Table 7 Performance comparison of the proposed fuzzy-PS MPPT method with traditional and advanced fuzzy logic-based MPPT controllers, including hardware and simulation results from recent literature.
Method/study | Settling time | Overshoot | Steady-state error/oscillation | Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuzzy-PS (this work) | < 50 ms | < 1% | < 0.1% | Fastest convergence; lowest error; robust to rapid changes | Proposed |
FLC vs. P&O | ~ 50 ms | ~ 0.75% | Minimal oscillation | FLC faster/steadier than P&O; P&O: 100–200 ms, 5–10% overshoot | |
Fuzzy Self-Tuning Incremental Conductance (InC) | Not specified | Very low | Efficiency 99.7–99.8% | Fuzzy + InC self-tuning, high efficiency, low overshoot | |
Hybrid FLC-InC | Not specified | Reduced | Improved stability | Hybrid FLC + InC, outperforms baseline P&O/InC | |
Asymmetric PSO-FLC | < 20 ms | < 1% | < 0.1% | PSO-optimized fuzzy MPPT, higher efficiency | |
Adaptive FLC on DSP | ~ 30 ms | Very low | < 0.01 s | DSP-based controller; steady-state in | |
IP&O + Cascade Boost/Buck for HEV battery charging | ~ 18 ms | Not specified | Minimal ripple | Provides up to 99.80% efficiency at 1000 W/m², ideal for PVHEV charging systems | |
Fuzzy MPPT (SML converter, Hardware) | 4.5–6.35 ms | 0.466% | Very low ripple | Real hardware, push-pull converter | |
FLDPID for SPVbattery charging circuit | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | Intelligent fuzzy control for battery charging in SPV, demonstrates enhanced MPPT accuracy | |
Comparative FLC, InC, P&O | Tabulated | Tabulated | Tabulated | Comparative analysis under various profiles |
