## 4 Simulation Results and Discussion
This model has the theoretical characteristics at standard test conditions (STC, G\({}_{\rm STC}\) = 1000 W/m\({}^{2}\) and T\({}_{\rm STC}\) = 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C): P\({}_{\rm MPP}\) = 154.905 W; V\({}_{\rm OC}\) = 41.4 V; V\({}_{\rm MPP}\) = 34.5 V; I\({}_{\rm sc}\) = 5.03 A; I\({}_{\rm MPP}\) = 4.49 A. The PV-curves for this panel under the static irradiances described in the EN505030:2010 standard are shown in Figure 8. The dashed red line shows the theoretical MPP for every irradiance value between 100 W/m\({}^{2}\) and 1100 W/m\({}^{2}\). The duty cycle-voltage curves for these same irradiances are plotted in Figure 9. It can be observed that there is a rise in PV voltage at the boost converter input with an increase in irradiance at the same duty cycle. This phenomenon is due to parasitic resistances in the simulated boost converter that cause a larger effect as the current produced by panel increases. Figure 7: Irradiance profile evaluated as described in the EN50530 standard comprising low to medium and medium to high changes as described in Table 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{**a. Irradiance low to medium (100 W/m\({}^{2}\)–500 W/m\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \hline
**Settling** & **Rep.** & **Slope** & **Rise** & **Wait** & **Fall** & **Wait** & **Duration** \\
**[s]** & [n] & [W/m\({}^{2}\)/s] & [s] & [s] & [s] & [s] & [s] \\ \hline
3 & 2 & 50 & 8 & 0.1 & 8 & 0.1 & 35.4 \\ \hline
3 & 2 & 100 & 4 & 0.1 & 4 & 0.1 & 19.4 \\ \hline
3 & 3 & 200 & 2 & 0.1 & 2 & 0.1 & 15.6 \\ \hline
3 & 4 & 300 & 1.33 & 0.1 & 1.33 & 0.1 & 14.44 \\ \hline
3 & 6 & 500 & 0.8 & 0.1 & 0.8 & 0.1 & 13.8 \\ \hline
3 & 8 & 700 & 0.57 & 0.1 & 0.57 & 0.1 & 13.72 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 1000 & 0.40 & 0.1 & 0.40 & 0.1 & 13 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 1400 & 0.29 & 0.1 & 0.29 & 0.1 & 10.8 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 2000 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 9 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 3000 & 0.13 & 0.1 & 0.13 & 0.1 & 7.6 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 5000 & 0.08 & 0.1 & 0.08 & 0.1 & 6.6 \\ \hline  & & & & & & Total & 159.36 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & 00:02:39 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & 00:02:39 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & \\ \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{**b. Irradiance medium to high (300 W/m\({}^{2}\)–1000 W/m\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \hline
**Settling** & **Rep.** & **Slope** & **Rise** & **Wait** & **Fall** & **Wait** & **Duration** \\
**[s]** & **[n]** & **[W/m\({}^{2}\)/s]** & **[s]** & **[s]** & **[s]** & **[s]** & **[s]** \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 1000 & 0.7 & 10 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 19 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 1400 & 0.5 & 10 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 15 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 2000 & 0.35 & 10 & 0.35 & 0.1 & 12 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 3000 & 0.23 & 10 & 0.23 & 0.1 & 9.6 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 5000 & 0.14 & 10 & 0.14 & 0.1 & 7.8 \\ \hline
3 & 10 & 10,000 & 0.07 & 10 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 6.4 \\ \hline  & & & & & & Total & 69.8 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & 00:01:09 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Irradiance profile as tested. Figure 8: PV-curves for all static irradiance values described in the EN50530:2010 standard with the theoretical MPP of every intermediate irradiance for the solar panel, UP-M155M. The overall efficiency during the test was calculated for both algorithms. Additionally, the dynamic efficiency for each set of iterations testing different slopes is calculated as follows:  
\[\%\text{ Efficiency}= \frac{\int_{0}^{T_{M}}P}{\int_{0}^{T_{M}}P_{MPP}}\times 100, \tag{12}\]  
where \(T_{M}\) consists of the simulation time, \(P_{MPP}\) is the maximum theoretical power available at the MPP at the given conditions, and \(P\) is the actual power delivered at the given operating point. The algorithms were tested with a fixed \(T_{MPPT}\) = 15 ms. Parameter \(\delta\) was also fixed size to 2% of the \(\text{V}_{\text{oc}}\) as suggested in [8]. Additionally, the simulated results are compared to the theoretical \(\text{P}_{\text{MPP}}\) and \(\text{V}_{\text{MPP}}\). These comparisons will better illustrate contrasts between the algorithms being tested and the resulting efficiency differences.