## 5 Simulation Analysis

Table 3: Parameter setting of the proposed algorithm. Figure 7: (**a**) I-V and (**b**) P-V curves of PMS50W at high (1000 W/m\({}^{2}\)), medium (600 W/m\({}^{2}\)), and low (200 W/m\({}^{2}\)) irradiances. Firstly, the proposed algorithm is tested under uniform irradiance. Figure 10 shows simulation results of the proposed modified LFO at 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\) irradiance. As can be seen, the proposed modified LFO has successfully tracked the maximum power at 50 W under 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\) STC. It is also observed from the simulation results that the modified LFO is stable and no oscillation at steady-state occurs. Figure 11 shows the simulation results of the proposed modified LFO at 600 W/m\({}^{2}\) STC. Similarly, the proposed algorithm is able to track optimum power at medium irradiance which is 30 W. The proposed algorithm of modified LFO is stable with almost zero steady-state oscillation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cases**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Irradiance on each PV**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Peak Power (W)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak 2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak 3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak 4**} \\  & **Module (W/m\({}^{2}\))** & & & & \\ \hline STC & 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000 & 50 & - & - & - \\ PSC 1 & 1000, 800, 400, 200 & 6.45 & 17.54 & 16.22 & 11.76 \\ PSC 2 & 400, 200, 1000, 200 & 5.93 & 9.3 & 11.11 & - \\ PSC 3 & 1000, 400, 200, 600 & 5.93 & 13.61 & 16.05 & 11.71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Detailed profiles of STC and PSCs. Figure 8: (a) I-V (b) P-V curves under three different partial shading conditions. Figure 9: Non-uniform irradiance penetrated into the PV modules. Figure 11: Modified LFO at 600 W/m\({}^{2}\) irradiance. (**a**) power (**b**) voltage (**c**) current (**d**) duty cycle. Figure 10: Modified LFO at 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\) irradiance (**a**) power (**b**) voltage (**c**) current (**d**) duty cycle. Figure 12 shows the simulation results of the proposed modified LFO at low irradiance, 200 W/m\({}^{2}\). The proposed modified LFO successfully tracks the optimum power at 10 W. Based on the simulation results, the proposed modified LFO is stable with zero steady-state oscillation. Further testing is conducted under PSCs as described in Table 4. The shadow patterns are created as in Table 4. Non-uniform irradiances are penetrated into PV modules as in Table 4 to generate a pattern for PSCs. Based on Figure 8b, the global maximum power point is 17.5 W for PSC 1. Here, the proposed modified LFO is tested. Figure 13 shows the simulation results of the proposed modified LFO algorithm under PSC 1. The results show that the proposed algorithm can track GMPP at 17.5 W. The algorithm is stable, and no steady-state oscillation is observed. Figure 12: Modified LFO at 200 W/m\({}^{2}\) irradiance. (**a**) power (**b**) voltage (**c**) current (**d**) duty cycle. Figure 13: _Cont._  
PSC 2 as explained in Table 4 is created. The proposed modified LFO is tested under PSC 2. Based on Figure 14, the simulation results indicate that the proposed modified LFO can distinguish GMPP at 11.1 W. The algorithm is stable, and no steady-state oscillations occur. PSC 3 is created by non-uniform irradiances on the PV panels as shown in Table 4. The modified LFO is tested. Again, as can be seen, the modified LFO has successfully tracked  
Figure 8:0 Modified LFO at PSC2. (**a**) power (**b**) voltage (**c**) current. Figure 8:1 Modified LFO at PSC1. (**a**) power (**b**) voltage (**c**) current. GMPP at 16 W as shown in Figure 8:2 Notably, the proposed modified LFO is stable, and no steady-state oscillation is observed. Next, the proposed modified LFO is tested under dynamic conditions. The dynamic condition is set from STC at time 0 to 0.1 s and then it changes from STC to PSC 1 at time 0.1 s. Based on the results in Figure 16, it is noted that the proposed algorithm is capable of detecting MPP at STC, which is 50 W, and then GMPP at PSC 1, which is 17.5 W, with a 3.0 s response time.