Analytical versus Metaheuristic Methods to Extract the Photovoltaic Cells and Panel Parameters

Cotfas, Daniel T.; Cotfas, Petru A.; Oproiu, Mihai P.; Ostafe, Paul A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3608138

International Journal of Photoenergy

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Critical Parameters and Factors Impacting the Performance of Photovoltaic Systems

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 3608138 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3608138

Analytical versus Metaheuristic Methods to Extract the Photovoltaic Cells and Panel Parameters

Daniel T. Cotfas,¹Petru A. Cotfas,¹Mihai P. Oproiu,¹and Paul A. Ostafe¹

Academic Editor: Ahmad Umar

Received29 May 2021

Revised11 Aug 2021

Accepted24 Aug 2021

Published18 Sept 2021

Abstract

The parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels are very important to forecast the power generated. There are a lot of methods to extract the parameters using analytical, metaheuristic, and hybrid algorithms. The comparison between the widely used analytical method and some of the best metaheuristic algorithms from the algorithm families is made for datasets from the specialized literature, using the following statistical tests: absolute error, root mean square error, and the coefficient of determination. The equivalent circuit and mathematical model considered is the single diode model. The result comparison shows that the metaheuristic algorithms have the best performance in almost all cases, and only for the genetic algorithm, there are poorer results for one chosen photovoltaic cell. The parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels and also the current-voltage characteristic for real outdoor weather conditions are forecasted using the parameters calculated with the best method: one for analytical—the five-parameter analytical method—and one for the metaheuristic algorithms—hybrid successive discretization algorithm. Additionally, the genetic algorithm is used. The forecast current-voltage characteristic is compared with the one measured in real sunlight conditions, and the best results are obtained in the case of a hybrid successive discretization algorithm. The maximum power forecast using the calculated parameters with the five-parameter method is the best, and the error in comparison with the measured ones is 0.48%.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the power forecasting for the photovoltaic panels and systems plays a very important role for the investors to increase the investments having a realistic scenario. One of the steps to achieve this goal is to accurately and quickly determine the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels.

The extraction of the photovoltaic cell parameters is a widely studied issue [1, 2], but it remains current due to its importance and the new possibilities created by the metaheuristic algorithms and artificial intelligence [3].

The parameter extraction is possible if there is a dataset which consists of voltage-current pairs () for the photovoltaic panel, or if the current-voltage characteristic (-) is measured. The parameters and dataset can be obtained using the photovoltaic panel datasheet given by the producer [4].

The most commonly used mathematical model to characterize the photovoltaic cells and panels is the single diode model (SD) [1], followed by the double diode model (DD) [5] and rarely three diode model (TD) [6]. The number of the parameters which have to be extracted varies, being five for SD, seven for DD, and nine for TD. There are a lot of methods to extract these parameters, their complexity growing with the increasing number of parameters.

The methods used to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells or panels can be classified into analytical, metaheuristic, and hybrid methods [7]. Each of these methods has both advantages and disadvantages.

The contributions and novelty of this paper are as follows:(i)The main analytical methods and metaheuristic algorithms grouped on families are briefly presented(ii)The performance of the methods is analyzed in function of the accuracy with which the parameters are extracted analyzing the absolute error, the root mean square error, and the coefficient of determination(iii)Choosing the best analytical method considering the following: simplicity of application, the execution time, and the accuracy(iv)Choosing the metaheuristic algorithm with the smallest root mean square error (RMSE) for different photovoltaic cells and panels from all algorithms considered(v)Comparing for the first time the analytical method (modified five parameters) and metaheuristic algorithm (hybrid successive discretization algorithm) to forecast the - characteristic and the maximum power generated by the commercial monocrystalline photovoltaic panel, giving the manufacturers a tool to choose the best option to characterize the PV for their applications. Additionally, the genetic algorithm is considered in the comparison

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the equivalent circuits and diode models, statistical tests used for comparison, and the mathematical formulas for calculating the photovoltaic cells and panel parameters at different temperatures and irradiances in the function of their values at the standard test conditions (STC-irradiance 1000 W/m², temperature 25°C, and air mass 1.5) are described in Section 2. A brief presentation of the used methods is made in Section 3. The results and discussions are presented in Section 4, and the last section is dedicated to conclusions and future works.

2. Methods

2.1. Photovoltaic Cells and Panel Diode Models

The mathematical model which describes the dependence between the current and the voltage generated by the photovoltaic cells and panels depends on the mechanisms which are taken into account and consequently on the equivalent circuits, Figure 1. The simplest model is the ideal one. The most commonly used model is single diode, Figure 1(a), due to its simplicity but also because it manages to describe the behaviour of most types of photovoltaic cells and panels very well. Equation (1) is the mathematical relation for one diode model:where is the photogenerated current, is the reverse saturation current, is the series resistance, is the shunt resistance, is the ideality factor of diode, and is the thermal voltage, . is the Boltzmann constant, is the temperature, and is the elementary electrical charge.

(a)

(b)

The double diode model is described bywhere index 1 relates to the diffusion mechanism and 2 the generation-recombination mechanism. The accuracy to determine the parameters of the photovoltaic cell increases especially at low solar radiation when the two diode model is used [8].

The mathematical model for the photovoltaic panel is described bywhere represents the number of the photovoltaic cells connected in series and represents the number of the photovoltaic cells connected in parallel.

2.2. Statistical Test

The comparison between analytical and metaheuristic algorithms is achieved using different statistical error tests, such as absolute error (AE) Equation (4), the root mean square error Equation (5), and the coefficient of determination Equation (6).

where and represent the calculated and the measured current, respectively, and is the total number of measurements.

2.3. Irradiance and Temperature Dependence of the PV Parameters

The irradiance and temperature influence more or less the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels. The power generated is also dependent on these two factors. So, the relation for photogenerated current, function of the irradiance, and temperature is the following [9]:where is irradiance, represent the temperature, and is the temperature coefficient of the current. The index ref is for the parameters at STC. The reverse saturation current can be calculated with Equation (8) [9, 10]:where is the energy bandgap. This value depends slightly on temperature [11, 12]:

The ideality factor of diode depends slightly on the irradiance [13]. The temperature dependence can be written as Equation (10) [9]:

The behaviour of the shunt resistance is inversely proportional to that of irradiance, the irradiance increasing as the shunt resistance decreases:

The dependence of the series resistance on temperature and irradiance is described by Equation (12). It decreases linearly with the increase in temperature and increases with the increase of irradiance; is constant and is considered equal to 0.217 [11, 14].

3. Analytical and Metaheuristic Methods

Pillai and Rajasekar classified the methods to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels in analytical, metaheuristic, and hybrid (consisting of those mentioned before) methods [8]. The analytical methods are based on formulas obtained using approximation and/or particular points on the - characteristic and some parts of the - characteristics. Multiobjective optimization problems were tough issues, but the development and use of metaheuristic algorithms in the last years led to solutions with a very good accuracy [15]. These metaheuristic algorithms were quickly adapted and used to solve the multimodal problem of the current-voltage dependence of the photovoltaic devices.

3.1. Analytical Methods

These methods were used to calculate the parameters of the photovoltaic cells since the 60s [13]. A lot of methods have been developed, especially for the SD model, but in the last years, they were developed for DD and even TD models. They can calculate one, more than one, or all parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels. The several analytical methods are presented in Table 1.

The complexity of usage and the accuracy of the method to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells or panels are two key indicators. Three-level ratings are used for each of them: low, medium, and high. For the complexity of usage, they mean as follows: low: simple formulas are used; medium: complex formulas, fitting and iterative procedure are necessary; high: the analytical method needs dedicated computational software [29]. For the accuracy, the level rating is the function of the statistical test [29, 30]. The rating for each method is shown in Table 1. Their results can be used by the manufacturers to choose the optimum method to characterize the photovoltaic cells.

The analytical five-parameter method, 5P, is the most widely used of the analytical ones to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells. The first step is to calculate the slope around the open-circuit voltage to calculate , Equation (12), and the short circuit current to calculate , Equation (13). The slope calculation requires having many points on the - characteristic in the two regions. In case this is not possible and to reduce the complexity of the method, and can be calculated using Equations (15) and (16), empirically obtained in modified five parameters 5Pm [25].where and represent the maximum power point coordinates.

3.2. Metaheuristic Methods

The metaheuristic algorithms have been used to extract the parameters of the PV since the 2000s, when Jervase et al. used the genetic algorithms and the DD model to extract the seven parameters of the photovoltaic cell [31]. By using metaheuristic algorithms, all parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels can be calculated. There are a lot of metaheuristic algorithms applied to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels. The lower and upper values for the photovoltaic cells or panel parameters are necessary to be considered for the limitation of the global optimum search. Table 2 presents some of them, classified on family and on whether they are simple or hybrid [8]. The families of the algorithms presented are genetic algorithms (GA) [31–34], differential evolution (DE) [35–38], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [39–43], discretization [3, 44, 45], artificial bee colony (ABC) [46, 47], shuffled complex evolution [48, 49], simulated annealing (SA) [50, 51], flower pollination algorithm (FPA) [52, 53], harmony search (HS) [54], JAYA algorithm [55–57], teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm [58, 59], whale optimization algorithm [60, 61], and backtracking search algorithm [62, 63]. Additionally, the diode model is shown, computational time and the iteration number when these are given.

One of the new and the best algorithms, HSDA [44], is used against the modified analytical method to forecast the - characteristic and maximum power generated. The HSDA algorithm is an improved version of the SDA algorithm [3]. It is a hybrid one. The first algorithm used is one of the existent algorithms and gives a solution for SDA. A vicinity is considered around it, and the parameters can be extracted with very good accuracy using SDA for this vicinity. The flow chart of the HSDA algorithm is presented in Figure 2.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Analytical vs. Metaheuristic

The representative analytical method—modified five parameters—which has low difficulty to use and high accuracy, for SD model, it is compared with the best metaheuristic algorithms for each family, for several photovoltaic cells and panels when the results for the parameters are available. The parameter values for the SD model given in the references are used to calculate the statistical tests AE, RMSE, and used for comparison. Additionally, the GA which will be used for forecast is considered.

4.1.1. RTC France Solar Cell

The first comparison is made for the RTC France solar cell, one of the widely used by researchers to prove the performance of the developed algorithms to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels. The result of the parameters and the statistical tests, RMSE, AE, and , are presented in Table 3.

In the case of the RTC France solar cell, the 5Pm method has the RMSE, which is widely used to measure the performance of the methods, higher than the ones obtained for the metaheuristic algorithms with the exception of the GA. Also, for the AE and , the values are higher.

To have a complete image of the results obtained using different methods, Figure 3(a) presents the absolute current error. The 5Pm method and GA algorithm overestimate or underestimate the current around the open-circuit voltage point, where the other algorithms calculate the current better. The reverse saturation current extracted with the GA algorithm is more than two times higher than that calculated with HSDA. The parasitic resistances, the series resistance, and the shunt resistance present also a high variation. Figure 3(b) shows the behaviour of the AE around the open-circuit voltage region. The AE values for the C-HCLPSO and FPA algorithms alternate around the AE average of the other algorithms considered, having high values for some regions and very small for other regions.

(a)

(b)

4.1.2. Commercial Monocrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cell

There are three methods to extract parameters of mSi commercial photovoltaic cell. The 5Pm analytical method gives the weakest results for all statistical tests, Table 4. If in the case of the RTC photovoltaic cell, the RMSE obtained using the 5Pm method is almost ten times higher; for the mSi photovoltaic cell, the RMSE is 4.5 times higher, but the GA algorithm significantly improves its performance.

These changes in the performance of the methods can be easily observed in Figure 4. The performance of the GA algorithm is substantially improved for the region around the open circuit point, while the 5Pm method shows weakness in this region.

4.1.3. PWP201 Photovoltaic Panel

Analyzing the results obtained for RMSE in the case of the PWP201 photovoltaic panel, RMSE and AE obtained with the 5Pm method are 1.65 times higher than the ones obtained with the HSDA algorithm. There are three algorithms with the best values for all three statistical tests, HSDA, R_cr-IJADE, and CLJAYA, Table 5.

The absolute current errors for PWP201 photovoltaic panel are under 0.01 (A), having a uniform distribution, but keeping the high values in the open-circuit voltage region, Figure 5(a). Although, in this case, the methods estimate the current without high difference for certain voltages in comparison with the ones measured, the RMSE and AE have high values. The AE for the PWP201 photovoltaic panel around the open-circuit voltage is higher for the FPA and 5Pm methods. The other algorithms considered have the same behaviour, Figure 5(b).

(a)

(b)

4.1.4. STM6-40 Photovoltaic Panel

The 5Pm method has the statistical test high values, Table 6. The () pairs of the STM6-40 photovoltaic panel are not uniformly distributed. There are very few points in the open-circuit voltage region [46], which leads to poorer results in this case. The value of the coefficient of determination confirms this issue.

The best results are obtained for the HSDA algorithm for RSME and . The plot of the absolute current errors, Figure 6(a), shows the weakness of the 5Pm method in the region around the open-circuit voltage. For some points, the current calculated with the 5Pm method is twenty times higher than the ones calculated with the HSDA algorithm.

(a)

(b)

The behaviour of the AE around the open-circuit voltage is similar for the ITLBO and the R_cr-IJADE algorithms, Figure 6(b). The AE for the HSDA algorithm has some small variations.

4.1.5. Commercial Monocrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Panel

The statistical tests for commercial mSi photovoltaic panel are presented in Table 7.

The shape of the absolute current error curves is the same in the case of the mSi photovoltaic panel. The highest value for the AE is again in the region of the open-circuit voltage, Figure 7.

The coefficient of determination for all photovoltaic cells and panels is very good, less for the GA algorithm in case of RTC photovoltaic cell and STM6-40 photovoltaic panel.

4.2. Forecast Comparison

Two - characteristics are measured for the commercial monocrystalline photovoltaic panel for the irradiance of 700 W/m² and 983 W/m². The measurements were made on the roof of the university building [3].

The - characteristic measured at 700 W/m² was used to extract the parameters of the mSi photovoltaic panel with three methods HSDA algorithm, GA algorithm, and 5Pm analytical method. These parameters are considered as . The parameters of the mSi photovoltaic panel are calculated for 983 W/m² irradiance, using Equations (7)–(11). These values are used to compare the measured - characteristic for 983 W/m² in real conditions with the ones forecasted with the five parameters calculated with Equations (7)–(11). The temperature coefficient of the current was determined, and it is 15.76 mA/°C.

The root mean square error for the forecasted - characteristic of the mSi photovoltaic panel is presented in Table 8 in comparison with one for the - characteristic measured. The RMSE obtained when the parameters are calculated with Equations (7)–(11) is worse in the case of the HSDA and GA algorithms than the RMSE obtained using the extracted parameters with those algorithms for the measured characteristic. In case of the 5Pm methods, the results are improved.

The absolute current error calculated for the forecast - characteristic in comparison with the ones measured is presented in Figure 8(a). The highest values for AE are in the region of the open-circuit voltage. The behaviour of the curves obtained with parameters calculated with Equations (7)–(11) for HSDA and 5Pm methods is very similar, while the ones obtained with GA algorithms have an accentuated increase in the open-circuit voltage region.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8(b) shows the behaviour of the absolute current error around the maximum voltage, , which is the voltage coordinate for the maximum power point. The best results are obtained for the 5Pm method for all regions considered.

The comparison between maximum power generated, , the mSi panel calculated from real measurements and ones forecasted, , using the extracted parameters with the three methods, Table 9, shows that the best estimation is for the maximum power estimated with parameters extracted with the 5Pm method.

By analyzing the results obtained through comparison between the analytic method and metaheuristic algorithms, it can be concluded that the 5Pm method can be used to extract the parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels. Additionally, the analytical method can be used to estimate the - characteristics and the power generated using the parameters given by the producers. It can be used due to the advantages which are presented in Table 10.

5. Conclusions

The paper briefly reviews the analytical methods and metaheuristic algorithms used to extract the five or seven parameters for the photovoltaic cells and panels. The 5Pm analytical method and ones of the best metaheuristic algorithms from different families are compared for five datasets, two for photovoltaic cells, and three for photovoltaic panels.

By analyzing the results obtained, the supremacy of the metaheuristic algorithms for accuracy is shown. In all cases studied, the algorithms have better results for all statistical tests used. The analytical method has a better performance than the GA algorithm for the RTC photovoltaic cell. The performance of the HSDA algorithm is one of the best for all photovoltaic cells and panels analyzed, and it was chosen to be compared in the forecast process.

Two - characteristics, measured for the commercial mSi photovoltaic panel, are used to compare the influence of the extract parameter methods on the forecast of the maximum power and - characteristic at different values of the irradiance and temperature. Using the parameters calculated with the HSDA algorithm, the forecast of the - characteristic was better than for GA and 5Pm methods. However, the 5Pm method forecasted better the maximum power, only 0.48% less than the real one. These are preliminary results, which will further be developed in future research by analysis for various cases. This analysis will be made on different panels, under various irradiance and illumination conditions.

The 5Pm methods are based on several relations which are easy to implement, for the measured - characteristic, datasets, or the datasheet parameters, the latter offered by the producer, and the parameters can be quickly calculated with very good accuracy. The necessary time to calculate the parameters is very small, and it does not require a powerful PC, as for the metaheuristic algorithms. These prove that the 5Pm method is a valuable candidate for photovoltaic cells and panel manufacturers. They can use the 5Pm method to characterize the photovoltaic devices and to obtain the optimum photovoltaic panels using cells with the same values of the parameters. The production time and the costs can be optimized.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CCCDI-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2019-2028, within PNCDI III.

References

D. T. Cotfas, P. A. Cotfas, and S. Kaplanis, “Methods to determine the dc parameters of solar cells: a critical review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 28, pp. 588–596, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Humada, M. Hojabri, S. Mekhilef, and H. M. Hamada, “Solar cell parameters extraction based on single and double-diode models: a review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 56, pp. 494–509, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Cotfas, A. M. Deaconu, and P. A. Cotfas, “Application of successive discretization algorithm for determining photovoltaic cells parameters,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 196, pp. 545–556, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Sera, R. Teodorescu, and P. Rodriguez, “PV panel model based on datasheet values,” in 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, pp. 2392–2396, Vigo, Spain, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Ram, H. Manghani, D. S. Pillai, T. S. Babu, M. Miyatake, and N. Rajasekar, “Analysis on solar PV emulators: a review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 81, pp. 149–160, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Huang, Y. Liang, X. Sun, C. Xu, and F. Yu, “Analyzing S-Shaped _I_ - _V_ characteristics of solar cells by solving three- diode lumped-parameter equivalent circuit model explicitly,” Energy, vol. 212, p. 118702, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Elkholy and A. A. Abou El-Ela, “Optimal parameters estimation and modelling of photovoltaic modules using analytical method,” Heliyon, vol. 5, no. 7, article e02137, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. Pillai and N. Rajasekar, “Metaheuristic algorithms for PV parameter identification: a comprehensive review with an application to threshold setting for fault detection in PV systems,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 3503–3525, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bai, S. Liu, Y. Hao, Z. Zhang, M. Jiang, and Y. Zhang, “Development of a new compound method to extract the five parameters of PV modules,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 79, pp. 294–79303, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kumar and A. Kumar, “An efficient parameters extraction technique of photovoltaic models for performance assessment,” Solar Energy, vol. 158, pp. 192–206, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Cotfas, P. A. Cotfas, and O. M. Machidon, “Study of temperature coefficients for parameters of photovoltaic cells,” Tech. Rep., International Journal of Photoenergy, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Van Zeghbroeck, Principles of Semiconductor Devices and Heterojunctions, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1st edition, 2008.
M. Wolf and H. Rauschenbach, “Series resistance effects on solar cell measurements,” Advanced Energy Conversion, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 455–479, 1963.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Virtuani, E. Lotter, and M. Powalla, “Performance of Cu(In,Ga)Se₂ solar cells under low irradiance,” Thin Solid Films, vol. 431-432, pp. 443–447, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Nesmachnow, “An overview of metaheuristics: accurate and efficient methods for optimisation,” International J. Metaheuristics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 320–347, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. S. H. Chan, J. R. Phillips, and J. C. H. Phang, “A comparative study of extraction methods for solar cell model parameters,” Solid-State Electronics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 329–337, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Tivanov, A. Patryn, N. Drozdov, A. Fedotov, and A. Mazanik, “Determination of solar cell parameters from its current-voltage and spectral characteristics,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 87, no. 1-4, pp. 457–465, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ortiz-Conde, F. J. G. Sánchez, and J. Muci, “New method to extract the model parameters of solar cells from the explicit analytic solutions of their illuminated _I -V_ characteristics,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 352–361, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. L. Garrido-Alzar, “Algorithm for extraction of solar cell parameters from I-V curve using double exponential model,” Renewable Energy, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 125–128, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Arcipiani, “Generalization of the area method for the determination of the parameters of a non-ideal solar cell,” Revue de Physique Appliquée, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 269–272, 1985.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. L. Araujo and E. Sanchez, “A new method for experimental determination of the series resistance of a solar cell,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1511–1513, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kaminski, J. J. Marchand, A. Fave, and A. Laugier, “New method of parameters extraction from dark I–V curve,” in Conference Record of the Twenty Sixth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1997, pp. 203–206, Anaheim, CA, USA, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. N. Ulapane, C. H. Dhanapala, S. M. Wickramasinghe, S. G. Abeyratne, N. Rathnayake, and P. J. Binduhewa, “Extraction of parameters for simulating photovoltaic panels,” in 2011 6th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, pp. 539–544, Kandy, Sri Lanka, 2011, IEEE.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Ghani and M. Duke, “Numerical determination of parasitic resistances of a solar cell using the Lambert W-function,” Solar Energy, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 2386–2394, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Mares, M. Paulescu, and V. Badescu, “A simple but accurate procedure for solving the five-parameter model,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 105, pp. 139–148, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Ndegwa, J. Simiyu, E. Ayieta, and N. Odero, “A Fast and accurate analytical method for parameter determination of a photovoltaic system based on manufacturer’s data,” Journal of Renewable Energy, vol. 2020, 7580218 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi, “Photovoltaic panel parameters determination using two numerical methods,” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 45, pp. 7377–7382, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Lo Brano and G. Ciulla, “An efficient analytical approach for obtaining a five parameters model of photovoltaic modules using only reference data,” Applied Energy, vol. 111, pp. 894–903, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Orioli and A. Di Gangi, “A criterion for rating the usability and accuracy of the one-diode models for photovoltaic modules,” Energies, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 427, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Humada, S. Y. Darweesh, K. G. Mohammed et al., “Modeling of PV system and parameter extraction based on experimental data: review and investigation,” Solar Energy, vol. 199, pp. 742–760, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Jervase, H. Bourdoucen, and A. Al-Lawati, “Solar cell parameter extraction using genetic algorithms,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1922–1925, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zagrouba, A. Sellami, M. Bouaicha, and M. Ksouri, “Identification of PV solar cells and modules parameters using the genetic algorithms: application to maximum power extraction,” Solar Energy, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 860–866, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Cotfas, P. A. Cotfas, and A. Cataron, “Using the genetic algorithm to determine the parameters of photovoltaic cells and panels,” in 2018 International Symposium on Electronics and Telecommunications (ISETC), pp. 1–4, Timisoara, Romania, November 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Lingyun, S. Lefei, H. Wei, and J. Cong, “Solar cells parameter extraction using a hybrid genetic algorithm,” in 2011 Third International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, pp. 306–309, Shanghai, China, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Yang, W. Gong, and L. Wang, “Comparative study on parameter extraction of photovoltaic models via differential evolution,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 201, p. 112113, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Gong and Z. Cai, “Parameter extraction of solar cell models using repaired adaptive differential evolution,” Solar Energy, vol. 94, pp. 209–220, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, S. Mekhilef, and A. Shamsudin, “Parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic modules using penalty-based differential evolution,” Applied Energy, vol. 99, pp. 297–308, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. H. Muhsen, A. B. Ghazali, T. Khatib, and I. A. Abed, “Parameters extraction of double diode photovoltaic module's model based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 105, pp. 552–561, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Wei, J. Cong, X. Lingyun, and S. Deyun, “Extracting solar cell model parameters based on chaos particle swarm algorithm,” in 2011 International Conference on Electric Information and Control Engineering, pp. 398–402, Wuhan, China, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Khanna, B. K. Das, D. Bisht, Vandana, and P. K. Singh, “A three diode model for industrial solar cells and estimation of solar cell parameters using PSO algorithm,” Renewable Energy, vol. 78, pp. 105–113, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. F. A. Hamid, N. A. Rahim, and J. Selvaraj, “Solar cell parameters identification using hybrid Nelder-Mead and modified particle swarm optimization,” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yousri, S. B. Thanikanti, D. Allam, V. K. Ramachandaramurthy, and M. Eteiba, “Fractional chaotic ensemble particle swarm optimizer for identifying the single, double, and three diode photovoltaic models' parameters,” Energy, vol. 195, p. 116979, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Yousri, D. Allam, M. Eteiba, and P. N. Suganthan, “Static and dynamic photovoltaic models' parameters identification using Chaotic Heterogeneous Comprehensive Learning Particle Swarm Optimizer variants,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 182, pp. 546–563, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. T. Cotfas, A. M. Deaconu, and P. A. Cotfas, “Hybrid successive discretisation algorithm used to calculate parameters of the photovoltaic cells and panels for existing datasets,” IET Renewable Power Generation, pp. 1–27, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Deaconu, D. T. Cotfas, and P. A. Cotfas, “Calculation of seven photovoltaic cells parameters using parallelized successive discretization algorithm,” International Journal of Photoenergy, vol. 2020, Article ID 6669579, 13 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Oliva, E. Cuevas, and G. Pajares, “Parameter identification of solar cells using artificial bee colony optimization,” Energy, vol. 72, pp. 93–102, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Chen, L. Wu, P. Lin, Y. Wu, and S. Cheng, “Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using hybrid adaptive Nelder- Mead simplex algorithm based on eagle strategy,” Applied Energy, vol. 182, pp. 47–57, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Gao, Y. Cui, J. Hu et al., “Parameter extraction of solar cell models using improved shuffled complex evolution algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 157, pp. 460–479, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Chen, Z. Chen, L. Wu, C. Long, P. Lin, and S. Cheng, “Parameter extraction of PV models using an enhanced shuffled complex evolution algorithm improved by opposition-based learning,” Energy Procedia, vol. 158, pp. 991–997, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Dkhichi, B. Oukarfi, A. Fakkar, and N. Belbounaguia, “Parameter identification of solar cell model using Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm combined with simulated annealing,” Solar Energy, vol. 110, pp. 781–788, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Alam, D. A. Yousri, and M. B. Eteiba, “Flower pollination algorithm based solar PV parameter estimation,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 101, pp. 410–422, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Ram, T. S. Babu, T. Dragicevic, and N. Rajasekar, “A new hybrid bee pollinator flower pollination algorithm for solar PV parameter estimation,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 135, pp. 463–476, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Askarzadeh and A. Rezazadeh, “Parameter identification for solar cell models using harmony search-based algorithms,” Solar Energy, vol. 86, no. 11, pp. 3241–3249, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. F. AlHajri, K. M. el-Naggar, M. R. AlRashidi, and A. K. al-Othman, “Optimal extraction of solar cell parameters using pattern search,” Renewable Energy, vol. 44, pp. 238–245, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yu, J. Liang, B. Qu, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using an improved JAYA optimization algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 150, pp. 742–753, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yu, B. Qu, C. Yue, S. Ge, X. Chen, and J. Liang, “A performance-guided JAYA algorithm for parameters identification of photovoltaic cell and module,” Applied Energy, vol. 237, pp. 241–257, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhang, M. Ma, and Z. Jin, “Comprehensive learning Jaya algorithm for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models,” Energy, vol. 211, p. 118644, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Patel, A. K. Panchal, and V. Kheraj, “Extraction of solar cell parameters from a single current-voltage characteristic using teaching learning based optimization algorithm,” Applied Energy, vol. 119, pp. 384–393, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Li, W. Gong, X. Yan et al., “Parameter extraction of photovoltaic models using an improved teaching- learning-based optimization,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 186, pp. 293–305, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. S. Elazab, H. M. Hasanien, M. A. Elgendy, and A. M. Abdeen, “Parameters estimation of single- and multiple-diode photovoltaic model using whale optimisation algorithm,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 12, no. 15, pp. 1755–1761, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Xiong, J. Zhang, D. Shi, and Y. He, “Parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models using an improved whale optimization algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 174, pp. 388–405, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yu, J. Liang, B. Qu, Z. Cheng, and H. Wang, “Multiple learning backtracking search algorithm for estimating parameters of photovoltaic models,” Applied Energy, vol. 226, pp. 408–422, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhang, Z. Jin, X. Zhao, and Q. Yang, “Backtracking search algorithm with Levy flight for estimating parameters of photovoltaic models,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 208, p. 112615, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. el-Naggar, M. R. AlRashidi, M. F. AlHajri, and A. K. al-Othman, “Simulated annealing algorithm for photovoltaic parameters identification,” Solar Energy, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 266–274, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Li, W. Gong, and Q. Gu, “A comprehensive survey on meta-heuristic algorithms for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 141, p. 110828, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Daniel T. Cotfas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

656

Downloads

694

Citations