow variation. Figure 13: Simulation results of power produced from panel when step variations occurred. To better understand the MPPT method's response to linear irradiance changes, fast and slow tests were conducted. Within the fast test, the initial irradiance value is 400 W/m\({}^{2}\); at 0.1 s, the value gradually increases to 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\), stabilizes for 0.1 s, and then decreases to 300 W/m\({}^{2}\) between 0.3 and 0.4 s. The simulation results for this scenario are presented in Figures 15 and 16, which show the HIL results. The simulation and HIL results for the slow test are presented in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. The initial irradiance conditions are 600 W/m\({}^{2}\) for 0.1 s; then, the irradiance increases from 600 W/m\({}^{2}\) to 700 W/m\({}^{2}\) for 0.1 s. After this increase, the value remains unchanged for 0.1 s, and finally decreases to 600 W/m\({}^{2}\). Figure 14: HIL results of power produced from panel when step variations occurred. The data in Table 3 complement the presented results, showing the efficiency \(P_{MPPT_{algorithm}}/P_{MPPT}\) in each MPPT algorithm. The efficiencies shown do not include losses in the boost converter (98% efficiency), and only the output power of the PV panel is considered to compute the ratio of the maximum available power. The values presented in Table 3 were obtained using simulation results, and Table 4 presents the results for HIL. Figure 15: Simulation results of power produced from panel when fast variations occurred. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Algorithm**} & **Step** & **Fast** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Slow Variation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Steady State**\({}^{*}\)} \\  & **Variation** & **Variation** & & \\ \hline P\&O & 97.03\% & 97.14\% & 95.58\% & 99.98\% \\ INC & 97.85\% & 98.01\% & 96.96\% & 99.91\% \\ FL & 99.03\% & 99.08\% & 99.20\% & 99.87\% \\ ANN (G, T) & 99.94\% & **100.00\%** & **99.96\%** & **100.00\%** \\ IC-INC & **99.95\%** & 99.67\% & 99.89\% & 99.97\% \\ ANN (IC-INC) & 99.67\% & 98.50\% & 99.86\% & 99.94\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\)Steady-state values were calculated between 0.1 s and 0.2 s, and the initial transient response was discarded.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation results of MPPT efficiency. Figure 16: HIL results of power produced from panel when fast variations occurred. Figure 17: Simulation results of power produced from panel when slow variations occurred.