An Improved Differential Evolution for Parameter Identification of Photovoltaic Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review

An improved differential evolution for parameter identification of photovoltaic models

 

 

This research provides the application of an improved differential evolution algorithm, which integrates a collaboration mechanism of dual mutation strategies and an orientation guidance mechanism, called DODE for solving parameter identification of photovoltaic models. The paper is interesting but some improvements are required as follows:

1.     A comparison of the compared algorithms should be extended for including the number of solutions per iteration, number of iterations, number of function evaluations and computational speed.

2.     It is found that some mathematical notations and parameter definitions are missing. Please re-check all the equations and re-define the mission information.

3.     The introduction section should discuss more relevant research studies in the topic of equivalent circuit modeling of PV modules. Some examples that can help you are: growth optimizer for parameter identification of solar photovoltaic cells and modules‏; an innovative hunter-prey-based optimization for electrically based single-, double-, and triple-diode models of solar photovoltaic systems‏; representations of solar photovoltaic triple-diode models using artificial hummingbird optimizer‏; electrical parameters extraction of pv modules using artificial hummingbird optimizer‏; estimation of electrical parameters of photovoltaic panels using heap‐based algorithm‏.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your valuable comments, and we sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript amidst your busy schedule.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript entitled as “An improved differential evolution for parameter identification of photovoltaic models” is a good research work. The manuscript is written in proper manner. However, there are following some suggestions that must be included to increase the quality.

Please add some quantitative results in the Abstract and Conclusion section to emphasize your contribution.

It is mandatory add an appendix with the measures of current and voltage of each cell and panel used for the experiments of this paper.

Discuss about the shortcomings of your work.

The presentation of the introduction and literature review should be improved. Please highlight the research gaps of this topic. I suggest the authors can explain the research gaps using bullet points. This suits broader audiences.

Comparisons with the results available in the literature should be made.

The calculation time of the proposed method should also be compared and discussed.

There is no discussion of the reasons behind the good results or why the behaviors of the algorithms are different in some instances. From my point of view, it is very important to understand what makes an algorithm work better or worse for each kind of problem. Please, include some discussion of the reasons for the good results.

Performances of the studied test cases under varied sun irradiance and temperature variations are missed.

The conclusion should be written in a professional way and mention the main points achieved in the paper.

The authors had better use the newer references in the introduction. they need to write about the application of the model in previous studies. It is suggested that the authors also use all of the following references to enrich this section.

        “An Effective Method for Parameter Estimation of Solar PV Cell Using Grey-            Wolf Optimization Technique”

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722008587

              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-37824-4

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360835222007070

          https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-7571-6_8

 

Minor changes are required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your valuable comments, and we sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript amidst your busy schedule.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is well-written and is in the scope of the journal, however, minor modifications are required. My comments are as follows: 

1. Improve the employed digits of the provided data (especially results). In its current form, it seems a bit confusing.

2. Provide references for all of the provided formulations.

3. Elaborate on the results clearly to asses the obtained outcomes from professional points of view.

4. Enrich your literature with the most up-to-date and related works.

5. Improve the quality of the English of your manuscript

Can be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your valuable comments, and we sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript amidst your busy schedule.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper presents an improved differential evolution algorithm, which integrates a collaboration mechanism of dual mutation strategies and an orientation guidance mechanism. However, some descriptions are not clear. Some revisions are necessary in the manuscript.

1. Please make sure all parameters and abbreviations are correctly defined.

2. Please further elaborate the significance and innovation of the work done in this paper.

3. Some parameters in the article are given specific values. Please explain whether these parameters are constant or variable.

4. Please further explain the improvement and innovation of the algorithm in this paper.

5. In the paper, authors have focused on a feasible method for simulating, optimizing, and controlling corresponding PV models. The comparison of different optimization methods needs to be analyzed to indicate advantages of your work, which can refer to：

[a] IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 835-846, 2022

[b] IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2023, DOI: 10.1109/TII.2023.3241682

[c] CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 66-76, January 2023

[d] IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 3334-3342, Sept. 2020

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your valuable comments, and we sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript amidst your busy schedule.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

In the paper, parameter identification of photovoltaic models was realized with improved differential evaluation. The improvement realized for DE is remarkable. The article will be more remarkable when the following corrections are made. 

1. Please try to redraft the Introduction section, with background, challenges, literature review, scopes, motivation, contributions, and organization of paper. Highlight the novelties/major contribution of the work prior to organization of paper in brief. 

2. Indicate the reasons for choosing the DE algorithm developed in the study. 

3. Please try to emphasize more on the problem statement. 

4. In table 5, a number went down in the Rsh column. This issue should be fixed with Font size.

None

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks very much for your valuable comments, and we sincerely appreciate the time you took to review our manuscript amidst your busy schedule.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments are handled. It can be accepted

No comments

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully included all the suggested changes in the updated manuscript. The updated manuscript can be considered for the publication in sustainability journal. 

The authors have successfully included all the suggested changes in the updated manuscript. The updated manuscript can be considered for the publication in sustainability journal.