## 3 Simulation Results and Discussion
Additionally, the MPPT algorithm of the boost converter helps to decrease the current harmonics of the topology and increase the efficiency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Proposed Structure** & **Conventional Cascade Structure** \\ \hline Power & 288 W & 288 W \\ Input voltage & 20–45 V & 20–45 V \\ \(L_{X}\) and \(L_{Y}\) & 200 uH & 200 uH \\ ESR of inductors & 0.1 \(\Omega\) & 0.1 \(\Omega\) \\ \(C_{1}\) & 1 uF & 47 uF \\ \(C_{0}\) & 47 uF & 47 uF \\ Duty cycle & 30–90\% & 30–90\% \\ Switching frequency & 50 kHz & 50 kHz \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Particularization of the projected and conventional boost converters in the simulation and experimental steps. Figure 9a shows the voltage gain for the proposed and conventional boost circuits in 50% of the duty cycle and 50 to 200 \(\Omega\) as the load. One of the most important issues for a boost converter is the converter's ability to gain production since voltage transfer is preferred, rather than the current transition in all parts of fossil or renewable energy sources. Figure 8: Efficiency diagram for the proposed and conventional cascaded structures. Figure 7: **(a)** Current-Voltage (I-V) and Power-Voltage (P-V) characteristics of the applied PV arrays and (**b**) the proposed structure with the designed controller block. The simulation was conducted from 50 W to around 290 W of the output power and for all of this band, the proposed converter presented higher DC gain. Additionally, Figure 9b illustrates a comparison diagram between the classical cascade and proposed topologies voltage gain for this band of output power for different values of duty cycles from 30 to 90%. The same result is reported for this test. Figure 10 illustrates the controller performance and stability in producing different voltages in output. For this simulation, the input supply was fixed to 24 V and the reference voltage was changed between 80 V, 100 V, and 120 V. For our tests, in order to carry out the PWM implementation to gate-source pins of the power semiconductor switch, the triangle waveform was considered with a 50 kHz frequency. By considering the damping factor for the proposed controller at the change points of the output voltage, a limited value of the overshoot was reported. These overshoot values can have smaller values with PI controller internal adjustments in MATLAB/SIMULINK for the upper and lower output limits, which is applicable for an embedded controller like the M9036A and M9037A or MEC1609 series. Figure 9: (**a**) Voltage gain diagram for the proposed and conventional cascaded structures in real and ideal states based on different (**a**) loads and (**b**) duty cycles. Figure 11 presents the performance of the controller to present the fixed voltage at the load side by changing the input voltage values. As known, PV panels based on different irradiance and temperatures present different values of voltages. Therefore, one of the specifications of a good converter and controller is the ability in obtaining a fixed DC voltage for load by different values of the input voltage. Therefore, in the worst condition, if both the input voltage and output load change, we should consider the performance of the controller for reliability analysis. Figure 11 presents the reaction of the controller for input voltages from 25 V to 45 V and load values from 50 \(\Omega\) to 200 \(\Omega\). As reported in Figure 11a, and as expected, for higher loads where higher currents are needed, the overshoot is higher and the settling time is longer. For a higher amount of input voltages and lower amount of output currents, as Figure 11c presents, both overshoot value and settling time are less. In addition, it can be found that when the input voltage is higher for a fixed load, the overshoot is less and settling time is shorter. Figure 12 illustrates the current values for the power MOSFETs, output diodes, and input inductors of around 50 W of output power.