Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Particle swarm optimization approach to determine all parameters of

the photovoltaic cell
Dris Ben Hmamou a,⇑, Mustapha Elyaqouti b, Elhanafi Arjdal a, Jamal Chaoufi a, Driss Saadaoui b,
Souad Lidaighbi b, Rabya Aqel a
a
Laboratory of Electronics, Signal Processing and Physical Modeling, Faculty of Sciences of Agadir Ibn Zohr University, BP 8106, 80000 Agadir, Morocco
b
Materials and Renewable Energy Laboratory, Agadir Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, BP 8106, 80000 Agadir, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to describe the behavior and the performance of the photovoltaic modules we can found in the
Available online 1 November 2021 literature different equivalent circuit models such us: single diode model (SDM), double diode model
(DDM), three diode model (TDM). Almost of the authors obtained that the SDM is the best solution to
Keywords: describe the electrical characterization of the PV modules. The PV parameters can be extracted by three
PSO common approaches: Analytical based on the derivation of mathematical equations, Numeric or iterative
Meta-heuristic usually use non-linear optimization techniques, among all the technique the Newton Raphson is widely
Single diode mode
used. The last one is meta-heuristic approach characterized by their global search point and their soft
Photovoltaic module
Computing algorithm
computing algorithms. The aim of this study is to explore and discuss the behavior of the single-diode
model, which require five parameters are estimated using Particle Swarm Optimization approach. The
performance of this method is evaluated using the experimental values of R.T.C France PV cell at irradi-
ation G = 1000 W/m2 and at temperature T = 33 °C. The obtained results are also compared with results of
the others computing approach. After this study, we can conclude that the proposed PSO method has the
best performance because the RMSE obtained using this approach is around the 1.73.10
4 A and low than
those obtained through all compared algorithms.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Network
of Biomaterials and Engineering Science.

1. Introduction Current–Voltage data under all operating conditions, and the most
popular modeling approach is to use the electrical equivalent cir-
The Photovoltaic power market has grown rapidly in the last cuit that comprises of both linear and non-linear components [6].
decade, and the share of renewable energies in the world’s electric- Over the years, many models have been proposed; starting from
ity mix had an exponential growth over the last years [1]. Among single- diode model, to the RS-model, the RP-model as well as the
all renewable energy sources, solar energy is the most promising two- and three-diode models [7,8]. In this paper we are adopted
energy. Photovoltaic systems represent the most direct way to con- the single-diode model, which require five parameters must be
vert solar energy into electrical energy by utilizing the inherent estimated. So as to calculate them, there are several methods,
properties of semiconductors [2]. Due to high investment costs namely the analytical method [9–12] and the Numerical or Itera-
and ensuring optimized utilization of solar energy before installing tive approaches [13–15], as well as the evolutionary computational
a photovoltaic system, a good performance estimation of the approaches, such as the Genetic algorithms (GA) [16–18], Particle
adopted photovoltaic generators is necessary. Since the initial cost Swarm Optimization (PSO ) [19–22], Simulated Annealing (SA)
of the system is pretty high [3,4], an accurate and reliable simula- [23–25], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [26,27], Bacterial Foraging
tion for designed photovoltaic systems before installation is highly Optimization (BFO) [28–30], Artificial Immune System (AIS)
essential [5]. So it is always desirable to have a model which allows [31,32], Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) [33], Differential
studying the behavior of solar cells, i.e. modeling the measured Evolution (DE) [21,34], GA-PSO [35,36], shuffled frog leaping algo-
rithm (SLFA) [15], k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) [37], Artificial Intel-
⇑ Corresponding author. ligence and Bio-Inspired [38], Gaussian kernel-Fuzzy C Means (GK-
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ben Hmamou).
FCM) [39], Neuro-Fuzzy system tuned by Particle Swarm Optimiza-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.083
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Network of Biomaterials and Engineering Science.
B. Hmamou, M. Elyaqouti, E. Arjdal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Nomenclature

DescriptionSTC N Population of candidate solutions

standard test conditions RS series resistance (X)
PV photovoltaic panels P-V Power-Voltage characteristic
G solar irradiance (W/m2) Rsh Shunt resistance (X)
T PV cell temperature Io Reverse saturation current of the diode (A)
Pbesti Best position of particle Voc open circuit voltage of the panel (V)
q electric charge of an electron (1.602e10–19 C) PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
K Boltzmann constant (1.381e10–23 J/K) Iph photo generated current (A)
n diode quality factor Isc short circuit current of the module (A)
Gbest best position of all particle RMSE Root Mean Square Error
Ipv PV output current IAE Individual Absolute Error
V PV output voltage I-V Current-Voltage characteristic
Pmax power corresponding to at the maximum power point
(P)

tion algorithm (PSO-NF) [40], Quality control approach (QC) [41], The output current and voltage relationship for the equivalent
Artificial Neural Network (ANN)[42], Logistic Chaotic Rao-1 Opti- circuit shown in Fig. 1 is expressed by:
mization Algorithm (LCROA) [43]. The aim of this study is to

 
explore and discuss the behavior of the single-diode parameters qðV þ RS  Ipv Þ V þ RS  Ipv
Ipv ¼ Iph
Io  exp
1
ð1Þ
under real environmental conditions using PSO approach. The per- n  K:T Rsh
formance of this method is evaluated using the experimental val-
ues of R.T.C France PV cell obtained in [44] at irradiation Where, q is the electron charge, K the Boltzmann constant, T the
G = 1000 W/m2 and at temperature T = 33 °C. All associated calcu- temperature of the PV cell.
lation methods that we have evaluated are done via Matlab Script. From the relationship (1), we can conclude that we have five
The remainder of this paper is organized in the following man- known parameters shown in Table 1:
ner. After an introduction, Section 2 describes the electrical model-
ing of the specific photovoltaic cell used in this study. In Section 3, 3. Proposed five parameters estimation method
we present the specific parameters of the Particle Swarm Opti-
mization approach. Finally, we present in Section 4, all obtained 3.1. The particle swarm optimization approach
results regarding the electrical modeling and characterization of
used photovoltaic cell. The particle swarm optimization approach, firstly proposed in
1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart [45], it is well applied to character-
2. Electrical modeling of photovoltaic cell ization of the PV module according to the behavior of social organ-
isms such as bird flocking and fish schooling [45]. In this soft
The output current and voltage that a photovoltaic module is computing approach, each candidate solution is called a ‘‘particle”
capable to delivering under real atmospheric conditions reflects and represents a point in a D-dimensional space, if D is the number
their electrical performance. In order to identifying this relation- of parameters to be optimized. Accordingly, the position of the ith
ship, we can adopted the single diode model (SDM) that represent particle may be described by the vector X i :
the P-N junction of the cell as an electrical diode connected in par- X i ¼ ½xi1 xi2 xi3    ::xiD  ð2Þ
allel with a current source. The diode in other side is connected
with a shunt resistance in parallel Rsh and a resistance in series The population of N candidate solutions constitutes the swarm:
Rs. Fig. 1 shown the equivalent circuit of the photovoltaic module.

Fig. 1. Single diode model of photovoltaic cell.

8
B. Hmamou, M. Elyaqouti, E. Arjdal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Table 1 previously found best positions. For each particle Xi, the speed v i
Parameters description. calculated as a linear combination of three elements: its own speed,
Parameters Parameters description its deviation from its pi neighborhood, and compared to the Pbest of
Iph Photocurrent Represents the current generated due to the
particle. Then, the current position of the particle is updated
photovoltaic effect in the PV cell through the coefficients w , C 1 and C 2 to get the new position [35].
Io The diode reverse Represents the recombination of carriers
saturation current through the p-n junction 3.2. The PSO parameters algorithm and objective function
n The diode ideality Depends on PV technology
factor
Rsh The shunt resistance Representation of manufacturing defects in the The PSO algorithm parameters used in this study are summa-
module, which allow the light generated rized in Table 2:
current to take alternative paths, reducing the The proposed soft computing approach is applied to extract five
current available at the output of the module
parameters X ¼ ½Iph Io nRS Rsh  which their lower bound and upper
Rs The series resistance Represents the resistance of the front and rear
metal contacts with the semiconductor, which bound is summarized in Table 3 by using an optimization algo-
are necessary to collect the current into the rithm in order to minimize a pre-defined objective function value
terminals of the cell. and tuning the parameters until the stopping criterion is reached.
The optimal objective function then yields the optimal parame-
3 2 ters values. An appropriate objective function must be defined
X1 before the optimization procedure. In this study, the Root Mean
6X 7 Square Error (RMSE) is adopted to define the objective function
6 2 7 2 3
6 7
6 X3 7 X i1  X iD and formulated as follows:
6 7 6 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6 7 6 .. .. .. 7
7 u
X¼6 : 7¼4 . . . 5 ð3Þ u1 X N
6 7
RMSE ¼ t
2
6 : 7 f ðV; Iexp ; X i Þ ð5Þ
6 7 X N1    X ND N i¼1
6 7
4 : 5
X N Where X i denotes the vector of unknown parameters shown as:

In searching for the optimal solution of the problem, the parti- X i ¼ ½Ipv Io nRS Rsh  ð6Þ
cles iteratively update their positions based on the following  
The f V; Ipv ; X i is shown as:
equation: 
 
  qðV þ RS  Ipv Þ
f V; Ipv ; X i ¼ Iexp
Iph
Io  exp
1
X kþ1
i ¼ X ki þ v kþ1
i
n  K:T:Ns
V þ RS  Ipv
Where: k and k þ 1 indicate two successive iterations of the algo-

ð7Þ
Rsh
rithm and v i is the vector collecting the velocity components of

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N  
  2
u1 X qðV þ RS  Ipv Þ V þ RS  Ipv
RMSE ¼ t Iestim
Iph
Io  exp
1
ð8Þ
N i¼1 n  K:T:Ns Rsh

the ith particle along the D dimensions. The velocity vectors govern In the above objective functions, V and Iexp are the experimental
the way particles move across the search space. The position of a values of the voltage and current of the solar module, respectively.
particle is influenced by its best position so far Pbesti and the best
position of all particles so far Gbest . The position is distributed ran- 4. Results and discussion
domly and in initial step v i ¼ 0. The basic idea is to build a popula-
tion of particles and to move them according to specific criteria to The estimated results of PSO approach are using to extract all
achieve the final goal. The Velocity of the ith particles are calculated parameters for single diode model along with the RMSE of several
by: other well-known soft computing approaches, such as: Newton-
   
v kþ1
i ¼ w:v ki þ c1 :r 1 P besti
pki þ c2 :r 2 Gbest
pki ð4Þ Raphson methods (NRM) [44], LMSA [46], ABSO [47], harmony
search (HS) [48], artificial bee swarm optimization(ABSO) [49],
Where: ¼ 1; 2; 3;    ::; N , N is number of particles, w is the inertia artificial bee colony(ABC) [27], modified simplified swarm opti-
weight prevents the particle from drastically changing direction mization (MSSO), Lambert W-function (LW) [50], conductivity
by keeping track of the previous flow direction. C 1 and C 2 are the method (CM) [51,52], Simplified swarm optimization (SSO)[53],
acceleration coefficients so called the cognitive and social coeffi- simplified bird mating optimizer (SBMO) [54,55] and genetic algo-
cient, accounts for the tendency of particles to return to their own rithm (GA) [18], are summarized in Table 4.

Table 2 Table 3
The PSO Parameters values. Bounds of the solar cell models parameters.

Parameters description Parameters value Model Parameters Lower bound Upper bound

Population size 50 Single diode model Iph 0 1

Maximum iteration 1000 I0 10
8 10
6
C1 2 n 1 2
C2 2 Rs 0 1
w 0.4 Rsh 0 100

9
B. Hmamou, M. Elyaqouti, E. Arjdal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Table 4
Parameters obtained using PSO method compared with results of the [56].

PV modules Method n Ipv(A) Io (mA) Rs(X) Rsh(X) RMSE(A)

R.T.C.France PSO 1.482300 0.7653000 0.313000 0.040500 55.028600 1.7392.E-04
NRM 1.483700 0.760800 0.322300 0.036400 53.763400 0.018704
GA 1.575100 0.761900 0.808700 0.029900 42.372900 0.010072
HS 1.475380 0.760700 0.304950 0.036630 53.594600 9.9510.E-04
CM 1.503900 0.760800 0.403900 0.036400 49.505000 2.8573.E-03
LW 1.456100 0.761100 0.242200 0.037300 42.000000 9.964.E-03
ABSO 1.475830 0.760800 0.306230 0.036590 52.290300 9.9124.E-04
SBMO 1.480639 0.760779 0.321626 0.036393 53.575366 9.8610.E-4
ABC 1.480601 0.760784 0.321523 0.036398 53.639071 9.8619.E-04
SSO 1.480468 0.760803 0.321044 0.036392 53.152466 9.8640.E-04
MSSO 1.481244 0.760777 0.323564 0.033700 53.742465 9.8607.E-04
LMSA 1.479760 0.760780 0.318490 0.036430 53.326440 9.8640.E-04

0,8
0,020
IAE Power (W )
0,6
IAE Current (A )
Current (A )

0,015
0,4 Experimentla Values

IAE
Estimated values
0,2 0,010

0,0 0,005

-0,2
0,000
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6

Voltage (V ) Voltage (V )
Fig. 2. The I-V characteristic of R.T.C France cell at G = 1000 W/m2 and T = 33 °C. Fig. 4. Comparison of IAE for output Current and Power.

Experimentla Values
0,3 Estimated values
Power (W )

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
Voltage (V )
Fig. 5. Comparison of IAE for output Current and Power.
Fig. 3. The P-U characteristic of R.T.C France cell at G = 1000 W/m2 and T = 33 °C.

rent (IAE) [57–59]. For N of estimated or experimental current,

The estimated results of PSO method are used to plotting the they are given by the expression shown at Eq. (9) as follows:
characteristic I-V of the PV cell calculated by using the optimal
IAE ¼ Ii;experimental
Ii;estimated ð9Þ
solution and then compared with the experimental results of R.T.
C France obtained in [56] are shown in Fig. 1. The characteristic For N of estimated or experimental Power, they are given by the
P-V is shown in Fig. 2. expression shown at Eq. (10) as follows:
The evaluation of the precision of the method considered is per-
IAE ¼ Pi;experimental
Pi;estimated ð10Þ
formed by calculating the Individual Absolute Error of output cur-

10
B. Hmamou, M. Elyaqouti, E. Arjdal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Where Ii;estimated , Ii;experimental , N are respectively the estimated cur- [5] A. Yahya-Khotbehsara, A. Shahhoseini, A fast modeling of the double-diode
model for PV modules using combined analytical and numerical approach, Sol.
rent, experimental current and number of estimated or experimen-
Energy 162 (January) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.047.
tal current, respectively. [6] V.J. Chin, Z. Salam, K. Ishaque, Cell modelling and model parameters estimation
From the Figs. 2 and 3, we can see that the calculated data are techniques for photovoltaic simulator application: A review, Appl. Energy 154
(2015) 500–519, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.035.
remarkably consistent with the experimental data and the RMSE
[7] V. Khanna, B.K. Das, D. Bisht, Vandana, P.K. Singh, A three diode model for
is only 1.7392.10
4 A. Fig. 4 showed the comparison of obtained industrial solar cells and estimation of solar cell parameters using PSO
values IAE for output Current and Power. We can see that maxi- algorithm, Renew. Energy 78 (2015) 105–113, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mum values of IAE is 1.7.10
2 is obtained for output Power. renene.2014.12.072.
[8] V. Lo Brano, A. Orioli, G. Ciulla, A. Di Gangi, An improved five-parameter model
Fig. 5 showed the comparison of obtained values RMSE for output for photovoltaic modules, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94 (8) (2010) 1358–
current. From this figure, we can see that most of the meta- 1370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.04.003.
heuristic approaches can gain the RMSEs less than 10
3 A. More- [9] D.S.H. Chan, J.C.H. Phang, Analytical Methods for the Extraction of Solar-Cell
Single-and Double-Diode Model Parameters from I-V Characteristics, IEEE
over, the proposed PSO has the best RMSE among all the compared Trans. Electron Devices 34 (2) (1987) 286–293, https://doi.org/10.1109/T-
methods. Consequently, the proposed PSO method obtains a high ED.1987.22920.
accurate solution. [10] M. Zaimi, H. El Achouby, A. Ibral, E.M. Assaid, Determining combined effects of
solar radiation and panel junction temperature on all model-parameters to
forecast peak power and photovoltaic yield of solar panel under non-standard
5. Conclusion conditions, Sol. Energy 191 (July) (2019) 341–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2019.09.007.
[11] M. Louzazni, A. Khouya, S. Al-Dahidi, M. Mussetta, K. Amechnoue, Analytical
The work presented in this study, shows that all model- optimization of photovoltaic output with Lagrange Multiplier Method, Optik
parameters are estimated using a PSO method for the single- (Stuttg) 199 (2019) 163379, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2019.163379.
[12] M.H. Qais, H.M. Hasanien, S. Alghuwainem, Identification of electrical
diode model. This approach is based on the behavior of social parameters for three-diode photovoltaic model using analytical and
organisms such as bird flocking and fish schooling. In order to sunflower optimization algorithm, Appl. Energy 250 (January) (2019) 109–
determine the performance of our proposed method, it is tested 117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.013.
[13] M. Sheraz and M. A. Abido, ‘‘An efficient approach for parameter estimation of
by using the photovoltaic cell R.T.C France, based on the experi- PV model using de and fuzzy based MPPT controller,” 2014 IEEE Conf. Evol.
mental values. The obtained results are compared with the others Adapt. Intell. Syst. EAIS 2014 - Conf. Proc., 2014, doi: 10.1109/
soft computing algorithm by introducing the RMSE to validate the eais.2014.6867487.
[14] M.A. De Blas, J.L. Torres, E. Prieto, A. García, Selecting a suitable model for
agreement of estimated values with the Experimental data. We characterizing photovoltaic devices, Renew. Energy 25 (3) (2002) 371–380,
deduce that a good result is obtained compared to others approach, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(01)00056-8.
and it can be seen that the values of RMSE obtained are very low [15] N. Tutkun, E. Elibol, M. Aktas, Parameter extraction from a typical PV module
using a metaheuristic technique, 2015 Int Conf. Renew. Energy Res. Appl.
and less than those obtained by others methods. Also, the esti-
ICRERA 2015 (2) (2015) 755–759, https://doi.org/10.1109/
mated data of the PSO approach are in good agreement with the ICRERA.2015.7418512.
experimental data. [16] M. Zagrouba, A. Sellami, M. Bouaïcha, M. Ksouri, Identification of PV solar cells
and modules parameters using the genetic algorithms: Application to
maximum power extraction, Sol. Energy 84 (5) (2010) 860–866, https://doi.
CRediT authorship contribution statement org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.02.012.
[17] J. Ma, Z. Bi, T.O. Ting, S. Hao, W. Hao, Comparative performance on
photovoltaic model parameter identification via bio-inspired algorithms, Sol.
Dris Ben hmamou: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Energy 132 (2016) 606–616, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.033.
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Mustapha Elyaqouti: [18] J.A. Jervase, H. Bourdoucen, A. Al-Lawati, Solar cell parameter extraction using
Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – genetic algorithms, Meas. Sci. Technol. 12 (11) (2001) 1922–1925, https://doi.
org/10.1088/0957-0233/12/11/322.
review & editing. Elhanafi Arjdal: Conceptualization, Validation, [19] J. C. Sánchez Barroso, J. P. M. Correia, N. Barth, S. Ahzi, and M. A. Khaleel, ‘‘A
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Jamal Chaoufi: PSO algorithm for the calculation of the series and shunt resistances of the PV
Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – panel one-diode model,” Proc. 2014 Int. Renew. Sustain. Energy Conf. IRSEC 2014,
pp. 1–6, 2014, doi: 10.1109/IRSEC.2014.7059883.
review & editing. Driss Saadaoui: Conceptualization, Methodology, [20] J. Ma, K. L. Man, T. O. Ting, N. Zhang, S. U. Guan, and P. W. H. Wong,
Writing – review & editing, Software, Formal analysis, Funding ‘‘Accelerating parameter estimation for photovoltaic models via parallel
acquisition. Souad Lidaighbi: Conceptualization, Methodology, particle swarm optimization,” Proc. - 2014 Int. Symp. Comput. Consum.
Control. IS3C 2014, pp. 175–178, 2014, doi: 10.1109/IS3C.2014.56.
Writing – review & editing, Software, Formal analysis, Funding
[21] Wei Peng, Yun Zeng, Hao Gong, Yong-qing Leng, Yong-hong Yan, Wei Hu,
acquisition. Rabya Aqel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing Evolutionary algorithm and parameters extraction for dye-sensitised solar
– review & editing, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition. cells one-diode equivalent circuit model, Micro Nano Lett. 8 (2) (2013) 86–89,
https://doi.org/10.1049/mna2.v8.210.1049/mnl.2012.0806.
[22] A.M. Beigi, A. Maroosi, Parameter identification for solar cells and module
Declaration of Competing Interest using a Hybrid Firefly and Pattern Search Algorithms, Sol. Energy 171
(November) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.092.
[23] K.M. El-Naggar, M.R. AlRashidi, M.F. AlHajri, A.K. Al-Othman, Simulated
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- Annealing algorithm for photovoltaic parameters identification, Sol. Energy
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared 86 (1) (2012) 266–274, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.09.032.
to influence the work reported in this paper. [24] M. R. Alrashidi, K. M. El-Naggar, and M. F. Alhajri, ‘‘Solar Cell Parameters
Estimation Using Simulated Annealing Algorithm,” World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol., vol. 76, no. April 2013, pp. 12–15, 2013.
References [25] M. R. Alrashidi and M. F. Alhajri, ‘‘Extraction of Photovoltaic Characteristics
Using Simulated Annealing,” pp. 77–79, 2014, doi: 10.15242/iie.e0514039.
[26] M. Ketkar, A.M. Chopde, Efficient Parameter Extraction of Solar Cell using
[1] C. Zhang, T. Xu, H. Feng, S. Chen, Greenhouse gas emissions from landfills: A
Modified ABC, Int. J. Comput. Appl. 102 (1) (2014) 1–6, https://doi.org/
review and bibliometric analysis, Sustain. 11 (8) (2019) 1–15, https://doi.org/
10.5120/17776-8535.
10.3390/su11082282.
[27] D. Oliva, E. Cuevas, G. Pajares, Parameter identification of solar cells using
[2] M. Sheraz Khalid, M.A. Abido, A novel and accurate photovoltaic simulator
artificial bee colony optimization, Energy 72 (2014) 93–102, https://doi.org/
based on seven-parameter model, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 116 (2014) 243–251,
10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.011.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.06.010.
[28] A. Biswas, S. Das, A. Abraham, S. Dasgupta, Analysis of the reproduction
[3] A. Orioli, A. Di Gangi, A procedure to calculate the five-parameter model of
operator in an artificial bacterial foraging system, Appl. Math. Comput. 215 (9)
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules on the basis of the tabular
(2010) 3343–3355, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2009.10.023.
performance data, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 1160–1177, https://doi.org/
[29] R. Pradhan, ‘‘Development of New Parameter Extraction Schemes and
10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.036.
Maximum Power Point Controllers for Photovoltaic Power Systems,” 2014.
[4] J. Ma, T.O. Ting, K.L. Man, N. Zhang, S.U. Guan, P.W.H. Wong, Parameter
[30] M. A. Awadallah, B. Venkatesh, and S. Member, ‘‘Bacterial Foraging Algorithm
estimation of photovoltaic models via cuckoo search, J. Appl. Math. 2013
Guided by Particle Swarm Optimization for Parameter Identification of
(2013) 10–12, https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/362619.

11
B. Hmamou, M. Elyaqouti, E. Arjdal et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 7–12

Photovoltaic Modules Algorithme de recherche de nourriture bactérienne [44] T. Easwarakhanthan, J. Bottin, I. Bouhouch, and C. Boutrit, ‘‘Nonlinear
guidé par l ’ optimisation par essaims particulaires pour l ’ identification de Minimization Algorithm for Determining the Solar Cell Parameters with
param,” Can. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. Vol. 39, No. 2, Spring 2016, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. Microcomputers Nonlinear Minimization Algorithm for Determining the Solar
150–157, 2016. Cell Parameters with Microcomputers,” vol. 5919, 2007, doi: 10.1080/
[31] S. Babu, K. Priya, and K. Balasubramanian, ‘‘An innovative method for solar 01425918608909835.
2015 pv parameter extraction for double diode model. Annual IEEE India [45] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, ‘‘Particle Swarm Optimization,” pp. 1942–1948,
Conference (INDICON), New Delhi; 2015; 6-1. 1995.
[32] B. Jacob, K. Balasubramanian, T.S. Babu, N. Rajasekar, ‘‘Parameter extraction of [46] F. Dkhichi, B. Oukarfi, A. Fakkar, N. Belbounaguia, Parameter identification of
solar PV double diode model using artificial immune system”, 2015 IEEE Int, solar cell model using Levenberg – Marquardt algorithm combined with
Conf. Signal Process. Informatics, Commun. Energy Syst. SPICES (2015, 2015,), simulated annealing, Sol. Energy 110 (2014) 781–788, https://doi.org/10.1016/
https://doi.org/10.1109/SPICES.2015.7091390. j.solener.2014.09.033.
[33] S. M. Mirbagheri, S. Z. Mirbagheri, and H. Mokhlis, ‘‘Stand-alone hybrid [47] A. Askarzadeh, A. Rezazadeh, Artificial bee swarm optimization algorithm for
renewable energy system simulation and optimization using imperialist parameters identification of solar cell models, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 943–
competitive algorithm,” POWERCON 2014 - 2014 Int. Conf. Power Syst. 949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.052.
Technol. Towar. Green, Effic. Smart Power Syst. Proc., no. Powercon, pp. 1127– [48] A. Askarzadeh, A. Rezazadeh, Parameter identification for solar cell models
1134, 2014, doi: 10.1109/POWERCON.2014.6993983. using harmony search-based algorithms, Sol. Energy 86 (11) (2012) 3241–
[34] D.M. Fébba, R.M. Rubinger, A.F. Oliveira, E.C. Bortoni, Impacts of temperature 3249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.08.018.
and irradiance on polycrystalline silicon solar cells parameters, Sol. Energy 174 [49] A. Askarzadeh, A. Rezazadeh, Extraction of maximum power point in solar cells
(September) (2018) 628–639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.09.051. using bird mating optimizer-based parameters identification approach, Sol.
[35] A. Dali, A. Bouharchouche, S. Diaf, ‘‘Parameter identification of photovoltaic Energy 90 (2013) 123–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.01.010.
cell/module using genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization [50] C. Zhang et al., ‘‘A simple and efficient solar cell parameter extraction method
(PSO)”, 3rd Int, Conf. Control. Eng. Inf. Technol. CEIT 2015 (2015), https://doi. from a single current-voltage curve A simple and efficient solar cell parameter
org/10.1109/CEIT.2015.7233137. extraction method from a single current-voltage curve,” vol. 064504, no. 2011,
[36] C. Saravanan, M.A. Panneerselvam, A Comprehensive Analysis for Extracting 2012, doi: 10.1063/1.3632971.
Single Diode PV Model Parameters by Hybrid GA-PSO Algorithm, Int. J. [51] M. Chegaar, A. Hamzaoui, A. Namoda, P. Petit, M. Aillerie, A. Herguth, Effect of
Comput. Appl. 78 (8) (2013) 16–19, https://doi.org/10.5120/13509-1265. illumination intensity on solar cells parameters, Energy Procedia 36 (2013)
[37] S.R. Madeti, S.N. Singh, Modeling of PV system based on experimental data for 722–729, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.084.
fault detection using kNN method, Sol. Energy 173 (March) (2018) 139–151, [52] M. Chegaar, Z. Ouennoughi, and A. Ho, ‘‘A new method for evaluating
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.038. illuminated solar cell parameters,” vol. 45, 2001.
[38] A.M. Eltamaly, H.M.H. Farh, M.F. Othman, A novel evaluation index for the [53] W. Yeh, A two-stage discrete particle swarm optimization for the problem of
photovoltaic maximum power point tracker techniques, Sol. Energy 174 multiple multi-level redundancy allocation in series systems, Expert Syst.
(October) (2018) 940–956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.09.060. Appl. 36 (5) (2009) 9192–9200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.12.024.
[39] H. Zhu, L. Lu, J. Yao, S. Dai, Y. Hu, Fault diagnosis approach for photovoltaic [54] D. Oliva, E. Cuevas, and G. Pajares, ‘‘Parameter identi fi cation of solar cells
arrays based on unsupervised sample clustering and probabilistic neural using arti fi cial bee colony optimization,” vol. 72, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.
network model, Sol. Energy 176 (October) (2018) 395–405, https://doi.org/ energy.2014.05.011.
10.1016/j.solener.2018.10.054. [55] A. Askarzadeh, S. Coelho, Determination of photovoltaic modules parameters
[40] M.R. Douiri, Particle swarm optimized neuro-fuzzy system for photovoltaic at different operating conditions using a novel bird mating optimizer
power forecasting model, Sol. Energy 184 (March) (2019) 91–104, https://doi. approach, Energy Convers. Manag. 89 (2015) 608–614, https://doi.org/
org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.03.098. 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.10.025.
[41] H. Böök A. Poikonen A. Aarva T. Mielonen M.R.A. Pitkänen A.V. Lindfors [56] P. Lin, S. Cheng, W. Yeh, Z. Chen, L. Wu, Parameters extraction of solar cell
Photovoltaic system modeling: A validation study at high latitudes with models using a modified simplified swarm optimization algorithm, Sol. Energy
implementation of a novel DNI quality control method Sol. Energy 204 April 144 (2017) 594–603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.064.
2020 2019, pp. 316–329 10.1016/j.solener.2020.04.068 [57] W. Shinong, M. Qianlong, X. Jie, G. Yuan, L. Shilin, An improved mathematical
[42] B. Li, C. Delpha, D. Diallo, A. Migan-Dubois, Application of Artificial Neural model of photovoltaic cells based on datasheet information, Sol. Energy 199
Networks to photovoltaic fault detection and diagnosis: A review, Renew. (February) (2020) 437–446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.02.046.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 138 (December) (2019) 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [58] W. De Soto, S. A. Klein, and W. A. Beckman, ‘‘Improvement and validation of a
rser.2020.110512. model for photovoltaic array performance,” vol. 80, pp. 78–88, 2006, doi:
[43] B. Lekouaghet, A. Boukabou, C. Boubakir, Estimation of the photovoltaic 10.1016/j.solener.2005.06.010.
cells/modules parameters using an improved Rao-based chaotic optimization [59] H. Bellia, R. Youcef, M. Fatima, A detailed modeling of photovoltaic module
technique, Energy Convers. Manag. 229 (December) (2021), https://doi.org/ using MATLAB, NRIAG J. Astron. Geophys. 3 (1) (2014) 53–61, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113722. 10.1016/j.nrjag.2014.04.001.

12