Next Article in Journal
Family of Distributions Derived from Whittaker Function
Previous Article in Journal
An Online Semi-Definite Programming with a Generalized Log-Determinant Regularizer and Its Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Estimation of Parameters of Different Equivalent Circuit Models of Solar Cells and Various Photovoltaic Modules Using Hybrid Variants of Honey Badger Algorithm and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer

1
Center of Research Excellence in Renewable Energy and Power Systems, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
3
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Montenegro, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
4
Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Wadi Addawaser 11991, Saudi Arabia
5
Electrical Engineering Department, Aswan Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan 81542, Egypt
6
Power Electronics and Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
7
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh 25732, Saudi Arabia
8
Department of Electrical Engineering, Valley High Institute of Engineering and Technology, Science Valley Academy, Qalyubia 44971, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2022, 10(7), 1057; https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071057
Submission received: 24 January 2022 / Revised: 20 February 2022 / Accepted: 22 March 2022 / Published: 25 March 2022

Abstract

:
Parameters of the solar cell equivalent circuit models have a significant role in assessing the solar cells’ performance and tracking operational variations. In this regard, estimating solar cell parameters is a difficult task because cells have nonlinear current-voltage characteristics. Thus, a fast and accurate optimization algorithm is usually required to solve this engineering problem effectively. This paper proposes two hybrid variants of honey badger algorithm (HBA) and artificial gorilla troops optimizer (GTO) to estimate solar cell parameters. The proposed algorithms minimize the root mean square error (RMSE) between measurement and simulation results. In the first variant, GTO is used to determine the initial population of HBA, while in the second variant, HBA is used to determine the initial population of GTO. These variants can efficiently improve convergence characteristics. The proposed optimization algorithms are applied for parameter estimation of different equivalent circuit models of solar cells and various photovoltaic (PV) modules. Namely, the proposed algorithms test three solar cell equivalent models: single-diode, double-diode, and triple-diode equivalent circuit models. Different photovoltaic modules are investigated, such as the RadioTechnique Compelec (RTC) France solar cell, Solarex’s Multicrystalline 60 watts solar module (MSX 60), and the Photowatt, France solar panel (Photo-watt PWP 201). In addition, the applicability of the proposed optimization algorithms is verified using obtained results from a commercial solar module called Shell Monocrystalline PV module (SM55) with different irradiation and temperature levels. The good results of the proposed algorithms show that they can efficiently improve convergence speed and the accuracy of the obtained results than other algorithms used for parameter estimation of PV equivalent circuit models in the literature, particularly in terms of the values of the RMSE and statistical tests. In addition, the parameters estimated by the proposed methods fit the simulation data perfectly at different irradiance and temperature levels for the commercial PV module.

1. Introduction

The transmission and distribution systems in modern power systems represent vital links in the power supply chain. Unlike a transmission system that consists of a small number of significant components, a distribution system includes a large number of small elements, which increases the complexity of the supervision and control of this system. With the growing dependence of society and economy on electricity, the transmission and the distribution systems need to ensure an acceptable level of reliability, quality, and security of electricity supply in the most economically efficient way. The power system is going through a dynamic transition. Reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions requires reliance on renewable energy sources (RESs) to drastically reduce or even eliminate the use of coal in energy production. These days, power systems involve an increasing number of components that rely on power-electronic elements, such as energy storage systems, reactive energy compensation systems, electric vehicles, etc. These additional components are essential for regulating power, losses, and voltage deviations [1].
RESs such as solar and wind energy resources mainly depend on geographic location, air temperature, and climate-related factors such as time of day, season, wind speed, level of direct sunlight, pressure gradient, and others [2,3]. The use of RESs in transmission and distribution systems is increasing worldwide, further complicating power systems operation because RESs are characterized by an intermittent and unpredictable nature, which significantly complicates the management of these systems [4,5].
In European electricity markets, fuel prices represent a large share of the electricity prices. Although RESs can provide flexibility in the market, frequently, renewable electricity may not be consumed in the domestic market due to insufficient national network capacity. Consequently, electricity flows are pushed to grids of neighboring countries, resulting in recurring and severe congestion problems that also affect continuously-based or discretely-based intraday markets [6,7].
Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States (U.S.), with solar generation (including solar distributed generation) accounting for 3.3% of total U.S. generation in 2020 [8,9]. In this context, many countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, provide incentives for the use of solar PV systems to enable a powerhouse for growth in renewable electricity. However, the proper and efficient use of solar PV requires voltage and current regulation systems to maintain power at the maximum power point (MPP). Because of this, modeling, analysis and testing of current-voltage characteristics of solar cells are essential, and this is confirmed by many publications that deal with modeling and estimating the parameters of equivalent circuit models of solar cells.
Three equivalent circuit models of solar cells, which differ in the number of diodes, are commonly used in the literature. The simplest and most widely used solar model is the single-diode model (SDM) [3,10]. It is a model represented by a single current source (representing the photo-current), a diode connected in parallel to the current source, a parallel-connected resistor, and a series-connected resistor. As the diode is modeled with two unknown parameters, this model is described with five unknown parameters [11]. To increase the model’s accuracy, a parallel-connected diode is added in the double-diode model (DDM), and two parallel-connected diodes are added in the triple-diode model (TDM). Thus, the two-diode model is described with seven unknown parameters, and the three-diode model is described with nine unknown parameters. These models’ accuracy is higher than the accuracy of SDMs [12].
Determining the unknown parameters of solar cells is a challenging scientific problem. Today, many approaches, algorithms, and methods can estimate parameters of different equivalent circuit models of solar cells and PV modules. Solar panel manufacturers generally provide nominal irradiance and temperature data associated with values of open-circuit voltage, short-circuit current, and current at maximum power. The parameter estimation of equivalent circuit models of solar cells can be performed based on manufacturer’s data [3]. However, the manufacturer’s data do not provide sufficient information for complete and accurate modeling of solar cells, mainly due to unsung resistors data. Thus, it is necessary to use analytical, numerical or metaheuristic-based methods to estimate unknown parameters of solar cells equivalent circuit models using measured voltage-current data. Unfortunately, these methods require solving transcendental nonlinear equations.
Numerical methods such as Newton and Levenberg–Marquardt-based methods can be used for parameter estimation. However, these methods depend on the initial values of the parameters, require many iterations to obtain an acceptable solution, and do not usually converge towards a global solution [10]. These are the main reasons for the application of metaheuristic methods to estimate parameters of equivalent circuit models of solar cells.
Nowadays, many algorithms are used to estimate parameters of equivalent circuit models of solar cells. These algorithms can be divided into several groups based on their inspiration processes or implemented methods; for instance, a group of bio-inspired algorithms (BIA) that are inspired by biological processes in nature and includes genetic algorithms based on non-uniform mutation (GAMNU) [13], bee pollinator flower pollination algorithm (BPFPA) [14], memetic adaptive differential evolution (MADE) [15], and improved shuffled complex evolution (ISCE) [16]. Additionally, a group of socially-oriented algorithms that are inspired by describing the behavior of people and children under specific situations have emerged. A group of socially-oriented algorithms inspired by teaching–learning behaviour of people and children has also emerged. This group includes the gaining–sharing knowledge-based algorithm (GSK) [17], teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO) and improved TLBO (ITLBO) [18], and teaching–learning-based artificial bee colony (TLABC) [19]. Another group includes algorithms that rely on natural physical processes, such as water movement, earth movement, and others, such as the wind-driven optimization (WDO) algorithm [20]. A group of algorithms inspired by the behavior and lifestyle of animals and birds has also developed. This group includes the Whippy Harris hawks optimization algorithm (WHHO) [21], cat swarm optimization (CSO) [22], modified particle swarm optimization (MPSO) [23], artificial bee colony (ABC) [24] and marine-predators algorithm (MPA) [25] algorithms. Besides, as many processes have a chaotic nature, many chaotic algorithms are often developed by adding chaotic variations to some algorithms, such as the chaotic optimization approach (COA) [26], chaotic successful history-based adaptive differential evolution variants with linear population size reduction algorithm (CLSHADE) [12], and chaotic gradient-based optimization (CGBO) with chaotic drifts [27]. Finally, a group of algorithms relies on hybridizing two or more algorithms to enhance their performance in finding global solutions [28,29]. The main advantage of the hybrid algorithms is their better proximity to global solutions than standard algorithms. Moreover, these algorithms require a small number of iterations to get the optimal solution. Moreover, hybridization of algorithms uses exploration and exploitation features of each algorithm, which significantly improves the quality of solutions that can be obtained.
The subject of research in this paper is two-fold. The first goal is to propose a new hybrid metaheuristic algorithm for efficiently estimating parameters of different equivalent circuit models of solar cells and PV modules. In this regard, two hybridization variants that rely on the honey badger algorithm (HBO) [30] and the artificial gorilla troops optimizer (GTO) [31] are proposed. The second goal is to estimate the accuracy of parameters of SDM, DDM, and TDM of well-known solar cells and modules presented in the literature to compare the obtained results with numerous results in the literature.
The main advantages of this research are outlined as follows:
  • A new metaheuristic algorithm for estimating parameters of equivalent circuit models of solar cells and PV modules has been proposed.
  • Two types of hybridization of algorithms used have been proposed.
  • Statistical analysis of the results of these algorithms is examined.
  • Performance of the proposed algorithms is compared with several well-known algorithms used in parameter estimation problems.
  • The three equivalent circuit models of solar cells are addressed and investigated.
  • The applicability and efficiency of the proposed methods are tested on commercial PV modules for different levels of temperature and irradiance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a short review of the solar cell models is introduced. The description of the novel hybrid algorithm is presented in Section 3. Numerical results are shown in Section 4. In Section 5, the efficiency of the proposed algorithms for a commercial photovoltaic model, known as monocrystalline SM55 (SM55), is verified, whose current-voltage curves measured for different levels of irradiance and temperature were obtained from the manufacturer’s datasheet. The main contributions of this work and future work directions are given in Section 6.

2. Solar Cell Equivalent Circuits

The simplest equivalent circuit of a solar PV cell consists of an ideal current source (Ipv) and a parallel-connected diode (D) [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The current of the ideal current source is directly proportional to the light flux to which the solar cell is exposed. The construction of the solar cell itself is a p-n junction. However, if one wants to consider the losses of solar cells, in that case, the previous model is supplemented with two resistances, one resistance is connected in parallel to the diode (RP), and the other resistance is connected in series (RS) with the diode. The equivalent circuit represents a five-parameter single-diode model (SDM) of a solar cell, shown in Figure 1a. This model is the most widely recognized model of solar cells. Its mathematical relation for current and voltage has the following form [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]:
I = I p v I 01 ( e x p ( U + I R S n 1 V t h 1 ) U + I R S R P )
where I01 denotes the reverse saturation current, n1 represents the ideality factor, and Vth is the thermal voltage, and it equals KBT/q, in which KB is Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature in Kelvin, and q is the electron charge.
The analytical solution of current as a function of voltage for SDM of solar cells is given as follows [11]:
I = R P ( I p v + I 0 ) U R S + R P n 1 V t h R S · W ( I 01 R P R S n 1 V t h ( R S + R P ) e x p ( R P ( R S I p v + R S I 01 + U ) n 1 V t h ( R S + R P ) ) )
In addition, the analytical solution of voltage as a function of current is given in (3).
U = ( I p v + I 01 ) R P I ( R S + R P ) n 1 V t h W ( I 01 R P n 1 V t h e x p ( R P ( I p v + I 01 I ) n 1 V t h ) )
In the five-parameter SDM, current and voltage can be expressed in terms of the Lambert W function, where W denotes the solution of the Lambert equation. In mathematics, the Lambert W function is a set of multivalued functions that are formulated as x = ϑ exp(−x), where its solution can be expressed in the form x = W(ϑ) [11,12]. Lambert W function can be solved using iterative-based methods or analytically using Taylor series or special trans function theory [57]. It should be mentioned that many mathematical programs such as Matlab, Mathematica and Maple have embedded solvers that can solve Lambert W functions.
An additional diode is added in DDM, and two other diodes are added in TDM. Therefore, the DDM is characterized by seven unknown parameters, while the TDM is characterized by nine unknown parameters. These models’ accuracy is higher than the accuracy of SDM [11,12]. The seven-parameter DDM and nine-parameter TDM of PV equivalent circuits are shown in Figure 1b,c, respectively.
The mathematical expressions of current and voltage for DDM and TDM have the forms given in (4) and (5), respectively. In these equations, I02 and I03 denote the reverse saturation currents of the second and third diodes, while n2 and n3 represent the second and third solar cells’ ideality factors, respectively.
I = I p v I 01 ( e U + I R S n 1 × V t h 1 ) I 02 ( e U + I R S n 2 × V t h 1 ) U + I R S R P
I = I p v I 01 ( e U + I R S n 1 × V t h 1 ) I 02 ( e U + I R S n 2 × V t h 1 ) I 03 ( e U + I R S n 3 × V t h 1 ) U + I R S R P
Equations (4) and (5) are transcendental equations that cannot be solved analytically [11,12] because of the high nonlinearity of the current expressions of these models. Thus, an iterative procedure is needed to solve them. In [12], expressions of current as a function of voltage are given for DDM and TDM, respectively, as follows:
I = R p R p + R s ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 U R P n 1 V t h R s ( 1 + R s R p ) Ψ )
I = R p R p + R s ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 + I 03 U R P n 1 V t h R s ( 1 + R s R p ) Ψ )
where the variable Ψ represents the solution of the transcendent equations of DDM (Equation (8)) and TDM (Equation (9)). The constants   α T D M , α D D M , β T D M , β D D M , δ T D M , δ D D M , γ T D M , and σ T D M rely on the parameters of the PV equivalent circuit models. The expressions describing these constants are given in the Appendix A at the end of the paper. Besides, readers can refer to [12] for detailed derivations of solutions of (6) and (7).
α D D M + β D D M · e x p ( Ψ · δ D D M ) = Ψ · e x p ( Ψ )
α T D M + β T D M · e x p ( Ψ · δ T D M ) + γ T D M · e x p ( Ψ · σ T D M ) = Ψ · e x p ( Ψ )

3. Proposed Hybrid Algorithms

Metaheuristic algorithms are among the most popular techniques for solving engineering optimization problems because of their effectiveness and ability to converge to global/semi-global solutions. Generally, metaheuristic algorithms have sets of potential solutions to the optimization problem. Each solution is iteratively updated following a specific procedure based on the nature of the algorithm. However, these algorithms are characterized by their stochastic nature because the population of solutions in the first iteration are randomly initialized between specific limits [5,58,59]. In this regard, the starting initial point has a significant impact on the convergence speed of the algorithm. To overcome this disadvantage, two new metaheuristic algorithms are proposed in this work. The algorithms proposed in this paper rely on the hybridization of two recently developed metaheuristic algorithms (honey badger algorithm (HBA) [30] and artificial gorilla troops optimizer (GTO) [60]). The first proposed algorithm is called GTO-HBA, and it used HBA to be the main algorithm whose initial population is determined using the GTO algorithm. The second proposed algorithm is called HBA-GTO, and it uses HBA to initialize the population of the GTO algorithm, instead of the random initialization. Therefore, the best possible starting point, i.e., population in the first iteration, would be obtained because the proposed algorithms depend on executing the algorithms one after another while benefiting from the exploration and exploitation capabilities of each algorithm. Further, the obtained population is sorted based on the value of the fitness function of each individual. The best individual that has the minimum fitness function value is chosen.
HBA imitates honey badger’s behaviour when locating food sources. Mathematically, each badger in the population is represented by its position xi = [xi1, xi2, …, xiD], where D denotes the number of variables, and i = 1, 2, 3,..., N, and N stands for population size. The main equations repeated in HBA are the digging and honey phases. These equations are employed to update the positions of honey badgers.
The digging phase is expressed as follows:
x n e w = x p r e y + F β I x p r e y + F r 3 α d i | c o s ( 2 π r 4 ) [ 1 c o s ( 2 π r 5 ) ] |
where xnew denotes the updated position of the honey badger, xprey is the best badger obtained so far, β denotes the ability of the honey badger to get food (selected to be 6 in this work), and r3, r4, and r5 are random numbers between 0 and 1. The smell intensity of the prey Ii, source strength S, distance between the prey and ith badger di, density factor α, and flag F, are expressed as follows:
I i = r 2 ( S 4 π d i 2 )
S = ( x i x i + 1 ) 2
d i = x p r e y x i
α = e x p ( t t m a x   )
F = { 1 ,         i f   r 6 0.5   1 ,                             e l s e  
where t stands for the current iteration, tmax is the maximum number of iterations, and r2 and r6 are random numbers with the range [0, 1].
The honey phase occurs when the honey badger follows the honey guide bird, and it is represented by (16).
x n e w = x p r e y + F r 1 α d i
where r1 denotes a random number with the range [0, 1].
Finally, the position of the honey badger (individual) with the lowest fitness function value represents the final solution obtained by HBA.
GTO algorithm is inspired by behavior of gorillas. Like HBA, each gorilla in the population represents the potential solution to the optimization problem.
In each iteration, the exploration phase comes first and is represented by (17):
X ( t + 1 ) = { ( U B L B ) y 1 + L B ,                                                                                                                                   r a n d < p ( y 2 C ) X r ( t ) + L H ,                                                                                                                           r a n d 0.5 X ( i ) L ( L ( X ( t ) G X r ( t ) ) + y 3 ( X ( t ) G X r ( t ) ) ) ,     r a n d < 0.5
GX(t + 1) and X(t) represent the vectors of gorilla positions in the current and next iterations, respectively. The parameter p explores the probability of choosing an exploration strategy to an unidentified position and must be in the range [0, 1], while rand, y1, y2, and y3 are random numbers range between 0 and 1. The parameters Xr(t) and GXr(t) stand for randomly chosen gorillas from populations X and GX, respectively. The variables C, L, and H, can be calculated as follows:
C = F ( 1 t t m a x )
F = cos ( 2 y 4 ) + 1
L = C · l
H = Z X ( t )
where y4 is a random number with the range [0, 1], l is a random number with the range [−1, 1], while Z is a random number with the range [−C, C]. At the end of exploration, the fitness function of all GX solutions is calculated. If the cost of GX(t) < X(t), then the GX(t) gorilla will replace X(t) solution. The best solution is the gorilla whose fitness function value has the lowest value (Silverback). Further, the exploitation phase comes after the exploration phase. It is mainly controlled by the parameter W that needs to be set at the beginning of the procedure. Depending on the value of C, vector GX(t + 1) is calculated according to the following relations:
G X ( t + 1 ) = { L M ( X ( t ) X s i v e r b a c k ) + X ( t ) ,                         i f   C W X s i l v e r b a c k ( X s i l v e r b a c k Q X ( t ) Q ) A ,     i f   C < W
where the variable M can be calculated as follows in terms of population size (N), and g, which equals 2L.
M = ( | 1 N i = 1 N G X i ( t ) | g ) 1 g
In addition, Q simulates the impact force, and A represents the degree of violence in case of conflicts, and are expressed using the following equations:
Q = 2 y 5 1
A = β · E
E = { N 1 ,         r a n d 0.5   N 2 ,           r a n d < 0.5
where rand and y5 denote random numbers with the range [0, 1], and β, N1, and N2 are coefficients that are specified before starting the optimization process. Similar to the exploration phase, the fitness function for each gorilla from GX population must be calculated after the exploitation phase. If the cost of GX(t) is lower than the cost of X(t), the GX(t) solution replaces the X(t) solution, and it becomes the best solution (Silverback). The pseudo-codes of the GTO-HBA Algorithm 1 (Proposed 1) and HBA-GTO Algorithm 2 (Proposed 2), which enable a detailed view of their procedure, are presented in Algorithms 1 and 2, respectively.
Algorithm 1: Complete pseudo-code of the artificial gorilla troops optimizer-honey badger algorithm (GTO-HBA) (Proposed 1).
1: Set parameters N, C, β, and tmax
2: Initialize the population using the GTO algorithm [60]:
{ 1 :   Set   parameters   N , N 1 , N 2 , p , β ,   and   t m a x 2 :   Randomly   initialize   the   population 3 :   Evaluate   the   fitness   of   each   gorilla 4 : for   t = 1   to   t max 5 :   Update   L   and   C 6 :   Conduct   the   exploration   phase   and   calculate   population   G X ( t ) 7 :   Evaluate   the   fitness   of   each   gorilla   and   update   the   population   X ( t ) 8 :   Determine   the   best   gorilla       S i l v e r b a c k                   9 : endfor 10 :   Return   the   final   population
3: Evaluate the fitness of each badger xi and assign it to fi
4: Save the best position xprey and assign it to fprey
5: for t = 1 to tmax
6:   Update factor α
7:   for i = 1 to N
8:         Calculate intensity Ii
9:         if r < 0.5
10:          Update the positions according to the digging phase
11:         else
12:          Update the positions according to the honey phase
13:        endif
14:        Evaluate new positions and assign them to fnew
15:        if fnewfi
16:        set xi = xnew and fi = fnew
17:        endif
18:        if fnewfprey
19:        set xprey = xnew and fprey = fnew
20:        endif
21:   end for
22: end for
23: Return xprey—the optimal solution
Algorithm 2: Complete pseudo-code of the honey badger algorithm and artificial gorilla troops optimizer (HBA-GTO) (Proposed 2).
1: Set parameters N, N1, N2, p, β, and tmax
2: Initialize the population of gorillas using HBA [30]:
{ 1 : Set   parameters   N , C , β ,   a n d   t m a x 2 :   Initialize   the   population   randomly 3 :   Evaluate   the   fitness   of   each   badger   x i   and   assign   it   to   f i 4 :   Save   the   best   position   x p r e y and   assign   it   to   f p r e y 5 : for   t = 1   t o   t m a x 6 :   Update   factor   α 7 :   for   i = 1   t o   N 8 :                   Calculate   intensity   I i 9 :               if   r < 0.5 10 :                   Update   the   positions   according   to   the   digging   phase 11 :               else 12 :                   Update   the   positions   according   to   the   honey   phase 13 :               endif 14 :               Evaluate   new   positions   and   assign   them   to   f n e w 15 :               if   f n e w f i 16 :               s e t   x i = x n e w a n d   f i = f n e w 17 :               endif 18 :               if   f n e w f p r e y 19 :               s e t   x p r e y = x n e w   a n d   f p r e y = f n e w 20 :               endif 21 :   endfor 22 : endfor 23 : Return   final   population
3: Evaluate the fitness of each gorilla
4: for t = 1 to tmax
5:      Update L and C
6:      Conduct the exploration phase and calculated population GX(t)
7:      Evaluate the fitness of each gorilla and update the population X(t)
8:      Determine the best gorilla—Silverback
9: end for
10: Return Xsilverback—the optimal solution

4. Numerical Results

The proposed algorithms are applied for estimation of parameters of different equivalent circuit models (SDM, DDM, and TDM) of solar cells and PV modules, such as the RadioTechnique Compelec (RTC) France solar cell, Solarex’s Multicrystalline 60 watts solar module (MSX 60), and the Photowatt, France solar panel (Photo-watt PWP 201). The performance of the proposed algorithms is compared with several published algorithms presented in the literature for the estimation of PV equivalent circuit parameters. The parameters of the equivalent circuit models of solar cells/modules are estimated to minimize the objective function that represents the root mean square error (RMSE), as expressed in Equation (27). We used the best results (parameters values) each author obtained in the cited literature and compared them with the results obtained in this work in terms of RMSE between calculated and measured current-voltage curves. The RMSE calculation (under the focus of this work) is significant to indicate the efficiency of the optimization techniques referred to in reaching the desired solution, especially while studying the same commercially known solar cell. All comparisons are performed under the same environment on a computer with the following hardware settings: AMD A4 CPU 4 × 2.5 GHz, 4 GB RAM, and 1 TB hard drive on Windows 10 operating system.
R M S E = 1 N m k = 1 N m I k meas I k sim 2
where I k m e a s and I k s i m   denote the measured and simulated solar current at point k. Nm denotes the number of measurements.
In addition, the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), formulated in Equations (28) and (29), have been calculated for the results obtained.
M A E = 1 N m k = 1 N m | I k m e a s I k s i m |
M A P E = 100 N m k = 1 N m | I k m e a s I k s i m I k m e a s |
The obtained results are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 for the investigated cells/modules. Table 1 shows the RMSE, MAE and MAPE values calculated using 40 methods to estimate parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the RTC France solar cell. It should be noted that RMSE, MAE and MAPE have been calculated on the basis of the parameters in the papers when they were not presented. Table 2 shows the values of the parameters of the equivalent circuits obtained using these methods for the RTC France solar cell. Similarly, Table 3 shows the RMSE, MAE and MAPE values obtained using 12 different methods to estimate parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the SOLAREX MSX–60 module. Table 4 shows the parameters obtained using these methods. Besides, Table 5 shows the RMSE, MAE and MAPE values obtained using 33 different methods to estimate parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the Photowatt-PWP201 module. Table 6 shows the parameters obtained using these methods.
Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the RMSE values calculated by applying algorithms presented in the literature and the proposed algorithm for the investigated solar cells/modules. What is generally observed from the results presented is the apparent difference in the accuracy of the RMSE calculation. The RMSE values for the data given in the Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 are shown using circle labels for the methods given in the literature. The same figures show the RMSE values using lines for the proposed algorithms. It is clear from the presented figures that the accuracy of calculation of the parameters using the proposed algorithms is better than the accuracy achieved by the previous approaches. For some methods in Table 1, Table 3 and Table 5, the accuracy of SDM results was higher than that of DDM, and this is not consistent with reality or practice. In Equations (2), (4) and (5), we can see the current as a free part as well as in the exponential part. This means that it will not be mathematically accurate to say that the free part of the equations is the calculated current, while the current in the exponential part is the measured current as usually presented in the literature. This is the main difference as it is not mathematically precise to use the measured current if we need to calculate the solar cell current, and this is the major reason for the shortcomings many of the reported works made with the determination of their RMSE calculations. The solutions obtained by solving the Lambert W function have addressed these shortcomings and enabled obtaining better RMSE values.
Besides, the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms is validated compared to the other algorithms presented in the literature based on MAE and MAPE results presented in Table 1, Table 3 and Table 5. However, the best value of RMSE error does not coincide with the best MAE and MAPE values. This means that simultaneously determining the parameters of the equivalent circuit models of solar cells/modules using the three criteria can achieve better results.
The voltage-current and power-voltage characteristics for RTC France solar cell, together with the experimental results carried out in prior authors’ works in [11,12], are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively. Readers can refer to [11,12] for more details about the experimental setup. In this case, these characteristics are visualized for the proposed algorithm, in addition to Whippy Harris hawks optimization (WHOO) [21] and the genetic algorithm based on non-uniform mutation (GAMNU) [13], that investigated the same solar PV cell under the same conditions.
Moreover, the corresponding figures for the Solarex MSX 60 and Photowatt-PWP201 modules are explored in Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10. These characteristics are also compared with related characteristics obtained for results presented in the literature such as the Newton method (NM) [42] and Bézier curves (BC) [41] for the Solarex MSX 60 module, and Gradient-based optimizer (GBO) [27] and modified teaching-learning-based optimization (MTLBO) [46] for the Photowatt-PWP201 module, in addition to experimental results obtained from datasheets and manufacturer data for both modules.
It is clear from the mentioned figures and Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 that the proposed algorithms provide low RMSE values. Additionally, in line with engineering practice, it is clear from the results obtained that the best results in terms of accuracy were obtained with TDM, followed by DDM, then SDM for all studied solar cells/modules.
It can be concluded from the presented current-voltage and power-voltage characteristics in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 that the equivalent PV circuit parameters obtained by the proposed algorithms provide voltage-current and power-voltage curves that are well in line with experimental values from other algorithms studied. This validates superiority of the proposed algorithms over other considered algorithms.
Algorithm tests: A comparison between the proposed algorithms and other algorithms (GTO [60], HBA [30], a recently-developed algorithm called the aquila optimizer (AO) algorithm [59], and the well-known particle swarm optimization (PSO)) [5] is introduced in terms of the convergence speed to demonstrate superiority of the proposed algorithms over other considered algorithms. GTO and HBA were selected because they are the two main algorithms used in the proposed hybrid algorithms. The AO was selected as the representative of the new algorithms introduced in the literature. The PSO algorithm was chosen because of its maturity. The number of runs and iterations is set to 30 and 100, respectively, in all algorithms.
Moreover, parameters of these algorithms, and the lower and upper limits of the decision variables were maintained the same as originally selected by authors of these algorithms in [30,59,60]. The RTC France solar cell was investigated in this test.
The 3D characteristics of fitness function, number of iterations and number of runs for the proposed algorithms and PSO are presented in Figure 11a, Figure 12a and Figure 13a, respectively. The mean fitness function versus number of iterations for the proposed algorithms and PSO is explored in Figure 11b, Figure 12b and Figure 13b, respectively, using the results obtained.
As can be seen, the optimal results obtained from the proposed algorithms are similar. The best solution, which has the minimum fitness function value, is chosen as the optimal solution. It should be explained that the variation of results is due to the randomness of some parameters in the equations that govern the performance of these algorithms.
Further, the best, worst, mean, and median values were calculated to assess the results obtained from the proposed algorithms and other considered algorithms statistically. The results obtained are presented in Table 7 and Table 8 for the Wilcoxon test. The proposed algorithms provide approximately the same results, which means that both algorithms can effectively solve the considered parameters estimation problem.

5. Results Obtained for a Commercial PV Module

The applicability of the proposed algorithm (HBA-GTO) for estimating the five parameters of the SDM of a commercial PV module, known as monocrystalline SM55 (SM55), is presented in this section, based on current-voltage curves taken from the manufacturer’s datasheet with different irradiance and temperature levels that were presented in [63]. The current-voltage characteristic at standard test conditions (1000 W/m2 and 25 °C) were used in this investigation.
The parameters obtained are presented in Table 9. The simulated current-voltage and power-voltage characteristics are presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. After that, using the parameters obtained by optimization, different irradiance (800 W/m2, 600 W/m2, 400 W/m2 and 200 W/m2 at 25 °C) and temperature (40 °C and 50 °C at an irradiance of 1000 W/m2) levels were investigated to assess the accuracy of the obtained solutions, as shown in Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19.
It is clear that the proposed algorithms can be efficiently applied to estimate parameters of equivalent circuits of commercial solar PV modules. The proposed methods fit the simulation data perfectly at different irradiance and temperature levels, and it was not necessary to extract parameters for all combinations of irradiance and temperature, as presented in some works in the literature [49]. Finally, based on the results provided, statistical analysis and comparative analysis with previous works, it can be concluded that the methods proposed can find the parameters of the equivalent circuits (SDM, DDM and TDM) of solar cells/modules efficiently.

6. Conclusions

This paper addressed estimation of parameters of different equivalent circuit models of solar cells and various PV modules using hybrid variants of HBA and artificial GTO algorithms. The proposed algorithms tested three solar cell equivalent models: SDM, DDM, and TDM. Different PV modules are investigated, such as the RTC France solar cell, and the Solarex MSX 60 and Photowatt PWP 201 modules. In addition, the applicability of the proposed optimization algorithms is verified using obtained results from a commercial monocrystalline solar module under different irradiation and temperature conditions.
The RMSE results obtained are compared with other results presented in the literature. Superiority of the proposed algorithms was validated in terms of estimated parameters accuracy, convergence characteristics, and statistical tests. It was clear from the results that the best value of RMSE error does not coincide with the best MAE and MAPE values. This means that simultaneously determining the parameters of the equivalent circuit models of solar cells/modules using the three criteria can achieve better results. Attention will be paid to other combinations of metaheuristic algorithms to estimate the parameters of the equivalent circuit models of solar cells/modules based on RMSE, MAE and MAPE minimization in future works.
Moreover, the parameters estimated by the proposed methods fit the simulation data perfectly at different irradiance and temperature levels for the commercial PV module. Finally, the good results of the proposed hybrid algorithms show that they can efficiently improve convergence speed and accuracy of the results obtained when solving the parameter estimation problem of PV equivalent circuit models compared to the algorithms studied in this work.

Author Contributions

M.C., M.M. and S.H.E.A.A. designed the case under study; performed the simulations, and obtained the results; M.R., A.A., Y.A.-T. and Z.M.A. analyzed the obtained results; M.R., M.C., M.M. and S.H.E.A.A. wrote the paper, which S.M., H.B., H.S. and Z.M.A. reviewed further. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project number (IFPRC-048-135-2020), and King Abdulaziz University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their large size.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, for funding this research work through the project number (IFPRC-048-135-2020), and King Abdulaziz University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ABCArtificial bee colony
ABC-DEArtificial bee colony-differential evolution
ABC-TRRArtificial bee colony-trust-region reflective algorithm
A&IAnalytical- and iterative-based methods
BCBézier curves
BIABio-inspired algorithms
BHCSBiogeography-based heterogeneous cuckoo search
BPFPABee pollinator flower pollination algorithm
CGBOImproved gradient-based optimization algorithm with chaotic drifts
CLSHADEChaotic successful history-based adaptive DE variants with linear population size reduction algorithm
CNMSMA Chaotic Nelder–Mead slime mould algorithm
COAChaotic optimization approach
CPMPSO Classified perturbation mutation-based particle swarm optimization
CSCuckoo search optimization
CSO Cat swarm optimization
DDMDouble-diode model
DEDifferential evolution
DE-WOAHybrid DE with whale optimization algorithm
DSO Drone squadron optimization
EHA–NMSEagle-based hybrid adaptive Nelder–Mead simplex algorithm
EHHOEnhanced Harris hawk optimization
EOEquilibrium optimizer method
GAGenetic algorithm
GAMNUGenetic algorithm based on non-uniform mutation
GBOGradient-based optimizer
GOFPANM Generalized opposition-flower pollination algorithm-Nelder–Mead simplex method
GSKGaining–sharing knowledge-based algorithm
GTOGorilla troops optimizer
HBAHoney badger algorithm
IJAYAImproved JAYA optimization
IMOIons motion algorithm
ISCEImproved shuffled complex evolution
ITLBOImproved teaching–learning-based optimization
IWOAImproved whale optimization algorithm
MADEMemetic adaptive DE
MAEMean absolute error
MAPEMean absolute percentage error
MLBSA Multiple learning backtracking search algorithm
MPAMarine-predators algorithm
MPSOModified particle swarm optimization
MSSOModified simplified swarm optimization algorithm
MSX 60Solarex’s multicrystalline 60 watts solar module
MTLBOModified teaching-–earning-based optimization
NMNewton method
OBWOAOpposition-based whale optimization algorithm
ORcr-IJADE Onlooker-ranking-based and improved adaptive and differential evolution
PGJAYAPerformance-guided JAYA algorithm
Photowatt PWP Photowatt solar panel of model PWP
PSO Particle swarm optimization
PVPhotovoltaic
RESsRenewable energy sources
RTCRadioTechnique Compelec
SDMSingle-diode model
SMASlime mould algorithm
SM55Shell monocrystalline PV module
STLBOSimplified teaching–learning-based optimization
TDMTriple-diode model
TLABCTeaching–learning-based artificial bee colony
TLBO Teaching–learning-based optimization
TLOTeaching–learning optimization
TSOTransient search optimization
TVA-CPSO Time-varying acceleration coefficients PSO
WHHOWhippy Harris hawks optimization
WOA Whale optimization algorithm
WDOWind-driven optimization

Appendix A

The constants   α T D M ,  α D D M , β T D M , β D D M , δ T D M ,  δ D D M , γ T D M , and σ T D M are expressed as follows:
α D D M = R S n 1 V t h ( 1 + R S R P ) I o 1 exp ( U n 1 V t h ) exp ( R S n 1 V t h ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 U R P ) ( 1 + R S R P ) )
β D D M = R S n 1 V t h ( 1 + R S R P ) I 02 exp ( U n 2 V t h ) exp ( R s n 2 V t h ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 U R P ) ( 1 + R S R P ) )
δ D D M = 1 n 1 n 2
α T D M = R S n 1 V t h ( 1 + R S R P ) I 01 exp ( U n 1 V t h ) exp ( R S n 1 V t h ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 + I 03 U R P ) ( 1 + R S R p ) )
β T D M = R S n 1 V t h ( 1 + R S R P ) I 02 exp ( U n 2 V t ) exp ( R S n 2 V t h ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 + I 03 U R P ) ( 1 + R S R P ) )
γ T D M = R S n 1 V t h ( 1 + R S R P ) I 03 exp ( U n 3 V t h ) exp ( R S n 3 V t h ( I p v + I 01 + I 02 + I 03 U R P ) ( 1 + R s R P ) )
δ T D M = 1 n 1 n 2
σ T D M = 1 n 1 n 3

References

  1. Ismael, S.M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Abdelaziz, A.Y.; Zobaa, A.F. State-of-the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed generation. Renew. Energy 2019, 130, 1002–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gandoman, F.H.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Omar, N.; Ahmadi, A.; Alenezi, F.Q. Short-term solar power forecasting considering cloud coverage and ambient temperature variation effects. Renew. Energy 2018, 123, 793–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ndegwa, R.; Simiyu, J.; Ayieta, E.; Odero, N. A Fast and Accurate Analytical Method for Parameter Determination of a Photovoltaic System Based on Manufacturer’s Data. J. Renew. Energy 2020, 2020, 7580279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ebeed, M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E. Overview of uncertainties in modern power systems: Uncertainty models and methods. In Uncertainties in Modern Power Systems; Zobaa, A.F., Abdel Aleem, S.H.E., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–34. ISBN 978-0-12-820491-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zobaa, A.F.; Aleem, S.H.E.A.; Abdelaziz, A.Y. Classical and Recent Aspects of Power System Optimization; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; ISBN 9780128124413. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ciferri, D.; D’Errico, M.C.; Polinori, P. Integration and convergence in European electricity markets. Econ. Polit. 2020, 37, 463–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Shinde, P.; Boukas, I.; Radu, D.; de Villena, M.M.; Amelin, M. Analyzing trade in continuous intra-day electricity market: An agent-based modeling approach. Energies 2021, 14, 3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. C2ES Renewable Energy. Available online: https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/ (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  9. Premkumar, M.; Karthick, K.; Sowmya, R. A review on solar PV based grid connected microinverter control schemes and topologies. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 2018, 7, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dkhichi, F.; Oukarfi, B.; Fakkar, A.; Belbounaguia, N. Parameter identification of solar cell model using Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm combined with simulated annealing. Sol. Energy 2014, 110, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ćalasan, M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Zobaa, A.F. On the root mean square error (RMSE) calculation for parameter estimation of photovoltaic models: A novel exact analytical solution based on Lambert W function. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 210, 112716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ćalasan, M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Zobaa, A.F. A new approach for parameters estimation of double and triple diode models of photovoltaic cells based on iterative Lambert W function. Sol. Energy 2021, 218, 392–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Saadaoui, D.; Elyaqouti, M.; Assalaou, K.; Ben hmamou, D.; Lidaighbi, S. Parameters optimization of solar PV cell/module using genetic algorithm based on non-uniform mutation. Energy Convers. Manag. X 2021, 12, 100129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ram, J.P.; Babu, T.S.; Dragicevic, T.; Rajasekar, N. A new hybrid bee pollinator flower pollination algorithm for solar PV parameter estimation. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 135, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, S.; Gong, W.; Yan, X.; Hu, C.; Bai, D.; Wang, L. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic models with memetic adaptive differential evolution. Sol. Energy 2019, 190, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gao, X.; Cui, Y.; Hu, J.; Xu, G.; Wang, Z.; Qu, J.; Wang, H. Parameter extraction of solar cell models using improved shuffled complex evolution algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 157, 460–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiong, G.; Li, L.; Mohamed, A.W.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, J. A new method for parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models using gaining–sharing knowledge based algorithm. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 3286–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, S.; Gong, W.; Yan, X.; Hu, C.; Bai, D.; Wang, L.; Gao, L. Parameter extraction of photovoltaic models using an improved teaching-learning-based optimization. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 186, 293–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, X.; Xu, B.; Mei, C.; Ding, Y.; Li, K. Teaching–learning–based artificial bee colony for solar photovoltaic parameter estimation. Appl. Energy 2018, 212, 1578–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mathew, D.; Rani, C.; Kumar, M.R.; Wang, Y.; Binns, R.; Busawon, K. Wind-driven optimization technique for estimation of solar photovoltaic parameters. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2018, 8, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naeijian, M.; Rahimnejad, A.; Ebrahimi, S.M.; Pourmousa, N.; Gadsden, S.A. Parameter estimation of PV solar cells and modules using Whippy Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 4047–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gude, S.; Jana, K.C. Parameter extraction of photovoltaic cell using an improved cuckoo search optimization. Sol. Energy 2020, 204, 280–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Merchaoui, M.; Sakly, A.; Mimouni, M.F. Particle swarm optimisation with adaptive mutation strategy for photovoltaic solar cell/module parameter extraction. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 175, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abd Elaziz, M.; Oliva, D. Parameter estimation of solar cells diode models by an improved opposition-based whale optimization algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 1843–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ridha, H.M. Parameters extraction of single and double diodes photovoltaic models using Marine Predators Algorithm and Lambert W function. Sol. Energy 2020, 209, 674–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ćalasan, M.; Jovanović, D.; Rubežić, V.; Mujović, S.; Dukanović, S. Estimation of single-diode and two-diode solar cell parameters by using a chaotic optimization approach. Energies 2019, 12, 4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Premkumar, M.; Jangir, P.; Ramakrishnan, C.; Nalinipriya, G.; Alhelou, H.H.; Kumar, B.S. Identification of Solar Photovoltaic Model Parameters Using an Improved Gradient-Based Optimization Algorithm with Chaotic Drifts. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 62347–62379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xiong, G.; Zhang, J.; Yuan, X.; Shi, D.; He, Y.; Yao, G. Parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models by means of a hybrid differential evolution with whale optimization algorithm. Sol. Energy 2018, 176, 742–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, X.; Yu, K. Hybridizing cuckoo search algorithm with biogeography-based optimization for estimating photovoltaic model parameters. Sol. Energy 2019, 180, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Hussain, K.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Honey Badger Algorithm: New metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Math. Comput. Simul. 2022, 192, 84–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Abdollahzadeh, B.; Soleimanian Gharehchopogh, F.; Mirjalili, S. Artificial gorilla troops optimizer: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2021, 36, 5887–5958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ndi, F.E.; Perabi, S.N.; Ndjakomo, S.E.; Ondoua Abessolo, G.; Mengounou Mengata, G. Estimation of single-diode and two diode solar cell parameters by equilibrium optimizer method. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 4761–4768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kumar, C.; Raj, T.D.; Premkumar, M.; Raj, T.D. A new stochastic slime mould optimization algorithm for the estimation of solar photovoltaic cell parameters. Optik 2020, 223, 165277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jiao, S.; Chong, G.; Huang, C.; Hu, H.; Wang, M.; Heidari, A.A.; Chen, H.; Zhao, X. Orthogonally adapted Harris hawks optimization for parameter estimation of photovoltaic models. Energy 2020, 203, 117804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yu, K.; Qu, B.; Yue, C.; Ge, S.; Chen, X.; Liang, J. A performance-guided JAYA algorithm for parameters identification of photovoltaic cell and module. Appl. Energy 2019, 237, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lin, P.; Cheng, S.; Yeh, W.; Chen, Z.; Wu, L. Parameters extraction of solar cell models using a modified simplified swarm optimization algorithm. Sol. Energy 2017, 144, 594–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Derick, M.; Rani, C.; Rajesh, M.; Farrag, M.E.; Wang, Y.; Busawon, K. An improved optimization technique for estimation of solar photovoltaic parameters. Sol. Energy 2017, 157, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yu, K.; Liang, J.J.; Qu, B.Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using an improved JAYA optimization algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 150, 742–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, Y.; Heidari, A.A.; Ye, X.; Liang, G.; Chen, H.; He, C. Boosting slime mould algorithm for parameter identification of photovoltaic models. Energy 2021, 234, 121164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Premkumar, M.; Babu, T.S.; Umashankar, S.; Sowmya, R. A new metaphor-less algorithms for the photovoltaic cell parameter estimation. Optik 2020, 208, 164559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Szabo, R.; Gontean, A. Photovoltaic cell and module I-V characteristic approximation using Bézier curves. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bana, S.; Saini, R.P. A mathematical modeling framework to evaluate the performance of single diode and double diode based SPV systems. Energy Rep. 2016, 2, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Silva, E.A.; Bradaschia, F.; Cavalcanti, M.C.; Nascimento, A.J. Parameter estimation method to improve the accuracy of photovoltaic electrical model. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2016, 6, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Villalva, M.G.; Gazoli, J.R.; Filho, E.R. Comprehensive approach to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2009, 24, 1198–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Qais, M.H.; Hasanien, H.M.; Alghuwainem, S. Transient search optimization for electrical parameters estimation of photovoltaic module based on datasheet values. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 214, 112904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Sallam, K.; Ryan, M.J. An efficient teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm for parameters identification of photovoltaic models: Analysis and validations. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 227, 113614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gnetchejo, P.J.; Ndjakomo Essiane, S.; Dadjé, A.; Ele, P. A combination of Newton-Raphson method and heuristics algorithms for parameter estimation in photovoltaic modules. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Mirjalili, S.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Ryan, M.J. Solar photovoltaic parameter estimation using an improved equilibrium optimizer. Sol. Energy 2020, 209, 694–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. DIab, A.A.Z.; Sultan, H.M.; Do, T.D.; Kamel, O.M.; Mossa, M.A. Coyote Optimization Algorithm for Parameters Estimation of Various Models of Solar Cells and PV Modules. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 111102–111140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yu, K.; Liang, J.J.; Qu, B.Y.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, H. Multiple learning backtracking search algorithm for estimating parameters of photovoltaic models. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 408–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wu, L.; Chen, Z.; Long, C.; Cheng, S.; Lin, P.; Chen, Y.; Chen, H. Parameter extraction of photovoltaic models from measured I-V characteristics curves using a hybrid trust-region reflective algorithm. Appl. Energy 2018, 232, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xu, S.; Wang, Y. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic modules using a hybrid flower pollination algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 144, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Elazab, O.S.; Hasanien, H.M.; Elgendy, M.A.; Abdeen, A.M. Whale optimisation algorithm for photovoltaic model identification. J. Eng. 2017, 2017, 1906–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jordehi, A.R. Time varying acceleration coefficients particle swarm optimisation (TVACPSO): A new optimisation algorithm for estimating parameters of PV cells and modules. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 129, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, Z.; Wu, L.; Lin, P.; Wu, Y.; Cheng, S. Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using hybrid adaptive Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm based on eagle strategy. Appl. Energy 2016, 182, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumar, M.; Kumar, A. An efficient parameters extraction technique of photovoltaic models for performance assessment. Sol. Energy 2017, 158, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ćalasan, M.; Zobaa, A.F.; Hasanien, H.M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E.; Ali, Z.M. Towards accurate calculation of supercapacitor electrical variables in constant power applications using new analytical closed-form expressions. J. Energy Storage 2021, 42, 102998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Javidy, B.; Hatamlou, A.; Mirjalili, S. Ions motion algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2015, 32, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Abualigah, L.; Yousri, D.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Ewees, A.A.; Al-Qaness, M.A.A.; Gandomi, A.H. Aquila optimizer: A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 157, 107250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ginidi, A.; Ghoneim, S.M.; Elsayed, A.; El-Sehiemy, R.; Shaheen, A.; El-Fergany, A. Gorilla troops optimizer for electrically based single and double-diode models of solar photovoltaic systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liang, J.; Ge, S.; Qu, B.; Yu, K.; Liu, F.; Yang, H.; Wei, P.; Li, Z. Classified perturbation mutation based particle swarm optimization algorithm for parameters extraction of photovoltaic models. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 203, 112138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Muangkote, N.; Sunat, K.; Chiewchanwattana, S.; Kaiwinit, S. An advanced onlooker-ranking-based adaptive differential evolution to extract the parameters of solar cell models. Renew. Energy 2019, 134, 1129–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chaibi, Y.; Malvoni, M.; Allouhi, A.; Mohamed, S. Data on the I–V characteristics related to the SM55 monocrystalline PV module at various solar irradiance and temperatures. Data Br. 2019, 26, 104527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Photovoltaic (PV) equivalent circuits models: (a) single-diode model (SDM), (b) double-diode model (DDM) and (c) triple-diode model (TDM).
Figure 1. Photovoltaic (PV) equivalent circuits models: (a) single-diode model (SDM), (b) double-diode model (DDM) and (c) triple-diode model (TDM).
Mathematics 10 01057 g001aMathematics 10 01057 g001b
Figure 2. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the RTC France solar cell parameters.
Figure 2. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the RTC France solar cell parameters.
Mathematics 10 01057 g002
Figure 3. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module parameters.
Figure 3. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module parameters.
Mathematics 10 01057 g003
Figure 4. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the Photowatt-PWP201 module parameters.
Figure 4. RMSE comparison for methods used to estimate the Photowatt-PWP201 module parameters.
Mathematics 10 01057 g004
Figure 5. Current-voltage characteristics of the RTC France solar cell.
Figure 5. Current-voltage characteristics of the RTC France solar cell.
Mathematics 10 01057 g005
Figure 6. Power-voltage characteristics of the RTC France solar cell.
Figure 6. Power-voltage characteristics of the RTC France solar cell.
Mathematics 10 01057 g006
Figure 7. Current-voltage characteristics of the Solarex MSX–60 PV module.
Figure 7. Current-voltage characteristics of the Solarex MSX–60 PV module.
Mathematics 10 01057 g007
Figure 8. Power-voltage characteristics of the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module.
Figure 8. Power-voltage characteristics of the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module.
Mathematics 10 01057 g008
Figure 9. Current-voltage characteristics of the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
Figure 9. Current-voltage characteristics of the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
Mathematics 10 01057 g009
Figure 10. Power-voltage characteristics of the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
Figure 10. Power-voltage characteristics of the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
Mathematics 10 01057 g010
Figure 11. Proposed Algorithm 1: (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Figure 11. Proposed Algorithm 1: (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Mathematics 10 01057 g011aMathematics 10 01057 g011b
Figure 12. Proposed Algorithm 2: (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Figure 12. Proposed Algorithm 2: (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Mathematics 10 01057 g012aMathematics 10 01057 g012b
Figure 13. Particle swarm optimization (PSO): (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Figure 13. Particle swarm optimization (PSO): (a) fitness function for a different number of runs, and (b) mean fitness value versus iteration number.
Mathematics 10 01057 g013aMathematics 10 01057 g013b
Figure 14. Current-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 and 25 °C.
Figure 14. Current-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 and 25 °C.
Mathematics 10 01057 g014
Figure 15. Power-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 and 25 °C.
Figure 15. Power-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 and 25 °C.
Mathematics 10 01057 g015
Figure 16. Current-voltage characteristics at 25 °C for different irradiance levels.
Figure 16. Current-voltage characteristics at 25 °C for different irradiance levels.
Mathematics 10 01057 g016
Figure 17. Power-voltage characteristics at 25 °C for different irradiance levels.
Figure 17. Power-voltage characteristics at 25 °C for different irradiance levels.
Mathematics 10 01057 g017
Figure 18. Current-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 for different temperature levels.
Figure 18. Current-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 for different temperature levels.
Mathematics 10 01057 g018
Figure 19. Power-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 for different temperature levels.
Figure 19. Power-voltage characteristics at 1000 W/m2 for different temperature levels.
Mathematics 10 01057 g019
Table 1. Numerical results obtained for the solar RTC France cell.
Table 1. Numerical results obtained for the solar RTC France cell.
#Refs.First AuthorYearMethodModelRoot Mean Square Error
(RMSE)
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
1[32]Ndi2021EOSDM0.0007768650.0006786443636210.462865302508924
2[21]Naeijian2021WHHOSDM0.0007915020.0006675953061390.344470169829233
3[13]Saadaou2021GAMNUSDM0.0008126210.0007194749732810.643237501038952
4[17]Xiong2021GSKSDM0.0007761340.0006765541090960.451972461015800
5[33]Kumar2020SMASDM0.0007952430.0006671505611470.332742958125476
6[34]Jiao2020EHHOSDM0.0007867040.0007018189456930.558833901459953
7[22]Gude2020CSOSDM0.0008601940.0006635734963240.210089090921584
8[18]Li2019ITLBOSDM0.0007777920.0006872395901680.502104166185744
9[35]Yu2019PGJAYASDM0.0007777920.0006872395901680.502104166185744
10[29]Chen2019BHCSSDM0.0007754150.0006796753747150.455550255014124
11[23]Merchaoui2018MPSOSDM0.0043599090.0028892587740894.353156563261146
12[19]Chen2018TLABCSDM0.0007754160.0006796706322000.455459033518709
13[36]Lin2017MSSOSDM0.0008091590.0006651100520130.295109693517836
14[14]Ram2017BPFPASDM0.0009555130.0008242107237890.736974713224005
15[37]Derick2017WDOSDM0.0008948180.0007210910486570.410871168713455
16[38]Yu2017IJAYASDM0.0007760550.0006749093212950.443697941771721
17[17]Xiong2021GSKDDM0.0007653470.0006747144005380.477776103165468
18[13]Saadaou2021GAMNUDDM0.0007955400.0006714526936140.333198261209489
19[32]Ndi2021EODDM0.0063485830.0061745656364722.943474469938229
20[21]Naeijian2021WHHODDM0.0007745530.0006545930806720.327472776645842
21[39]Liu2021CNMSMADDM0.0007579220.0006626763258410.426575266450123
22[33]Kumar2020SMADDM0.0070256460.0043601313963967.646965757100302
23[34]Jiao2020EHHODDM0.0007640870.0006713048564020.454160791097682
24[22]Gude2020CSODDM0.0008697700.0006805446141800.300124951077260
25[26]Ćalasan2019COADDM0.0007576860.0006678713376170.450126256899350
26[24]Abd Elaziz2018ABCTDM0.0009902460.0007718731203550.505954728856906
272018OBWOATDM0.0008231360.0006501083872270.218668597114990
282018STLBOTDM0.0008236980.0006491224447130.215757981839370
29[40]Premkumar2020R-IITDM0.0051254760.0033679281901675.136372818754378
302020R-IIITDM0.0022499980.0015725609077592.495078551153684
312020PSOTDM0.0021717140.0015431830049782.383178745442769
322020CSTDM0.0045691700.0030334847886794.539593940311719
332020ABCTDM0.0024717430.0017612924123322.292317731497820
342020TLOTDM0.0007795840.0006541002670080.331628211492756
35Proposed Algorithm 1SDM0.0007746550.0006811681504690.455157210140345
36Proposed Algorithm 2SDM0.0007746560.0006812219102330.455412179465424
37Proposed Algorithm 1DDM0.0007561290.0006687261402770.457389890766874
38Proposed Algorithm 2DDM0.0007559100.0006621360815150.426224519512442
39Proposed Algorithm 1TDM0.0007518790.0006596564896940.420986462546710
40Proposed Algorithm 2TDM0.0007520530.0006636971063390.440229380526819
Table 2. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the solar RTC France cell using the methods presented in Table 1.
Table 2. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the solar RTC France cell using the methods presented in Table 1.
#Ipv (A)I01 (μA)n1RS (Ω)RP (Ω)I02 (μA)n2I03 (μA)
10.76075970370.326288931.482193000.0363409954.20659400---
20.760775510.323020311.481108080.0363771053.71867407---
30.760774000.325595401.482096000.0363402053.89686000---
40.760800000.323100001.481200000.0364000053.72270000---
50.760760000.323140001.481140000.0363700053.71489000---
60.760775000.323000001.481238000.0363750053.74282000---
70.760800000.323000001.481000000.0364000053.71850000---
80.760800000.323000001.481200000.0364000053.71850000---
90.760800000.323000001.481200000.0364000053.71850000---
100.760780000.323020001.481180000.0363800053.71852000---
110.760787000.310683001.475262000.0365460052.88971000---
120.760780000.323020001.481180000.0363800053.71636000---
130.760777000.323564001.481244000.0363700053.74246500---
140.760000000.310600001.477400000.0366000057.71510000---
150.760800000.322300001.480800000.0367680057.74614000---
160.760800000.322800001.481100000.0364000053.75950000---
170.760800000.259500001.462700000.0366000054.933000000.479100001.99830000-
180.760827000.322452461.481028000.0363644053.110790000.000273921.47010100-
190.767920000.399990002.000000000.0365900054.176140000.266050001.46451000-
200.760780940.228574001.451895000.0367288755.426432820.7271822-
210.760781000.225976001.451017000.03674055.485450.750681001.9999990-
220.760760000.748740002.000000000.0367755.714560.226520001.4546300-
230.7607690170.586184001.9684514490.03659883155.639439560.240965001.456910409-
240.760800.227301.451300.0367055.432700.738400001.99990-
250.760780.225971.451020.0367455.485420.7493462.00000-
260.7607000.20001.44140.0368755.83440.5000001.900000.2100
270.7607700.23531.45430.0366855.44480.2213002.000000.4573
280.7608000.23491.45410.036755.26410.2297002.000000.4443
290.7607920.26001.46080.0366054.91490.0000061.146600.5700
300.7607910.21001.77140.0367055.35710.2200001.451300.9900
310.7607820.25001.46010.0366055.31330.0410001.740901.0000
320.7607760.14001.48720.0363053.72180.1900001.477100.0310
330.7607900.32001.86660.0367055.44110.2300001.452100.7400
340.7607630.28001.46840.0365055.38210.0006701.546801.0000
350.760775370.3207412431.480469870.036453.5397184---
360.760775410.32074121.480470010.036453.5397---
370.76078010.841621.9999990.0367955.730.21545051.44706-
380.760780.8416112.000000.036790555.728350.21545011.44704-
390.76076020.8765041.995040.036920155.67980.204411.4424010.0001805
400.76076010.8764991.995010.036920255.68010.2044011.442410.0001801
Table 3. Numerical results obtained for the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module.
Table 3. Numerical results obtained for the Solarex MSX–60 PV solar module.
#Refs.First AuthorYearMethodModelRMSEMAEMAPE
1[42]Bana2018NMSDM0.1018449335350610.0864045596713317.989316753756794
2[41]Szabo2018BCSDM0.0307225056540280.0239159668977481.928605918749928
3[43]Silva2016A&ISDM0.0181066146484300.0152340449364261.804005972558074
4[44]Villalva2009A&ISDM0.0283966273617940.0209033257823591.703387713558635
5[12]Calasan2021CLSHADEDDM0.0120286651658870.0088716755513801.300255779491913
6[45]Qais2020TSOTDM0.0170097859834450.0144389136455701.467713460523862
7Proposed Algorithm 1SDM0.0121057889909090.0092079992178961.210171037317782
8Proposed Algorithm 2SDM0.0121208116205600.0093459956845961.276143583474973
9Proposed Algorithm 1DDM0.0119551260494290.0088471882314941.292653674324527
10Proposed Algorithm 2DDM0.0118969895815630.0088277360373781.286768018642119
11Proposed Algorithm 1TDM0.0116830386479760.0088377124155751.260645716394877
12Proposed Algorithm 2TDM0.0116609259877280.0088306392395971.256151650040435
It should be noted that abbreviations of the different algorithms are presented in the list of abbreviations at the end of the paper.
Table 4. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the Solarex MSX–60 module using the methods presented in Table 3.
Table 4. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the Solarex MSX–60 module using the methods presented in Table 3.
#Ipv (A)I01 (μA)n1RS (Ω)RP (Ω)I02 (μA)n2I03 (μA)
13.80844.8723 × 10−101.00030.3692169.0471---
23.8081.22 × 10−91.0450.316146.08---
33.79836.79 × 10−81.280.251582.7278---
43.8082441.21946 × 10−91.0453340.316000146.081207---
53.8125270.12311 × 10−61.322900.2268008007.29990 × 10−111.98800-
63.80193.3525 × 10−71.93460.22724450.131 × 10−121.72086.4568 × 10−8
73.81270.14051 × 10−61.3325130.223511105.5869---
83.812680.14 × 10−61.33250.22351155.6258---
93.8125270.12312 × 10−61.322880.226805805.467.30 × 10−111.98800-
103.812526890.1231199 × 10−61.322860.226801807.117.299 × 10−111.9881-
113.812520.12314 × 10−61.322740.226756831.010007.29990 × 10−111.988881.24 × 10−10
123.812530.12312 × 10−61.322710.2267586827.510007.30000 × 10−111.990601.2488 × 10−10
Table 5. Numerical results obtained for the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
Table 5. Numerical results obtained for the Photowatt-PWP201 module.
#Refs.First AuthorYearMethodModelRMSEMAEMAPE
1[27]Premkumar2021CGBOSDM0.0022031605821960.0017773557302460.391412974711076
2GBOSDM0.0022031605821960.0017773557302460.391412974711076
3[46]Basset2021MTLBOSDM0.0021927022938870.0017326930977670.386396089379751
4[47]Gnetchejo2021DSOSDM0.0055252624169930.0043191246787006.249226276809913
5[25]Ridha2020MPASDM0.0027412825531120.0021319500648610.661561491439685
6[48]Basset2020EOSDM0.0023077394165530.0018313858737370.525272290565770
7[61]Liang2020CPMPSOSDM0.0021927022386760.0017326925193900.386403196851621
8[35]Yu2019PGJAYASDM0.0021935589956520.0017331618070740.384469167044506
9[62]Muangkote2019ORcr-IJADESDM0.0021927476050640.0017329308829570.383436962669269
10[18]Li2019ITLBOSDM0.0021927023006910.0017326929436810.386396861783031
112019TLBOSDM0.0042915537467170.0034969721431591.247781769889620
12[15]Li2019MADESDM0.0021927022382620.0017326925287700.386403149832207
13[28]Xiong2018WOASDM0.0026571159561040.0020856991536590.539623953519785
14[50]Yu2018MLBSASDM0.0021629317729070.0016936752335140.388880476705581
15[28]Xiong2018DE-WOASDM0.0021927476078040.0017329307976840.383437390120559
16[51]Wu2018ABC-TRRSDM0.0021927476053380.0017329308744290.383437005413906
17[16]Gao2018ISCESDM0.0021927476039680.0017329309170660.383436791688368
18[28]Xiong2018IWOASDM0.0021922134220290.0017318717448430.389108171505321
19[52]Xu2017GOFPANMSDM0.0021927476028720.001732930951174 0.383436620706835
20[53]Elazab2017WOASDM0.0023357400969570.001841026675079 0.332600274029797
21[54]Jordehi2016TVACPSOSDM0.0039349399037640.0031969469986614.232444252386350
22[55]Chen2016EHA-NMSSDM0.0021927476047900.001732930891484 0.383436919923165
23[58]Javidy2015IMOSDM0.0028353330508350.0021657506889470.381968187687215
24[27]Premkumar2021CGBODDM0.0021991652555220.001759965636308 0.343756630837216
252021GBODDM0.0021996919523820.001769207464245 0.368397908487905
26[48]Basset2020EODDM0.0024161693305850.0018828113454340.375619719216614
27[58]Javidy2015IMODDM0.0031772493232400.0022721247229260.743764711488892
28Proposed Algorithm 1SDM0.0021013815070330.0017702566657820.529618617926409
29Proposed Algorithm 2SDM0.0021046504589460.0017741335259220.460871551281877
30Proposed Algorithm 1DDM0.0020764341237830.001706530046156 1.026218805598722
31Proposed Algorithm 2DDM0.0020729622803620.0017014209885361.006077058292598
32Proposed Algorithm 1TDM0.0020408065578690.001676862715116 0.667708048509709
33Proposed Algorithm 2TDM0.0020418117850610.0016856482511570.656010002550055
Table 6. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the Photowatt-PWP201 module using the methods presented in Table 5.
Table 6. Parameters of the equivalent circuit models of the Photowatt-PWP201 module using the methods presented in Table 5.
#Ipv (A)I01 (μA)n1RS (Ω)RP (Ω)I02 (μA)n2I03 (μA)
11.03053.4848.64281.2013981.9821---
21.03053.4848.64281.2013981.9821---
31.03051433.482348.64283491.2012710981.9823732---
41.0323572.49659647.334061.240547748.32309---
51.02734.5149.64861.17811977.6535---
61.02963.7648.93401.19431139.0284---
71.03051433.482348.64283481.2012710981.9822493---
81.03053.481848.6423721.2013981.8545---
91.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98224---
101.03051433.482348.64283491.201271981.9821925---
111.03571614.1349.28201001.2222703999.6274934---
121.03051433.482348.64283481.2012710981.9822603---
131.02804.7549.85931.16801712.8543---
141.03099773.427948.5836001.2026154931.9237428---
151.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98214---
161.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98223---
171.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98228---
181.03053.471748.6312841.2016978.6771---
191.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98232---
201.02942123.852549.03066221.19063021179.9442886---
211.0314352.638647.5566481.235611821.59514---
221.0305143.48226348.642841.201271981.98225---
231.02643.4548.59241.21121899.6737---
241.03053.4848.64281.2013981.88743.89 × 10−634.7828-
251.03053.4748.63141.2016981.2677050-
261.02889.38 × 10−447.13251.18961310.67053.9649.1369-
271.0251045.76181.23391849.83463.0748.1472-
281.032412.553847.488011.2386752.8111---
291.03232.55447.485631.23861772.8905---
301.032422.513047.4181.2393744.7243.89 × 10−650-
311.03252.515047.4211.23928743.6663.8885 × 10−649.88-
321.03238182.51290847.422951.2393743.7241.86 × 10−448.881.35 × 10−6
331.0323832.51291447.4231.2393753.6591.16 × 10−348.931.05 × 10−6
Table 7. Comparison of the statistical results.
Table 7. Comparison of the statistical results.
AlgorithmsBestWorstMeanMedianStandard Deviation
Proposed 17.7465 × 10−47.8447 × 10−47.7591 × 10−47.7468 × 10−43.5901 × 10−6
Proposed 27.7466 × 10−47.8842 × 10−47.7504 × 10−47.7472 × 10−43.9844 × 10−6
GTO 7.7488 × 10−47.8447 × 10−47.7501 × 10−47.7501 × 10−43.711 × 10−6
HBA 7.7524 × 10−48.5089 × 10−47.8427 × 10−47.7921 × 10−41.4697 × 10−5
AO 16.000 × 10−495.000 × 10−451.000 × 10−449.000 × 10−418.000 × 10−4
PSO 7.7453 × 10−48.5089 × 10−47.9619 × 10−47.9570 × 10−41.9585 × 10−5
Table 8. Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Table 8. Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
AlgorithmsProposed 1 Versus Proposed 2Proposed 1 Versus HBA Proposed 1 Versus GTO Proposed 1 Versus AO Proposed 1 Versus PSO
p-value8.5641 × 10−48.1465 × 10−50.01033.01 × 10−112.8314 × 10−8
AlgorithmsProposed 2 versus Proposed 1Proposed 2 versus HBAProposed 2 versus GTOProposed 2 versus AOProposed 2 versus PSO
p-value8.5641 × 10−45.1857 × 10−70.31123.01 × 10−112.9215 × 10−9
Table 9. The estimated value of the parameters of the commercial solar module.
Table 9. The estimated value of the parameters of the commercial solar module.
ParametersIpv (A)I0 (μA)RS (Ω)RP (Ω)n
Value3.458840.0414770.3876853549.980571.28087
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rawa, M.; Abusorrah, A.; Al-Turki, Y.; Calasan, M.; Micev, M.; Ali, Z.M.; Mekhilef, S.; Bassi, H.; Sindi, H.; Aleem, S.H.E.A. Estimation of Parameters of Different Equivalent Circuit Models of Solar Cells and Various Photovoltaic Modules Using Hybrid Variants of Honey Badger Algorithm and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071057

AMA Style

Rawa M, Abusorrah A, Al-Turki Y, Calasan M, Micev M, Ali ZM, Mekhilef S, Bassi H, Sindi H, Aleem SHEA. Estimation of Parameters of Different Equivalent Circuit Models of Solar Cells and Various Photovoltaic Modules Using Hybrid Variants of Honey Badger Algorithm and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer. Mathematics. 2022; 10(7):1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rawa, Muhyaddin, Abdullah Abusorrah, Yusuf Al-Turki, Martin Calasan, Mihailo Micev, Ziad M. Ali, Saad Mekhilef, Hussain Bassi, Hatem Sindi, and Shady H. E. Abdel Aleem. 2022. "Estimation of Parameters of Different Equivalent Circuit Models of Solar Cells and Various Photovoltaic Modules Using Hybrid Variants of Honey Badger Algorithm and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer" Mathematics 10, no. 7: 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071057

APA Style

Rawa, M., Abusorrah, A., Al-Turki, Y., Calasan, M., Micev, M., Ali, Z. M., Mekhilef, S., Bassi, H., Sindi, H., & Aleem, S. H. E. A. (2022). Estimation of Parameters of Different Equivalent Circuit Models of Solar Cells and Various Photovoltaic Modules Using Hybrid Variants of Honey Badger Algorithm and Artificial Gorilla Troops Optimizer. Mathematics, 10(7), 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10071057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop