## 6 Comparison with Previous MPPT Techniques  
The tracking speeds in INC, P&O, and coordinated PI-MPPT algorithms were calculated as 0.39, 0.5, and 0.17, respectively. Hence, the proposed algorithm can track GMPP almost two times faster than the traditional schemes under this partially shaded condition (shading pattern 3). As illustrated in Table 4, the coordinated MPPT algorithm is evaluated under non-shading and three shading patterns (right, middle, and left GMPP shading conditions). The proposed algorithm responds faster and can track GMPP within 0.15, 0.35, 0.22, and 0.17 s against normal and shading patterns 1, 2, and 3, respectively.  
This section highlights the simulation and experimental results with different contingency analyses of the proposed and HC techniques (Tables 4 and 5). All algorithms can track MPP efficiently (above 99% efficiency) when applied to uniform weather conditions. However, both the conventional techniques still provide some power oscillations and duty cycle perturbations after tracking the MPP location. Tracking and convergence speeds are both higher in the proposed technique than the conventional ones under the uniform weather condition. The conventional techniques cause enormous power loss and provide wrong perturbation size for shading patterns 2 and 3, though a reliable tracking operation assured for the uniform weather and shading pattern 1 conditions. The overall performance of the MPPT techniques is found similar between the simulation and experimental studies. Additionally, it does not exhibit steady-state oscillation, resulting in zero power loss. The tracking efficiencies, by considering uniform and the three shading patterns, are manipulated to 83.89%, 84.38%, and 99.96% in the INC, P&O, and the proposed MPPT schemes. Hence, the proposed MPPT technique exhibits much higher efficiency than conventional algorithms.  
Tracking deviation and power loss are overcome in the proposed MPPT scheme with more than 99% power efficiency under all four analyzed weather conditions. Consequently, the proposed technique is more robust, dependable, and efficient than traditional MPPT algorithms under uniform and shading conditions of the PV curve.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Simulated**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**MPPT Algorithms**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Parameters** & **INC** & **P\&O** & **Proposed** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{No PSC (1497 W)} & Oscillation (W) & 1470–1500 & 1473–1500 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.442–0.452 & 0.44–0.46 & 0.4745 \\  & \%n of MPP & 98.2 & 98.3 & 99.99 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.28 s & 0.26 s & 0.15 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PSC for shading pattern 1 (1275 W)} & Oscillation (W) & 1150–1267 & 1150–1275 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.38–0.41 & 0.37–0.41 & 0.43 \\  & \%n of GMPr & 99.48 & 99.66 & 99.93 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.19 s & 0.25 s & 0.13 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PSC for shading pattern 2 (924.4 W)} & Oscillations (W) & 625–925 & 650–914 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.5–0.52 & 0.49–0.52 & 0.647 \\  & \%n of GMPm & 63.26 & 63.46 & 99.96 \\  & Tracking speed & 0.29 s & 0.3 s & 0.22 s \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PSC for shading pattern 3 (487.6 W)} & Oscillations (W) & 294–325 & 294–326 & No \\  & Duty cycle & 0.18–0.32 & 0.44–0.46 & 0.829 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \%n of GMPl & 75.3 & 76.8 & 99.86 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Tracking speed & 0.39 s & 0.5 s & 0.17 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Simulation results comparison between the algorithms.