## 7 Conclusions  
In this study, an improved PI coordinated MPPT algorithm for the PV system under uniform weather condition and PSCs is proposed to enhance the tracking speed and mitigate steady-state oscillations in the PV power. The performance of the proposed MPPT method is validated both in the simulation platform and experimentally. Experimental and simulation results demonstrate that the coordinated PI-MPPT algorithm tracks the GMPP\({}_{\text{r}}\) (right GMPP), GMPP\({}_{\text{m}}\) (middle GMPP), and GMPP\({}_{\text{l}}\) (left GMPP)/faster and is more reliable for the three shade-oriented patterns than conventional MPPT techniques in terms of the tracking of a correct MPP region and identifying the true GMPP faster. The results also show that the proposed MPPT method is faster, more robust, sustainable, and reliable than conventional MPPT schemes when its PV modules incorporated with bypass diodes and multiple MPPs. The robustness of the proposed MPPT technique is obtained by achieving a faster convergence speed and tracking speed as well as zero oscillations around the GMPP under SSC, resulting in negligible energy loss. The tracking efficiency of the proposed algorithm is 99.99%, 99.93%, 99.96%, and 99.86% under uniform weather and shading patterns 1, 2, and 3, respectively.  
To proof the effectiveness of the proposed MPPT technique its performance is compared with conventional INC and P&O methods. From the comparison results it is observed that the tracking speed of the proposed method is found to be 13% and 11% faster compared to the conventional INC and perturb and observe (P&O) methods respectively. Also, the steady-state oscillations on the PV output power are observed very low compared to the other two methods.  
Conceptualization, H.I.; Data curation, H.I.; Formal analysis, H.I.; Funding acquisition, S.M., N.M.S., A.W. and M.A.; Investigation, S.M.; Methodology, H.I.; Project administration, S.M.; Resources, H.I.; Software, H.I.; Supervision, S.M., N.M.S. and T.K.S.; Validation, H.I.; Visualization, H.I.; Writing--original draft, H.I.; Writing--review & editing, H.I., S.M., N.M.S., T.K.S., A.W. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the Taif University Researchers Supporting Project Number (TURSP-2020/146), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia, and in part by the Joint Research Program between UAE-U and Asian Universities Alliance (AUA) under Grant 31R169.  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Simulated**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**MPPT Algorithms’ Performance**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Parameters** & **INC** & **P\&O** & **Proposed** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} No PSC \\ (213.58 W) \\ \end{tabular} } & Oscillation (W) & 210.5–212.66 & 211–213.27 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.273–0.278 & 0.247–0.253 & 0.273 \\  & \%n of MPP & 99.59 & 99.88 & 99.99 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.3 s & 0.28 s & 0.17 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} PSC for shading \\ pattern 1 \\ (143.6 W) \\ \end{tabular} } & Oscillation (W) & 137.7–140.98 & 139.8–143.06 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.181–0.22 & 0.2–0.218 & 0.223 \\  & \%n of GMPP\({}_{\text{r}}\) & 99.59 & 99.62 & 99.92 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.18 s & 0.2 s & 0.12 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} PSC for shading \\ pattern 2 \\ (77.72 W) \\ \end{tabular} } & Oscillations (W) & 46.65–48.8 & 46.65–49.1 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.152–0.158 & 0.168–0.187 & 0.489 \\  & \%n of GMPP\({}_{\text{m}}\) & 62.22 & 62.22 & 99.95 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.23 s & 0.213 s & 0.18 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} PSC for shading \\ pattern 3 \\ (64.32 W) \\ \end{tabular} } & Oscillations (W) & 47.52–48.53 & 48.415–48.3 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.451–0.471 & 0.474–0.477 & 0.778 \\  & \%n of GMPP\({}_{\text{l}}\) & 73.51 & 73.67 & 99.83 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.42 s & 0.51 s & 0.16 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Experimental results comparison between the algorithms.