Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Determining combined effects of solar radiation and panel junction T

temperature on all model-parameters to forecast peak power and
photovoltaic yield of solar panel under non-standard conditions
M. Zaimi, H. El Achouby, A. Ibral, E.M. Assaid
⁎

Electronics and Optics of Semiconductor Nanostructures and Sustainable Energy Team, Laboratory of Instrumentation of Measure and Control, Department of Physics,
Faculty of Sciences, Chouaïb Doukkali University, P.O. Box 20 El Jadida, Morocco

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Model-physical parameters extraction
Panel junction temperature effect
Solar radiation effect
Solar radiation coefficient
Panel junction temperature coefficients
Current-voltage characteristics
In the current study, we introduce two methods to extract model-physical parameters of a solar panel using
photovoltaic metrics at key points. We use a single-diode circuit to describe a solar panel working under STC.
According to the first method, we derive a new transcendental equation connecting series resistance Rs to quality
factor η and photovoltaic metrics at key points. Following the second method, we establish a new analytic
expression giving series resistance as a function of quality factor and key points coordinates. For both methods,
we express parallel conductance Gp, photo-generation current Iph and leakage current Is in terms of quality factor
and all photovoltaic metrics. We use quality factor as variational parameter to minimize RMSE between ex-
perimental and optimized characteristics. We borrow temperature coefficients from manufacturer data sheet and
determine panel radiation coefficients to derive analytical expressions giving variations of photovoltaic metrics
at key points as functions of panel junction temperature T and solar radiation S. To investigate dependencies of
all model-physical parameters versus T and S, we consider numerical values of model-physical parameters at STC
as initial conditions, and resolve the system of non-linear equations linking panel current to panel voltage at key
points. We test numerical models established and mathematical expressions derived by specifying to PV solar
panels such as KC130GT and SM55 operating at different environmental conditions of ambient temperature and
solar radiation. As a result, for arbitrary environmental conditions, predicted characteristics agree with mea-
sured characteristics validating thereby our numerical approach.

1. Introduction
1.1. Global context
Today, energy demand throughout the world has been rising rapidly
(Modis, 2018; Yıldız, 2018). Energy needs are increasing due to in-
dustrial and emerging nations (Yıldız, 2018). Unluckily, fossil fuels
such as natural gas, coal, bituminous rocks and oil are non-renewable
resources of energy (Barreto, 2018; Yıldız, 2018). Their over-
exploitation will inevitably lead to their exhaustion, which will pose the
question of energy security (Hache, 2018). At the same time, important
discoveries of conventional energy resources across the world are get-
ting rare and world organic origin energy reserves grow slightly. Fur-
thermore, immoderate consumption of organic origin energy implies a
rise of rates of gas emissions like methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide in the air which leads to aggravation of greenhouse effect
(Kandiyoti et al., 2017; Yıldız, 2018). Therefore, human civilization and
the biosphere are meeting some environmental problems like rise of gas
releases causing global warming, forest recession, air pollution and
rarefaction of non-renewable Earth resources (Weng et al., 2018). This
results in a global warming with catastrophic consequences and ex-
treme weather events such as rise of Earth temperature, sea ice reces-
sion, ocean acidification, heavy rains and severe aridity. To achieve
sustainable development that saves natural resources and fulfils human
increasing needs for energy without harming the environment, renew-
able and sustainable clean energies are the Earth alternate solutions.
For Earth citizens, the sun stands for the major reserve of energy. Its
light is convertible to electricity via photovoltaic devices in PV plants
(Guerrero Delgado et al., 2018; Talavera et al., 2016) or to heat in
concentrated solar power plants (Cocco et al., 2016; Leiva-Illanes et al.,
2019; Zhai et al., 2017). Therefore, the sun is an inexhaustible source of
clean renewable energy.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eassaid@yahoo.fr (E.M. Assaid).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.007
Received 12 July 2019; Received in revised form 29 August 2019; Accepted 2 September 2019
Available online 10 September 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Nomenclature Voc Voltage drop between PV panel terminals at open-circuit

[V]
STC Standard Testing Conditions (T = 298.15 K, S = 1000 Wm - 2 Voc (STC ) Open-circuit voltage of PV panel at STC [V]
and AM1.5G spectrum) Voc (SSTC ) Open-circuit voltage of PV panel at standard solar radiation
QFV-SE Quality Factor Variation for a System of Equations Method [V]
QFV-TE Quality Factor Variation for Transcendent Equation Voc (TSTC ) Open-circuit voltage of PV panel at standard temperature
Method [V]
QFV-AE Quality Factor Variation for Analytical Equation Method Vmpp Peak power voltage [V]
RMSE Root Mean Square Error Vmpp (TSTC ) Peak power voltage at standard temperature [V]
RSS Residual sum of squares P Delivered power of PV panel [W]
R2 Determination coefficient Pmpp Peak power of PV panel [W]
Quality factor of internal p-n junction Rs Series parasitic resistance of PV panel [Ω]
STC Quality factor of internal p-n junction at STC Rs0 Reciprocal of slope of I-V curve at open-circuit point [Ω]
W (x ) LambertW function Rsh Shunt resistance of PV panel [Ω]
Loop step of quality factor Gp Parallel conductance of PV panel [Ω−1]
Ns Number of PV cells connected in series within solar panel T Panel junction temperature [K]
AM Air Mass TSTC Panel standard temperature [298.15 K]
kB Boltzmann’s constant (1.3806 10−23J/K) TINI Panel junction temperature initial value [K]
q Elementary charge (1.6021 10−19C) TFIN Panel junction temperature final value [K]
I Current flow through PV panel [A] T Loop step of panel junction temperature [K]
Iph Panel photo-generation current [A] S Solar radiation [W·m−2]
Is Leakage current of internal p-n junction [A] SSTC Standard solar radiation [1 kW·m−2]
Isc Short-circuit current of PV panel [A] SINI Solar radiation initial value [W·m−2]
Isc (STC ) Short-circuit current of PV panel at STC [A] SFIN Solar radiation final value [W·m−2]
Isc (SSTC ) Short-circuit current of PV panel at standard solar radiation S Loop step of solar radiation [W·m−2]
[A] Ki Isc coefficient of temperature [A/°C]
Isc (TSTC ) Short-circuit current of PV panel at standard temperature Kv Voc coefficient of temperature [V/°C]
[A] Ki, mpp Impp coefficient of temperature [A/°C]
Impp Peak power current of PV panel [A] Kv, mpp Vmpp coefficient of temperature [V/°C]
Impp (STC ) Peak power current of PV panel at STC [A] v, oc Linear coefficient of solar radiation within quadratic model
Impp (SSTC ) Peak power current of PV panel at standard solar radiation of Voc [V·W−1·m−2]
[A] v, oc Coefficient of squared solar radiation within quadratic
IExperience Measured current flow through PV panel [A] model of Voc [V·W−2·m−4]
IComputer Computed current flow through PV panel [A] v, mpp Linear coefficient of solar radiation within quadratic model
abs Absolute deviation of panel current [A] of Vmpp [V/W·m−2]
NE Normalized error v, mpp Coefficient of squared solar radiation within quadratic
V Voltage drop between PV panel terminals [V] model of Vmpp [V·W−2 m−4]
Vth Thermal agitation voltage [V] SPanel Panel front area [m2]

1.2. Selection of model-physical parameters extraction methods and
overview of the literature on effects of temperature and radiation
In the current paper, we are concerned with topics of solar photo-
voltaic energy. We focus our attention on devices converting incoming
solar radiation into electricity, as photovoltaic solar cells, panels and
arrays. One of major questions related to this issue is how to extract
model-physical parameters in single-diode, double-diode or triple-diode
electronic circuits modelling PV solar cells and panels. To achieve this
task accurately without resorting to any approximations, one can use
methods calling the entire current-voltage curve. In this way, Ortiz-
Conde et al. (Ortiz-conde et al., 2006; Ortiz-Conde and García Sánchez,
2005) have determined the analytical expression of Co-Content appli-
cation CC (I , V ) which assign for each point (I , V ) the area under
translated I = f (V ) characteristics. They have shown that closed form
CC (I , V ) is two-variable polynomial of degree two whose coefficients
are expressed in terms of model-physical parameters. Optimal values of
model-physical parameters are then determined by performing two-
dimension adjusting of experimental data of CC (I , V ) to analytical
expression. Other authors (Chegaar et al., 2004, 2001; Ouennoughi and
Chegaar, 1999) have determined analytical equation of dynamical
conductance Gdyn (I , V ) as rational function of two-variable polynomials
whose coefficients are given as functions of model-physical parameters.
Here again, optimal values of model-physical parameters are
determined by achieving two-dimension adjusting of experimental va-
lues of Gdyn (I , V ) to analytical expression. In our previous works (El
Achouby et al., 2018a, 2018b), we determined model-physical para-
meters by performing non-linear statistical fit of current-voltage char-
acteristics to analytical solution of panel transcendent equation. Other
authors have determined model-physical parameters of solar panels
described by single-diode (Alam et al., 2015; Askarzadeh and dos
Santos Coelho, 2015; Gao et al., 2018b, 2018a), double-diode (Chin
et al., 2016; Gao et al., 2018b, 2016; Ishaque et al., 2012; Muhsen et al.,
2015) or triple diode (Allam et al., 2016; Qais et al., 2019) equivalent
circuit using evolutionary nature inspired algorithms.
Outdoor performance of a PV panel is largely dependent on panel
junction temperature and on the availability of incoming solar radia-
tion. Indeed, panel junction temperature T and incoming solar radiation
S vary drastically during one day. T and S are low at sunset and sunrise
and high at solar noon (Zaimi et al., 2018). Therefore, equivalent
electronic circuits used to describe photovoltaic panels must take into
account effects of changing environmental conditions, which means
that model-physical parameters are two variable functions depending
on panel junction temperature and solar radiation. Unfortunately, to
determine the dependencies of all model-physical parameters on T and
S is not an easy task because it requires many equations and researchers
often consider some parameters as constant with regard to T or S , or
investigate effects of one variable keeping other variable constant.

342
M. Zaimi, et al.
Thereby, Chouder et al. (2012) and Bai et al. (2014) used single-diode
electronic circuit to describe a photovoltaic panel. They considered that
leakage current and quality factor depend only on T , series (parasitic)
resistance and photo-generation current depend on T and S while
parallel conductance depend only on S . Elbaset et al. (2014) used
double-diode electronic circuit to model PV panel. They used Runge–-
Kutta Merson and Newton Raphson iteration procedures to determine
variations of model-physical parameters versus incoming solar radia-
tion S while keeping panel junction temperature T constant. They
generated non-linear I = f (V ) and P = f (V ) curves, applied their
technique to PV solar panels coming from various fabrication technol-
ogies, namely thin films, poly-crystalline and amorphous PV solar pa-
nels and concluded that the suggested model presents a good ac-
cordance with regard to data given in some references in the literature,
and to two solar panels technical sheets.
According to what has been reported in bibliography, most of pa-
pers concerned with the influence of environmental conditions assume
photo-generation current as a bilinear application of panel junction
temperature T and incoming solar radiation S (Bai et al., 2014;
Chatterjee et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2016, 2015; Chouder et al., 2012;
Jordehi, 2016; Lineykin et al., 2014; Siddiqui et al., 2013; Villalva
et al., 2009). Researchers assume that leakage current varies ex-
ponentially with regard to panel junction temperature T and slightly
with regard to incoming solar radiation S (Bai et al., 2014; Chin et al.,
2016, 2015; Chouder et al., 2012; Jordehi, 2016; Lineykin et al., 2014;
Shongwe and Hanif, 2015; Siddiqui et al., 2013; Villalva et al., 2009).
Authors often consider quality factor as non-depending function on T
and S (Chatterjee et al., 2011; Humada et al., 2016; Lineykin et al.,
2014; Peng et al., 2014; Sera et al., 2007; Shongwe and Hanif, 2015;
Villalva et al., 2009) or as linear application of T (Bai et al., 2014; Chin
et al., 2016; Chouder et al., 2012; Jordehi, 2016; Siddiqui et al., 2013).
Researchers often consider series parasitic resistance as non-depending
function on T and S (El Achouby et al., 2018a, 2018b; Humada et al.,
2016; Lineykin et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2014; Sera et al., 2007;
Shongwe and Hanif, 2015; Siddiqui et al., 2013; Villalva et al., 2009).
Other authors consider series parasitic resistance as a bilinear appli-
cation of T and S (Bai et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2011; Chouder
et al., 2012; Jordehi, 2016) or as a function of S (Chin et al., 2015).
Researchers often consider parallel resistance as non-depending func-
tion on T and S (El Achouby et al., 2018a, 2018b; Humada et al., 2016;
Lineykin et al., 2014; Sera et al., 2007; Shongwe and Hanif, 2015;
Villalva et al., 2009). Other researchers consider shunt resistance as a
function of S and non-depending function on T (Bai et al., 2014; Chin
et al., 2015; Chouder et al., 2012; De Soto et al., 2006; Jordehi, 2016;
Peng et al., 2014; Ruschel et al., 2016; Siddiqui et al., 2013).
1.3. Aim and novelties of the current work
In the current work, we focus our attention on the two fundamental
issues mentioned above. The first issue is the extraction of five model-
physical parameters contained in single-diode circuit describing PV
solar panel at STC (T = 298.15 K, S = 1000W/m2) . The second issue is
the investigation of effects of incoming solar radiation S along with
panel junction temperature T on all model-physical parameters. In this
contribution, we state that five model-physical parameters, namely
photo-generation current Iph (T , S ) , leakage current Is (T , S ) , quality
factor (T , S ) , series parasitic resistance Rs (T , S ) and parallel con-
ductance Gp (T , S ) (or shunt resistance Rsh (T , S ) ) depend on both panel
junction temperature T and incoming solar radiation S . We can break
the present paper into three parts. In the first part, we introduce our
work by a preface. In the second part, we present two novel methods to
extract optimal values of model-physical parameters contained in the
equivalent circuit describing PV solar panel build by series connecting
of a given number of photovoltaic cells. In the third part, we investigate
effects of temperature and radiation on PV panel. The first method of
extraction, that is a rigorously exact method, uses a transcendent
343
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359
equation linking series parasitic resistance to quality factor and to
photovoltaic metrics at key points. The second method uses a new
closed form equation giving series parasitic resistance as a function of
quality factor, current and voltage values at key points. According to
both methods, quality factor plays the role of a parameter, which we
vary to minimize deviation between optimized and experimental
characteristics at STC. These methods have the advantage of using only
values of current and voltage at key points and do not call the entire
current-voltage characteristics. So, they are insensitive to errors that
might occur in other auxiliary points of I = f (V ) characteristics. Using
analytical expressions providing variations of photovoltaic metrics at
key points as functions of panel junction temperature and incoming
solar radiation, we resolve numerically via fsolve procedure of Maple
software the system of three non-linear equations tying current to
voltage and model-physical parameters at key points for given values of
panel junction temperature and solar radiation. Then we vary T (or S )
maintaining S (or T ) fixed to determine the dependencies of model-
physical parameters versus T (or S ) for arbitrary environmental con-
ditions. In section three, we particularize to the following PV solar
panels: KC130GT from Kyocera and SM55 from Shell. We determine
values of five model-physical parameters at STC. We extract numerical
values of quality factor, series parasitic resistance, parallel conductance
and leakage current for any values of panel junction temperature and
solar radiation. To check precision for model-physical parameter ex-
traction methods, we compare I = f (V ) characteristics measured at
STC to numerical characteristics. To assess accuracy for numerical
model giving values of all model-physical parameters versus panel
junction temperature T and incoming solar radiation S , we compare
I = f (V ) characteristics measured at given operating conditions of T
and S to forecasted characteristics. Finally, we summarize our work by
a general conclusion.
2. Theoretical framework and numerical procedures
2.1. Basic equations of PV solar panel
In the current work, we describe PV solar panel by single-diode
circuit that contains five model-physical parameters, all depending on
both panel junction temperature and solar radiation (see Fig. 1):
The transcendent equation that links panel current I to panel vol-
tage V for single-diode model given in Fig. 1 is (Aazou et al., 2013;
Aazou and Assaid, 2009b, 2009a; Rauschenbach, 1980):
V +I Rs
I = Iph Is e Ns Vth 1 Gp (Rs I + V )
(1)
where Iph is the photo-generation current flowing throughout the panel
and due to charge carrier’s generation process occurring in solar cells. Is
is the unbiased p-n junction leakage current associated with minority
carrier’s diffusion mechanisms. is the p-n junction quality factor de-
scribing the quality of p-n junction and taking into account generation-
recombination mechanisms occurring within the p-n junction. Rs is the
series parasitic resistance due to solar cell terminal contacts and to
Fig. 1. Single-diode circuit describing PV solar panel at arbitrary conditions of
T and S (Rauschenbach, 1980).
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

inner resistance of solar cells homogeneous regions. Gp = 1 Rsh is the Impp Impp C+1 Iph Voc Gp Impp
shunt conductance modelling current loss due to charge carriers fleeing = 1 Rs Gp 1 Rs
Vmpp Vmpp Ns Vth A Vmpp
at terminals of each solar cell. Vth = kB T q is the p-n junction thermal
(11)
agitation voltage. kB is Boltzmann’s constant, q is electron’s charge, Ns
stands for the number of PV solar cells connected in series to form solar Finally, we first use Eq. (8) to substitute photo-generation current in
panel and T is the panel junction temperature. Eq. (11), then we plug Eq. (10) into updated Eq. (11) to yield the fol-
By setting I = 0 in Eq. (1), we obtain a transcendent equation lowing equation:
linking Voc to model-physical parameters: AVmpp (Isc 2 Impp) B (Voc 2 Vmpp ) Impp + C (Impp Voc Isc Vmpp)
Is (e(Voc (2)
0 = Iph Ns Vth) 1) Voc Gp C+1
+ [( Impp Rs Vmpp )(Voc (Isc Impp) Vmpp Isc )] = 0
Ns Vth (12)
By setting V = 0 in Eq. (1), we obtain another transcendent equation
Eq. (12) is a transcendent equation linking series parasitic resistance
connecting Isc to model-physical parameters:
Rs to quality factor and to photovoltaic metrics corresponding to key
Isc = Iph Is (e(Rs Isc Ns Vth) 1) Rs Gp Isc (3) points. It leads to the same solution as the condition on Rs and (Eq.
(29)) derived in (Laudani et al., 2014).
At peak power key-point (I = Impp , V = Vmpp ), PV solar panel trans-
cendent equation (Eq. (1)) becomes: 2.3. Analytical equation of series parasitic resistance
Impp = Iph Is (e((Vmpp+ Rs Impp) Ns Vth) 1) (Rs Impp + Vmpp ) Gp (4)
At short-circuit point, if we neglect the contribution due to excess
The derivative of power with respect to voltage at peak power point minority carriers (B Is ) in comparison to other components
cancels which gives: (Isc + Rs Gp Isc ) , we will lead to simplified expressions of photo-genera-
Vmpp+ Rs Impp tion current and parallel conductance:
Impp Rs Impp Is Ns Vth
Rs Impp
= 1 e 1 Gp Iph = (1 + Gp Rs ) Isc (13)
Vmpp Vmpp Ns Vth Vmpp (5)
(A C ) Isc A Impp
Closed-form solution of PV panel transcendent equation (Eq. (1)) Gp =
expressing panel current I versus panel voltage V and all model-phy- A (Rs (Isc Impp) Vmpp) + C (Voc Rs Isc ) (14)
sical parameters is given as a function of LambertW function (Banwell
We redo calculation presented in Section 2.2 by setting B = 0 and
and Jayakumar, 2000; Corless et al., 1996; Jain, 2004):
lead to a new transcendent equation comparable to Eq. (12):
Rs (Is + Iph) + V
Ns Vth Is Rs (1 + Rs Gp ) Ns Vth
Is + Iph VGp AVmpp (Isc 2 Impp) +
C+1
[(Rs Impp Vmpp)( (Isc Impp) Voc Isc Vmpp)]
I= W e + Ns Vth
Rs (1 + Rs Gp ) Ns Vth 1 + Rs Gp
+ C (Impp Voc Isc Vmpp) = 0
(6) (15)
W (x ) referred to as LambertWk (x ) is the analytical solution of the The analytical resolution of Eq. (15) provides a new unpublished
transcendent equation W (x ) eW (x ) = x . W (x ) is a multi-valued function equation expressing series parasitic resistance as a function of quality
(Corless et al., 1996). In our case, the suitable branch corresponds to factor and photovoltaic metrics corresponding to key points:
k = 0 and obeys to the condition LambertW0 (0) = 0 (Corless et al.,
Rs = E LambertW 1 (F exp(J )) + H (16)
1996).
where,
2.2. Transcendent equation giving series parasitic resistance Ns Vth
E=
Impp (17.a)
In this paragraph, we derive a new transcendent equation linking
series parasitic resistance to quality factor and to photovoltaic mea- Impp Voc Vmpp Isc + A Vmpp (2 Impp Isc )
surements at key points that are accessible to experience (Laudani et al., F=
Impp Voc + Isc (Vmpp Voc ) (17.b)
2014). First, we extract leakage current from Eq. (2):
2 Vmpp Impp Voc Vmpp Isc
Iph Voc Gp J=
Is = Ns Vth Impp Voc + Isc (Vmpp Voc ) (17.c)
A (7)

where A = exp(Voc Ns Vth ) 1. Using Eq. (7), we substitute leakage Ns Vth (Impp Voc Vmpp Isc ) Vmpp
H= +
current by its expression in Eq. (3) to get an alternative expression of Impp ( Voc Impp + (Vmpp Voc ) Isc ) Impp (17.d)
photo-generation current:
A Isc B Gp Voc A Rs Isc Gp 2.4. Numerical extraction of PV solar panel model-physical parameters
Iph =
A B (8)

where B = exp(Isc Rs Ns Vth) 1. Using Eq. (7), we substitute Is in Eq. In our previous paper (El Achouby et al., 2018a), we introduced a
(4) and reach the following equation: new method of extraction called Quality Factor Variation for a System
of Equations Method (QFV-SE Method) where we utilized as a para-
C meter that we vary from 1 to a maximum value. For each value, we used
Impp = Iph (Iph Voc Gp) Gp (Vmpp + Impp Rs )
A (9) Maple software (fsolve procedure) to resolve the system of four non-
where C = exp(Vmpp + Rs Impp Ns Vth ) 1. Then we plug Eq. (8) into Eq. linear Eqs. (2)–(5) and determined the numerical values of photo-gen-
(9) and solve for Gp : eration current Iph , leakage current Is , series parasitic resistance Rs and
parallel conductance Gp . We sorted numerical values of according
Isc (A C ) + Impp (B A)
Gp = values of RMSE (and R2 ) and selected that minimize RMSE and
A (R s (Isc Impp) Vmpp) + B (Vmpp Voc + Rs Impp) + C (Voc R s Isc ) (10)
maximize R2 following the algorithm in Fig. 2 of reference (El Achouby
Using Eq. (7), we substitute Is in Eq. (5) and reach the following et al., 2018a).
equation: In this subsection, we introduce two unpublished methods: Quality

344
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

(7). Then we vary quality factor with a step = 0.001 to minimize

RMSE and maximize R2 as reported by the algorithm given in Fig. 2.
Following method 2 also named Quality Factor Variation for an Ana-
lytic Equation Method (QFV-AE Method), we also use as a variational
parameter. We allocate an initial value to and calculate values of Rs ,
Gp , Iph and Is using successively Eqs. (16), (14), (13) and (7). Finally, we
vary quality factor with a step = 0.001 to minimize RMSE and
maximize R2 according to an algorithm comparable to that given in
Fig. 2.

2.5. Closed-form solutions at key points of I = f (V ) characteristics

The three key points of I = f (V ) characteristics are open-circuit

point (V = Voc, I = 0) , short-circuit point (V = 0, I = Isc ) and peak
power point (V = Vmpp, I = Impp) .
By resolving Eq. (2), we lead to a closed-form solution for the vol-
tage drop Voc between panel terminals at open-circuit point:
Iph + Is

I e Ns Vth Gp Iph + Is
Voc = W s + Ns Vth
Ns Vth Gp Ns Vth Gp
(18)

By resolving Eq. (3), we obtain a closed-form solution for the cur-

rent Isc flowing between panel terminals at short-circuit point:
Rs (Is + Iph)

Ns Vth Rs Is e (1 +Rs Gp ) Ns Vth Is + Iph

Isc = W +
Rs (1 + Rs Gp ) Ns Vth 1 + Rs Gp
(19)

The resolution of Eq. (4) leads to closed-form expressions for the

current flow Impp as well as voltage drop Vmpp between panel terminals
at peak power point:
Rs (Is + Iph) + Vmpp

Ns Vth Rs Is e (1 +Rs Gp ) Ns Vth Is + Iph Gp Vmpp

Impp = W +
Rs (1 + Rs Gp ) Ns Vth 1 + Rs Gp
(20.a)

Is + Iph Impp

I e Ns Vth Gp Is + Iph Impp

Vmpp = Rs Impp + W s + Ns Vth
Ns Vth Gp Ns Vth Gp

(20.b)

2.6. Closed-form equations modelling impact of panel junction temperature

and incoming solar radiation at key points of I = f (V ) curve

2.6.1. Effect of panel junction temperature on PV metrics at key points

Fig. 2. Algorithm corresponding to model-physical parameter extraction
method according QFV-TE method.
Factor Variation for Transcendent Equation Method (QFV-TE Method)
and Quality Factor Variation for Analytical Equation Method (QFV-AE
Method) to determine model-physical parameters of single-diode circuit
describing PV solar panel working at STC.
For both methods, we begin by defining the interval of corre-
sponding to positive values of Rs using Eqs. (12), (16) and Gp using Eqs.
(10), (14). According to the first method called Quality Factor Variation
for a Transcendent Equation Method (QFV-TE Method), we use as a
variational parameter. We assign an initial value to and resolve Eq.
(12) via Maple software (fsolve procedure) to obtain the value of Rs and
calculate values of Gp , Iph and Is using successively Eqs. (10), (8) and
According to reference equations reported in ISO/IEC International
Standard 60891 (IEC 60891, 2009), researchers consider variations of
voltage Voc , current Isc and voltage Vmpp as linear applications of varia-
tion of panel junction temperature (T TSTC ) for any value of incoming
solar radiation (Chatterjee et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2015; Cuce et al.,
2017; Ismail et al., 2013; Sera et al., 2007; Shongwe and Hanif, 2015):
Voc (T ) = Voc (TSTC ) + Kv (T TSTC ) (21)
Isc (T ) = Isc (TSTC ) + Ki (T TSTC ) (22)
Vmpp (T ) = Vmpp (TSTC ) + Kv, mpp (T TSTC ) (23)
In Eqs. (21)–(23), the starting point is STC temperature TSTC .
Voc (TSTC ), Isc (TSTC ) and Vmpp (TSTC ) stand for open-circuit voltage, short-
circuit current and peak power voltage respectively for reference tem-
perature TSTC = 298.15 K and a fixed insolation. Kv (V °C ) , Ki (A ° C )
and Kv, mpp (V °C ) are respectively temperature coefficients of Voc , Isc
and Vmpp .

345
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

2.6.2. Effect of solar radiation on PV metrics at key points 2.6.3. Simultaneous effects of incoming solar radiation and panel junction
Concerning the effect of solar radiation S on key points coordinates, temperature on PV metrics at key points
most of papers in the literature suggest linear models to mimic varia- In general case, solar radiation S and panel junction temperature T
tions of Isc (S ) (Chatterjee et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2015; Ismail et al., change at the same time, we can fairly describe Voc and Isc starting from
2013; Sera et al., 2007; Shongwe and Hanif, 2015) and Impp (S ) (Alam STC by the models given below (El Achouby et al., 2018a):
et al., 2015; Chouder et al., 2012; Cuce et al., 2017; Ismail et al., 2013;
Jordehi, 2016; Slimani et al., 2017) starting from STC radiation SSTC : Voc (T , S )
= Voc (STC ) + Kv (T TSTC ) + v, oc (S SSTC ) + v, oc (S SSTC )2
S
Isc (S ) = Isc (SSTC ) (28)
SSTC (24)
S
S Isc (T , S ) = (Isc (STC ) + Ki (T TSTC ))
Impp (S ) = Impp (SSTC ) SSTC (29)
SSTC (25)
To describe the variation of peak power point current and voltage
In Eqs. (24) and (25), Isc (SSTC ) and Impp (SSTC ) stand for short-circuit versus panel junction temperature T and solar radiation S starting from
and peak power currents respectively for reference solar radiation STC, we use the mathematical models:
SSTC = 1000 W/m2 and a fixed panel junction temperature.
For an incoming solar radiation S ranging between 0.2 kW/m2 and S
Impp (T , S ) = (Impp (STC ) + Ki, mpp (T TSTC ))
1 kW/m2, open-circuit voltage Voc (S ) may be fairly described, starting SSTC (30)
from STC radiation SSTC , by the following quadratic model that we
tested and validated previously (El Achouby et al., 2018): Vmpp (T , S ) = Vmpp (STC ) + v, mpp (S SSTC ) + v, mpp (S SSTC ) 2 + Kv, mpp

SSTC ) 2 (T TSTC ) (31)

Voc (S ) = Voc (SSTC ) + v, oc (S SSTC ) + v, oc (S (26)
The mathematical equation describing variation of panel yield as a
In Eq. (26), Voc (SSTC ) is open-circuit voltage for reference solar ra-
function of T and S reads:
diation SSTC = 1 kW/m2 and arbitrary panel junction temperature. v, oc
and v, oc are solar radiation coefficients at open-circuit point we de- Impp (T , S ) Vmpp (T , S )
Yield (T , S ) =
termined by achieving numerical adjusting of Voc values provided in S·SPanel (32)
manufacturer’s data sheet to model of Eq. (26) (El Achouby et al.,
SPanel stands for the top (front) area of PV panel. Table 1 gives values
2018a).
of SPanel corresponding to Kyocera KC130GT and Shell SM55 PV solar
However, for the dependency of peak power voltage Vmpp with re-
panels.
gard to solar radiation S starting from SSTC , there are controversies
between mathematical models suggested in the literature. In some re-
ferences, authors suggested analytical model with one logarithmic 2.7. Solar radiation and panel junction temperature effects on all model-
term, that we name model 1 (Chin et al., 2016; Jordehi, 2016; Slimani physical parameters
et al., 2017):
Model-physical parameters of PV solar panel are sensitive to var-
Vmpp (S ) = Vmpp (STC ) + Ns STC Vth (TSTC ) ln(S SSTC ) (27.a) iations of incoming solar radiation S and panel junction temperature T .
It is therefore necessary to be capable to predict the variations of model-
where Vmpp (STC ) is peak power voltage for standard values of panel
physical parameters versus the variables T and S in order to forecast the
junction temperature (TSTC = 298.15 K) and solar radiation
changes that may occur in current-voltage characteristics.
(SSTC = 1 kW/m2) .
In the present contribution, we aim to determine numerically the
In another paper, King et al. used two logarithmic terms to model
dependencies of all model-physical parameters against S and T .
the variation of peak power voltage versus solar radiation starting from
According to all papers, present in reported bibliography, the de-
SSTC (De Soto et al., 2006; Kratochvil et al., 2004):
pendences of photo-generation current with respect to T and S are both
Vmpp (S ) = Vmpp (STC ) + C2 Ns STC Vth (TSTC ) ln(S SSTC ) linear. Therefore, we only have to determine the dependencies of
+ C3 Ns ( ln(S SSTC ))2 (27.b) leakage current, quality factor, parasitic series resistance and parallel
STC Vth (TSTC )
conductance with respect to T and S using Eqs. (2)–(5) at three key
For the model given by Eq. (27.b) and called Model 2, the coeffi- points of I = f (V ) characteristics. Since the equation at peak power
cients at peak power voltage C2 and C3 are given by King et al. for point (Eqs. (4) and (5)) encloses Impp and Vmpp , it is mandatory to model
different technologies, namely thin film silicon, single-crystalline, the dependencies of Impp and Vmpp on the variables T and S .
polycrystalline and three junctions amorphous solar cells (De Soto
et al., 2006). 2.7.1. Mathematical model of photo-generation current Iph (T , S )
In this contribution, we present and evaluate a novel analytical In a first step, we begin by modelling photo-generation current
model to mimic variations of Vmpp (S ) for a solar radiation ranging be-
tween 0.2 kW/m2 and 1 kW/m2 starting from SSTC for all technologies Table 1
mentioned above. This model, also called Model 3, is a quadratic Technical specifications of KC130GT (Kyocera) and SM55 (Shell) PV panels
polynomial model in (S SSTC ) which describes the variations of under STC imported from manufacturer’s technical sheets.
Vmpp (S ) as follows:
Panel metrics KC130GT SM55
Vmpp (S ) = Vmpp (STC ) + v, mpp (S SSTC ) + v, mpp (S SSTC )2 (27.c) Ns 36 36
Isc [A] 8.02 3.45
where v, mpp and v, mpp are the coefficients of the second-degree poly- Voc [V] 21.9 21.7
nomial. They are determined by achieving numerical adjusting of Vmpp Impp [A] 7.39 3.15
experimental values given in manufacturer’s data sheet to analytical Vmpp [V] 17.6 17.4
model provided by Eq. (27.c), using Statistics [NonlinearFit] add-on Ki [A/°C] 3.18 × 10−3 1.4 × 10−3
Kv [V/°C] −82.1 × 10−3 −76 × 10−3
(Khan, 2017) of Maple software (Maple V, 2015). As shown in Section
Kv,mpp[V/°C] −93.1 × 10−3 −76 × 10−3
3.3, the model that accurately reproduces experimental measures of SPanel [m2] 0.9291 0.3819
Vmpp (S ) is the quadratic model introduced by Eq. (27.c).

346
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Iph (T , S ) . In all bibliographical references dealing with effects of en- SINI = 1 kW/m2 and SFIN = 0.2 kW/m2 for both panels.
vironmental conditions on model-physical parameters, Iph (T , S ) de- For further description of solar cell physics, we can add a diode in
pends directly (explicitly) on panel junction temperature and solar ra- parallel to that in Fig. 1 which leads to a double-diode model with seven
diation as follows (Attivissimo et al., 2012; Bai et al., 2014; Chatterjee parameters (Iph,Is1, 1, Is2, 2 , Gp, Rs ). Knowing Iph (T , S ) , to investigate
et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2016, 2015; Chouder et al., 2012; Jordehi, effects of T and S on such circuit we need twelve equations: four model
2016; Lineykin et al., 2014; Siddiqui et al., 2013; Slimani et al., 2017, equations (Eqs. (28)–(31)), three equations at key points, slope of the
2016; Villalva et al., 2009): power curve at peak power point and four additional model equations
S at two other points of current-voltage curve. If we use double-diode
Iph (T , S ) = (Iph, STC + Ki (T TSTC )) model with six parameters (Is1 = Is2 ) as in Chaibi et al. (2019), we will
SSTC (33)
need ten equations. Anyway, the single diode model with five para-
meters leads to acceptable accuracy and does not need very long
2.7.2. The numerical scheme to determine dependencies of model-physical computing time. Knowing Iph (T , S ) , it only needs eight equations: four
parameters according to panel junction temperature and solar radiation model equations (Eqs. (28)–(31)), equations at key points and slope of
In a second step, we use Eq. (2) to express leakage current Is (T , S ) as P = f(V) at maximum power point which we can reduce as seen above
a function of Iph (T , S ) , (T , S ) and Gp (T , S ) : to Eqs. (35)–(37).
Iph (T , S ) Gp (T , S ) Voc (T , S )
Is (T , S ) =
e(Voc (T , S ) Ns (T , S ) Vth (T )) 1 (34)
In the final step, we have to determine numerically the variations of
three remaining model-physical parameters: (T , S ) , Rs (T , S ) and
Gp (T , S ) as functions of panel junction temperature T and solar radia-
tion S . To achieve this task, we have to establish three equations with
three unknowns.
By combining Eqs. (34) and (3) we obtain an equation connecting
(T , S ) to Rs (T , S ) and to Gp (T , S ) :

( )e
Rs (T , S ) Isc (T , S )
Iph (T , S ) Gp (T , S ) Voc (T , S )
Isc (T , S ) = Ns (T , S ) Vth (T ) 1
e(Voc (T , S ) Ns (T , S ) Vth (T )) 1

+ Iph (T , S ) Rs (T , S ) Gp (T , S ) Isc (T , S ) (35)

By combining Eqs. (34) and (4) we obtain a second equation linking
(T , S ) to Rs (T , S ) and to Gp (T , S ) :
Vmpp (T , S ) + Rs (T , S ) Impp (T , S )
Impp (T , S ) = ( Iph (T , S ) Gp (T , S ) Voc (T , S )
e(Voc (T , S ) Ns (T , S ) Vth (T )) 1 )e Ns (T , S ) Vth (T )
1

+ Iph (T , S ) Gp (T , S )(Vmpp (T , S ) + Rs (T , S ) Impp (T , S ))

(36)
By substituting Is (T , S ) by its expression in Eq. (5), we lead to a
third equation containing model-physical parameters (T , S ) , Rs (T , S )
and Gp (T , S ) :
Impp (T , S )
Vmpp (T , S )
=
1
Ns Vth (T ) ( Iph (T , S ) Gp (T , S ) Voc (T , S )
e (Voc (T , S ) Ns (T , S ) Vth (T )) 1 )(1 Rs (T , S ) Impp (T , S )
Vmpp (T , S ) )
( )
Vmpp (T , S ) + Rs (T , S ) Impp (T , S )
Rs (T , S ) Impp (T , S )
e Ns Vth (T , S )
Gp (T , S ) 1 Vmpp (T , S )

(37)
Eqs. (35)–(37) make a system of three non-linear equations with
three unknown functions: (T , S ) , Rs (T , S ) and Gp (T , S ) . They are the
foundations of the numerical procedure aiming to determine variations
of (T , S ) , Rs (T , S ) and Gp (T , S ) with regard to panel junction tem-
perature T and solar radiation S . To reach the values of unknown
functions for given values of T and S , we use Maple software to resolve
numerically the system of non-linear equations. We deduce the value of
leakage current Is using Eq. (34), determine peak power voltage and
current (Vmpp , Impp ) and panel yield via numerical maximization of
useful power characteristics P = f (V ) using Optimization [Maximize]
add-on of Maple software. We then vary S (or T ) from SINI to SFIN (or
TINI to TFIN ) with a step S (or T ) while keeping T (or S ) constant to
determine the variations of , Rs and Gp versus S (or T ), deduce var-
iations of Is and Iph using Eqs. (34) and (13) and variations of Vmpp , Impp ,
Pmpp via peak power maximization (see algorithm in Fig. 3). i
(0 i M ) and j (0 j N ) are panel junction temperature and solar
radiation loop indices respectively. M + 1 and N + 1 are numbers of Fig. 3. Algorithm of numerical search of quality factor, series parasitic re-
panel junction temperature and incoming solar radiation values. sistance, parallel conductance, leakage current and photo-generation current
TINI = 298.15 K and TFIN = 348.15 K for KC130GT and SM55 panels. for arbitrary values of T and S .

347
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Table 2
Model-physical parameters, CPU time of computation, RSS, RMSE , R2 and Rs coming from QFV-SE, QFV-TE and QFV-AE extraction methods presented in Sections
2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels operating under STC.
Parameters Calculated values

KC130GT SM55

Former method (QFV- Current method (QFV- Current method (QFV- Former method (QFV- Current method (QFV- Current method (QFV-AE)
SE) TE) AE) SE) TE)

Iph [A] 8.031645 8.031645 8.031645 3.457341 3.457341 3.457341

Is [10 10A] 9.308529 9.308529 9.308529 5.718879 5.718879 5.718879
1.0360 1.0360 1.0360 1.0430 1.0430 1.0430
Rs [ ] 0.1690201 0.1690201 0.1690201 0.472448 0.472448 0.472448
Gp [ 1] 0.0085913 0.0085913 0.0085913 0.004504 0.004504 0.004504
CPU Time [s] 10.686 8.471 6.677 9.734 7.940 6.645
RSS [A] 0.054269 0.054269 0.054269 0.018859 0.018859 0.0188599e
RMSE [A] 0.044755 0.044755 0.044755 0.026932 0.026932 0.026932
R2 0.999690 0.999690 0.999690 0.999478 0.999478 0.999478
Rs [ ] 0.000254 0.000254 0.000254 0.000584 0.000584 0.000584

Fig. 4. Measured and calculated I = f (V ) curves coming from QFV-SE, QFV-TE and QFV-AE methods (a) and normalized error of current (b) for KC130GT PV panel
under STC.

Fig. 5. Measured and calculated I = f (V ) curves coming from QFV-SE, QFV-TE and QFV-AE methods (a) and normalized error of current (b) for SM55 PV panel
under STC.

2.8. Assessment of parameters extraction methods and numerical model for
predicting current-voltage characteristics
To define convergence criterion for our computer codes, evaluate
model-physical parameters extraction methods presented in Section
2.4, numerical model for predicting I = f (V ) characteristics presented
in Section 2.7, we introduce absolute deviation abs which is the dif-
ference between current values coming from the experience and those
coming from optimization or numerical prediction (Gao et al., 2018b,
2018a, 2016):
abs (V ) = |IExperience (V ) IComputer (V )| (38)
We also introduce normalized errors for current NE (V ) as suitable
metrics to assess accuracy of optimized and predicted values of current,
in comparison to experimental values measured under non-standard
conditions. We define normalized errors for current NE (V ) as the dif-
ference between experience and computed (optimized or predicted)
values to maximal value ratio (Malvoni et al., 2017):

348
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Table 3 T = 298.15 K , a solar radiation S = 1 kW/m2 and an AM1.5G solar

Coefficients C2 and C3 corresponding to model 2, quadratic solar radiation spectrum) from measured I = f (V ) curves provided by manufacturer’s
coefficients of peak power voltage and open-circuit voltage as well as tem- technical sheets. We used a computer with an AMD Sempron SI-42 @
perature coefficient of peak power current for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. 2.1 GHz processor to accomplish the calculations. We gathered, in
Panel metrics KC130GT (Poly-crystalline Si) SM55 (Single-crystalline Si) Table 2, extracted values of model-physical parameters, residual sum of
squares (RSS ), total CPU time taken in computation, RMSE, R2 as well
−0.3211 −0.5385
C2
as Rs coming from QFV-SE, QFV-TE and QFV-AE methods of extrac-
C3 −30.2010 −21.4078
2 -1 8.1102 10−4 1.6308 10−4
tion presented in Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
v, mpp [Vm W ]
4 -2 −7.7812 10−7 −1.6733 10−6
Figs. 4 and 5 present measured I = f (V ) curves corresponding to
v, mpp [Vm W ]
−4 STC, I = f (V ) curves calculated using model-physical parameters ob-
[Vm2W - 1] 6.3668 10 4.8214 10−4
v, oc
tained by QFV-SE, QFV-TE and QFV-AE extraction methods (Figs. 4(a)
4
v, oc [Vm W
- 2] −1.4825 10−6 −2.3214 10−6
−3
and 5(a)) and normalized error of current NE (V ) (Figs. 4(b) and 5(b))
Ki,mpp[A/°C] 1.5900 10 2.2870 10−4
for KC130GT (Kyocera) and SM55 (Shell) PV panels. For panel voltage
values ranging between 0 and Vmpp , calculated I = f (V ) curves suits
|IExperience (V ) IComputer (V )| very well with measured I = f (V ) curves and normalized error of
NE (V ) = current is almost equal to zero. Nevertheless, for panel voltage values
Max1N (IExperience (V )) (39)
ranging between Vmpp and Voc , current flow throughout PV panel drops
To highlight precision of optimized characteristics as well as pre- exponentially and normalized error of current increases slightly while
dicted characteristics, we introduce RMSE (root-mean-square-error) remaining under 1.1% and 1.6% for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels
(Gao et al., 2018b, 2018a, 2016; Stone, 1993): respectively.
N
1 i i
RMSE = (IExperience IComputer )2
N i=1 (40) 3.3. Analytical equations modelling effect of solar radiation on peak power
voltage for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels
To assess the precision of numerical calculations, we calculate the
determination coefficient R2 (Stone, 1993): To model the effects of solar radiation S on peak power voltage
N
i i
Vmpp (S ) , we borrowed two analytical equations from the literature (De
(IExperience IComputer )2 Soto et al., 2006; Kratochvil et al., 2004) and suggested a new analy-
i=1
R2 = 1 N tical model (see sub Section 2.6.2). We achieved numerical adjusting of
i i ¯
(IExperience IExperience )2 measured values of Vmpp (S ) for different values of solar radiation
(41)
i=1
S = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 kW/m2 and standard panel junction tempera-
ture T = 298.15 K with analytical equations presented in sub Section
3. Results and interpretation 2.6.2. In Table 3, we give the coefficients C2 and C3 corresponding to
model 2 (De Soto et al., 2006; Kratochvil et al., 2004), quadratic solar
3.1. PV solar panel specifications provided in manufacturer’s technical radiation coefficients of peak power voltage and open-circuit voltage as
sheets well as temperature coefficient of peak power current all extracted from
manufacturer’s technical sheets of KC130GT and SM55 PV panels.
In Table 1, we give number of PV solar cells, photovoltaic metrics at In Figs. 6 and 7, we display experimental values of peak power
key points, temperature coefficients as well as front surface of Kyocera voltage measured under different insolation values
KC130GT and Shell SM55 solar panels as imported from manufacturer’s S = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 kW/m2 at standard temperature T = 298.15 K .
technical sheets (Kyocera KC130GT; Shell SM55). We also display the variations of fitted peak power voltage versus in-
solation values for mathematical models 1 to 3 presented in sub Section
3.2. Measured and calculated I = f (V ) curves of KC130GT and SM55 PV 2.6.2 (Figs. 6(a) and 7(a)) and normalized error of peak power voltage
panels at STC for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels (Figs. 6(b) and 7(b)). We prove that
the quadratic model (model 3) gives an acceptable evaluation of peak
We achieved model-physical parameters extraction for KC130GT power voltage for low and high solar radiation values.
and SM55 PV panels operating at STC (i.e. a panel junction temperature

Fig. 6. Measured values of peak power voltage, calculated values of Vmpp using models 1 to 3 (a) and normalized error of peak power voltage (b) as functions of solar
radiation for KC130GT PV panel at standard temperature T = 298.15 K .

349
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 7. Measured values of peak power voltage, calculated values of Vmpp using models 1 to 3 (a) and normalized error of peak power voltage (b) as functions of solar
radiation for SM55 PV panel at standard temperature T = 298.15 K .

Fig. 8. Profile of quality factor versus panel junction temperature T for different intensities of solar radiation S (a) and versus intensity of solar radiation S for
different panel junction temperature T (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 9. Profile of quality factor versus panel junction temperature T for different intensities of solar radiation S (a) and versus intensity of solar radiation S for
different panel junction temperature T (b) for SM55 PV panel.

3.4. Panel junction temperature and solar radiation effects on PV panel
model-physical parameters
Figs. 8 and 9 present calculated values of quality factor (T , S )
versus panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S va-
lues (Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)), and versus solar radiation S for different
values of panel junction temperature T (Figs. 8(b) and 9(b)) for
KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. For both panels, calculated values of
(T , S ) come from the numerical resolution of non-linear equation
system given in paragraph 2.7.2 (Eqs. (35)–(37)) via Maple system
according to the algorithm in Fig. 3. We can remark that for a given
solar radiation value, when the panel junction temperature increases,
the p-n junction within the panel tends to ideal p-n junction where
minority carriers diffusion contribution to the current becomes pre-
dominant and quality factor decreases. We can also remark that for a
fixed value of panel junction temperature, when solar radiation in-
creases, the generation-recombination contribution to the current pre-
vails and the p-n junction within the panel tends to real p-n junction.
Figs. 10 and 11 display calculated values of leakage current Is (T , S )
against panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S
values (Figs. 10(a) and 11(a)), and versus solar radiation S for different
panel junction temperature T values (Figs. 10(b) and 11(b)), for

350
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 10. Profile of leakage current Is against panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S values (a) and against solar radiation S for different panel
junction temperature T values (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 11. Profile of leakage current Is versus panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S values (a) and versus solar radiation S for different panel
junction temperature T values (b) for SM55 PV panel.

Fig. 12. Profile of series parasitic resistance Rs as a function of panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S values (a) and as a function of solar
radiation S for different panel junction temperature T values (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. For both panels, the values of Is (T , S )
are calculated via Eq. (34) and using the results given by numerical
resolution of the system of non-linear equations presented in paragraph
2.7.2. As expected, the leakage current grows exponentially with tem-
perature for a given value of solar radiation S . Nevertheless, it grows
slightly with solar radiation for a fixed value of panel junction tem-
perature T .
Figs. 12 and 13 render calculated values of series parasitic resistance
Rs (T , S ) versus panel junction temperature T for different solar radia-
tion S values (Figs. 12(a) and 13(a)), and against solar radiation S for
different panel junction temperature T values (Figs. 12(b) and 13(b)),
for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. For both panels, calculated values of
Rs (T , S ) emerge from the numerical resolution of the system of non-
linear equations given in paragraph 2.7.2. For a given value of solar
radiation S , series parasitic resistance increases with panel junction
temperature T in case of KC130GT (the gradient of Rs (T , S ) is higher for
low values of S ) and remains quasi constant in case of SM55. However,
regarding the variation as a function of S for a given value of T , series
parasitic resistance Rs (T , S ) decreases drastically for low values of S
and tends to a limiting value for high values of S .
Figs. 14 and 15 present calculated values of parallel conductance
Gp (T , S ) versus panel junction temperature T for different solar

351
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 13. Profile of series parasitic resistance Rs as a function of panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S values (a) and as a function of solar
radiation S for different panel junction temperature T values (b) for SM55 PV panel.

Fig. 14. Parallel conductance Gp versus T for different S values (a) and versus S for different T values (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 15. Parallel conductance Gp against T for different S values (a) and against S for different T values (b) for SM55 PV panel.

radiation S values (Figs. 14(a) and 15(a)), and as a function of S for
different T values (Figs. 14(b) and 15(b)), for KC130GT and SM55 PV
panels. For both panels, calculated values of Gp (T , S ) come from the
numerical resolution of the system of non-linear Eqs. (35)–(37) ac-
cording to the algorithm in Fig. 3. For a given value of S , one can notice
that parallel conductance decreases slightly with T for KC130GT and
remains quasi-constant for SM55. However, concerning the variation
with regard to S for a definite value of T , parallel conductance increases
significantly as incident solar radiation increases for both panels.
Figs. 16 and 17 display calculated values of shunt resistance
Rsh (T , S ) versus T for different S values (Figs. 16(a) and 17(a)), and
versus S for different T values (Figs. 16(b) and 17(b)), for KC130GT and
SM55 PV panels. For a definite value of S , shunt resistance increases
with T in case of KC130GT (the gradient of Rsh (T , S ) is higher for low
values of S ) and remains quasi constant in case of SM55. Nevertheless,
regarding the dependence against S for a definite value of T , shunt
resistance Rsh (T , S ) decreases rapidly as solar radiation increases for
both PV panels.
Figs. 18 and 19 present values of photo-generation current versus
panel junction temperature T for different solar radiation S values
(Figs. 18(a) and 19(a)), and as a function of solar radiation S for dif-
ferent panel junction temperature T values (Figs. 18(b) and 19(b)), for
KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. Dots present values resulting from Eq.
(13) where Rs (T , S ) and Gp (T , S ) come from numerical method. Solid
lines present mathematical model of Eq. (33). For both panels, we no-
tice that results emerging from Eq. (13) where Rs (T , S ) and Gp (T , S )
come from numerical solving of non-linear equations system (Eqs.
(35)–(37)) and mathematical model given by Eq. (33) are in a good

352
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 16. Shunt resistance Rsh versus T for different intensities of S (a) and versus S for different T values (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 17. Shunt resistance Rsh versus T for different intensities of S (a) and versus S for different T values (b) for SM55 PV panel.

Fig. 18. Profile of photo-generation current Iph against panel junction temperature for different solar radiation intensities (a) and against solar radiation for different
panel junction temperature values (b) for KC130GT PV panel. Solid lines present mathematical model (Eq. (33)). Dots present numerical results.

accordance. For a definite solar radiation S value, Iph raises slightly
with panel junction temperature T . Nonetheless, for a definite panel
junction temperature T value, Iph raises significantly with solar radia-
tion S . In both cases, the variations of Iph are linear.
3.5. Measured and predicted I = f (V ) and P = f (V ) curves for KC130GT
and SM55 PV panels under arbitrary environmental conditions
To evaluate the reliability of computational approach used to de-
termine numerical values of Iph , Is , , Rs and Gp for arbitrary values of T
and S , we plot measured I = f (V ) characteristics and reconstructed
I = f (V ) characteristics using calculated values of model-physical
parameters.
Figs. 20 and 21 display measured I = f (V ) characteristics, fore-
casted characteristics generated via Eqs. (6), (33) and using numerical
values of , Is , Rs and Gp for a solar radiation S = 1 kW/m2 and different
panel junction temperature T values (Figs. 20(a) and 21(a)), for
KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. We also present normalized error of
current for both panels (Figs. 20(b) and 21(b)). For a voltage drop
between panel terminals ranging between 0 and Vmpp , forecasted
I = f (V ) curve fits very well with measured characteristics and nor-
malized error is negligible. Nevertheless, for a voltage drop between
panel leads ranging in the interval [Vmpp , Voc ], the current drops dras-
tically and normalized error of current NE = f (V ) grows slightly while

353
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 19. Profile of photo-generation current Iph against panel junction temperature for different solar radiation intensities (a) and against solar radiation for different
panel junction temperature values (b) for SM55 PV panel. Solid lines correspond to mathematical model (Eq. (33)). Dots correspond to numerical results.

Fig. 20. Predicted (solid lines) and measured (circles) I = f (V ) curves at three different panel junction temperature T values and standard solar radiation
S = 1 kW/m2 (a) and NE = f (V ) (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 21. Predicted (solid lines) and measured (circles) I = f (V ) curves at three different panel junction temperature T values and standard solar radiation
S = 1 kW/m2 (a) and NE = f (V ) (b) for SM55 PV panel.

remaining below 3.5% and 4.5% respectively for both PV panels.
Figs. 22 and 23 present variations of measured I = f(V) curves,
predicted I = f(V) curves reconstructed via Eqs. (6), (33) and using
numerical values of , Is , Rs and Gp at standard panel junction tem-
perature T = 298.15K and different solar radiation S values (Figs. 22(a)
and 23(a)), for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. We also show
NE = f (V ) curves (Figs. 22(b) and 23(b)). For a voltage drop between
panel leads ranging in the interval [0, Vmpp ], predicted and measured
I = f(V) curves are in good agreement and normalized error of current
nearly cancels. But, for a voltage drop between panel leads ranging in
the interval [Vmpp , Voc ], the current drops rapidly and NE raises slightly
while remaining under 4% for KC130GT and 5.25% for SM55 PV pa-
nels.
Figs. 24 and 25 show the variations of measured power-voltage
curves, predicted P = f (V ) curves obtained by means of Eqs. (6), (33)
and using values of , Is , Rs and Gp calculated numerically for reference

354
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 22. Predicted (solid lines) and experimental (circles) I = f (V ) curves at standard panel junction temperature T = 298.15 K and different solar radiation S values
(a) as well as NE = f (V ) (b) for KC130GT PV panel.

Fig. 23. Predicted (solid lines) and experimental (circles) I = f (V ) curves at standard panel junction temperature T = 298.15 K and different solar radiation S values
(a) as well as NE = f (V ) (b) for SM55 PV panel.

Fig. 24. Forecasted (solid lines) and measured (circles) P = f (V ) curves at standard panel junction temperature T = 298.15 K and different solar radiation S values
(a) as well as measured and predicted characteristics at standard solar radiation S = 1 kW/m2 and different panel junction temperature T values (b) for KC130GT PV
panel.

temperature T = 298.15 K and different solar radiation S values
(Figs. 24(a) and 25(a)). We also plot measured and predicted P = f (V )
curves for reference solar radiation S = 1 kW/m2 and different panel
junction temperature T values (Figs. 24(b) and 25(b)), for KC130GT
and SM55 PV panels. We can notice that, whatever environmental
conditions may be, measured and foreseen characteristics are close to
each other.
3.6. Numerical and analytical values of predicted yield for KC130GT and
SM55 PV panels at arbitrary environmental conditions
Figs. 26 and 27 display the profiles of panel yield versus panel
junction temperature for different solar radiation values (Figs. 26(a)
and 27(a)), and as a function of solar radiation for different panel
junction temperature values (Figs. 26(b) and 27(b)), in cases of
KC130GT and SM55 PV panels. The values emerging from numerical

355
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Fig. 25. Forecasted (solid lines) and measured (circles) P = f (V ) curves at standard panel junction temperature T = 298.15 K and different solar radiation S values
(a) as well as measured and predicted characteristics at standard solar radiation S = 1 kW/m2 and different panel junction temperature T values (b) for SM55 PV
panel.

Fig. 26. Profile of panel yield versus T for different S values (a) and versus S for different T values (b) for KC130GT PV panel. Calculated values correspond to dots
and analytical results correspond to solid lines.

Fig. 27. Profile of panel yield versus T for different S values (a) and versus S for different T values (b) for SM55 PV panel. Calculated values correspond to dots and
analytical results correspond to solid lines.

procedure correspond to dots while those ensuing from mathematical
expression (Eq. (32)) correspond to solid lines. For both types of panels,
analytical and calculated values are close to each other. At a definite S
value, panel yield decreases linearly as a function of T . This is due to a
linear decrease of peak power voltage with panel junction temperature.
When solar radiation increases, at a definite T value, panel yield in-
creases monotonically for KC130GT and SM55 PV panels.
3.7. Numerical values of PV panel model-physical parameters at non-
standard conditions
To generate I = f(V) and P = f(V) characteristics of a PV panel
operating under arbitrary values of T and S using Eq. (6), we only need
numerical values of model-physical parameters coming from Section
2.7 and predicted via the algorithm of Fig. 3. In the following, we give
foreseen numerical values of model-physical parameters corresponding
to KC130GT and SM55 PV panels operating under non-standard con-
ditions (see Tables 4a and 4b).

356
M. Zaimi, et al. Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359

Table 4a
Predicted values of model-physical parameters for KC130GT PV module operating under arbitrary meteorological conditions.

S = 200 Wm 2 S = 400 Wm 2 S = 600 Wm 2 S = 800 Wm 2 S = 1000 Wm 2

T = 25°C Iph (A) 1.60631 3.21262 4.81893 6.42525 8.03165

Is (A) 1.68002 10−10 4.15955 10−10 6.76414 10−10 8.82484 10−10 9.30852 10−10
η 0.96271 0.99749 1.02476 1.03482 1.0360
Rs (Ω) 0.76326 0.40961 0.28388 0.21482 0.16902
Gp (Ω−1) 1.8873210−3 3.51678 10−3 5.07440 10−3 6.70545 10−3 8.54854 10−3
T = 30°C Iph (A) 1.60949 3.21899 4.82848 6.43798 8.04747
Is (A) 3.91689 10−10 9.41330 10−10 1.51009 10−9 1.96958 10−9 2.19732 10−9
η 0.95112 0.98453 1.00768 1.02136 1.02532
Rs (Ω) 0.77711 0.41717 0.28904 0.21857 0.17125
Gp (Ω−1) 1.85001 10−3 3.44620 10−3 4.97396 10−3 6.57735 10−3 8.39474 10−3
T = 40°C Iph (A) 1.61586 3.23172 4.84759 6.46345 8.07932
Is (A) 1.80525 10−9 4.10006 10−9 6.41746 10−9 8.3833310−9 9.95375 10−9
η 0.92396 0.95464 0.97665 0.99065 0.99633
Rs (Ω) 0.81338 0.43658 0.30218 0.22816 0.17838
Gp (Ω−1) 1.760549 10−3 3.28004 10−3 4.73884 10−3 6.27618 10−3 8.02773 10−3
T= 50°C Iph (A) 1.62223 3.24446 4.86670 6.48893 8.11116
Is (A) 6.75816 10−9 1.45711 10−8 2.23397 10−8 2.93266 10−8 3.45380 10−8
η 0.89066 0.91877 0.93981 0.95427 0.96181
Rs (Ω) 0.86223 0.46218 0.31939 0.24075 0.18787
Gp (Ω−1) 1.65428 10−3 3.08616 10−3 4.46585 10−3 5.92457 10−3 7.59232 10−3
T = 60°C Iph (A) 1.62860 3.25720 4.88580 6.51441 8.14301
Is (A) 2.06731 10−8 4.25584 10−8 6.42212 10−8 8.50579 10−8 1.03418 10−7
η 0.85051 0.87635 0.89663 0.91168 0.92112
Rs (Ω) 0.92471 0.49441 0.34093 0.25655 0.19990
Gp (Ω−1) 1.53646 10−3 2.87368 10−3 4.16733 10−3 5.53800 10−3 7.10720 10−3
T = 75°C Iph (A) 1.63815 3.27631 4.91446 6.55262 8.19078
Is (A) 7.53565 10−8 1.46917 10−7 2.19009 10−7 2.96554 10−7 3.80806 10−7
η 0.77688 0.80015 0.81976 0.83581 0.84798
Rs (Ω) 1.04491 0.55548 0.38153 0.28642 0.22293
Gp (Ω−1) 1.35177 10−3 2.54283 10−3 3.70216 10−3 4.93155 10−3 6.335985 10−3

Table 4b
Predicted values of model-physical parameters for SM55 PV module operating under arbitrary meteorological conditions.

S = 200 Wm 2 S = 400 Wm 2 S = 600 Wm 2 S = 800 Wm 2 S = 1000 Wm 2

T = 25°C Iph (A) 0.69146 1.38293 2.07440 2.76587 3.45734

Is (A) 5.20269 10−11 1.03977 10−10 3.81001 10−10 4.73416 10−10 5.71887 10−10
η 0.92121 0.98425 1.03163 1.06460 1.043012
Rs (Ω) 1.59594 0.88426 0.63863 0.50831 0.47244
Gp (Ω−1) 1.33335 10−3 2.40648 10−3 3.33204 10−3 4.18633 10−3 4.50411 10−3
T = 30°C Iph (A) 0.69286 1.38573 2.07860 2.77147 3.46434
Is (A) 1.94058 10−10 7.25342 10−10 1.656762 10−9 2.93841 10−9 4.45039 10−9
η 0.92181 0.98394 1.03052 1.06280 1.08176
Rs (Ω) 1.51600 0.84201 0.60937 0.48585 0.40527
Gp (Ω−1) 1.34632 10−3 2.42450 10−3 3.35140 10−3 4.20524 10−3 5.04338 10−3
T = 40°C Iph (A) 0.69566 1.39133 2.08700 2.78267 3.47834
Is (A) 1.92379 10−9 6.58476 10−9 1.41769 10−8 2.41667 10−8 3.567630 10−8
η 0.92112 0.98108 1.02575 1.05642 1.07407
Rs (Ω) 1.37898 0.76972 0.55939 0.44758 0.37446
Gp (Ω−1) 1.36181 10−3 2.44163 10−3 3.36412 10−3 4.21068 10−3 5.03967 10−3
T= 50°C Iph (A) 0.69846 1.39693 2.09540 2.79387 3.49234
Is (A) 1.34624 10−8 4.24543 10−8 8.64560 10−8 1.41912 10−7 2.04353 10−7
η 0.91740 0.97466 1.01702 1.04576 1.06185
Rs (Ω) 1.27020 0.71270 0.52019 0.41775 0.35063
Gp (Ω−1) 1.36061 10−3 2.42945 10−3 3.33752 10−3 4.16798 10−3 4.97915 10−3
T = 60°C Iph (A) 0.70126 1.402536 2.10380 2.80507 3.50634
Is (A) 7.24476 10−8 2.11122 10−7 4 07,197 10−7 6 43,792 10−7 9.03878 10−7
η 0.90972 0.96375 1.00340 1.02993 1.04422
Rs (Ω) 1.18826 0.67036 0.49149 0.39621 0.33369
Gp (Ω−1) 1.33962 10−3 2.38387 10−3 3.26740 10−3 4.07323 10−3 4.85826 10−3
T = 70°C Iph (A) 0.70406 1.40813 2.1122 2.81627 3.52034

Is(A) 3.16709 10−7 8.53731 10−7 1.55944 10−6 2.54404 10−6 3.24422 10−6
η 0.89677 0.94709 0.98373 1.00782 1.02014
Rs (Ω) 1.13356 0.64305 0.47359 0.38327 0.32395
Gp (Ω−1) 1.29670 10−3 2.30282 10−3 3.15246 10−3 3.92611 10−3 4.67780 10−3

4. Conclusion parameters using photovoltaic metrics at I = f(V) key points. We de-

scribed photovoltaic panel by single-diode circuit model. As reported by
In the current paper, we considered a photovoltaic panel operating the first method, we derived a new transcendent equation connecting
at STC and suggested two novel methods to extract its model-physical series resistance Rs to quality factor and to photovoltaic metrics at key

357
M. Zaimi, et al.
points. As described by the second method, we established a new
analytic expression giving series resistance as a function of quality
factor and key points coordinates. For both methods, parallel con-
ductance Gp , photo-generation current Iph and leakage current Is are all
expressed in terms of quality factor and photovoltaic metrics. We used
quality factor as a parameter, and varied it with the aim to determine
optimized values of model-physical parameters by minimizing RMSE of
current. Both methods are efficient and can give parameters values with
a minimum of four points of I = f(V) characteristics : three key points
and one auxiliary point. We borrowed available temperature coeffi-
cients, extracted solar radiation coefficients from panel manufacturer’s
data sheet and derived four analytical expressions giving variations of
photovoltaic metrics at key points versus panel junction temperature T
and solar radiation S . We considered numerical values of model-phy-
sical parameters at STC as starting conditions and determined the de-
pendencies of Rs , Gp , , Is and Iph versus T and S by resolving the re-
duced system of three non-linear equations linking current to voltage at
key points. We achieved calculation of accuracy of computed values of
model-physical parameters at arbitrary conditions of T and S , and
emphasized that normalized error of predicted values of current-voltage
characteristics do not exceed 5.25% and 4% for SM55 and KC130GT
respectively. This approach is effective and can determine variations of
model-physical parameters versus T and S for photovoltaic modules
from different manufacturing technologies.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to unknown reviewers for their remarks
and propositions. M. Zaimi and H. El Achouby would like to acknowl-
edge Kingdom of Morocco Ministry of Higher Education and Chouaib
Doukkali University for their financial supports.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary figures and tables associated with this article can be
found in the online version. Supplementary data to this article can be
found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.007.
References
Aazou, S., Assaid, E.M., 2009b. The real photovoltaic solar cell. Maple Appl. Cent.
Aazou, S., Assaid, E.M., 2009. Modelling real photovoltaic solar cell using Maple. In: 2009
International Conference on Microelectronics - ICM. Presented at the 2009
International Conference on Microelectronics - ICM, IEEE, Marrakech, Morocco, pp.
394–397. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICM.2009.5418600.
Aazou, S., Ibral, A., White, M.S., Kaltenbrunner, M., GLOWACKI, E.D., Egbe, D.A.,
Sariciftci, N.S., Assaid, E.M., 2013. Organic bulk heterojunction solar cells based on
P3HT and anthracene-containing PPE-PPV: Fabrication, characterization and mod-
eling. J. Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 13, 395–404.
Alam, D.F., Yousri, D.A., Eteiba, M.B., 2015. Flower pollination algorithm based solar PV
parameter estimation. Energy Convers. Manag. 101, 410–422. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2015.05.074.
Allam, D., Yousri, D.A., Eteiba, M.B., 2016. Parameters extraction of the three diode
model for the multi-crystalline solar cell/module using Moth-Flame Optimization
Algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 123, 535–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.06.052.
Askarzadeh, A., dos Santos Coelho, L., 2015. Determination of photovoltaic modules
parameters at different operating conditions using a novel bird mating optimizer
approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 89, 608–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2014.10.025.
Attivissimo, F., Di Nisio, A., Savino, M., Spadavecchia, M., 2012. Uncertainty analysis in
photovoltaic cell parameter estimation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 61, 1334–1342.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2012.2183429.
Bai, J., Liu, S., Hao, Y., Zhang, Z., Jiang, M., Zhang, Y., 2014. Development of a new
compound method to extract the five parameters of PV modules. Energy Convers.
Manag. 79, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.041.
Banwell, T.C., Jayakumar, A., 2000. Exact analytical solution for current flow through
diode with series resistance. Electron. Lett. 36, 291–292.
Barreto, R.A., 2018. Fossil fuels, alternative energy and economic growth. Econ. Model.
75, 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.06.019.
Chaibi, Y., Allouhi, A., Malvoni, M., Salhi, M., Saadani, R., 2019. Solar irradiance and
temperature influence on the photovoltaic cell equivalent-circuit models. Sol. Energy
188, 1102–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.07.005.
358
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359
Chatterjee, A., Keyhani, A., Kapoor, D., 2011. Identification of photovoltaic source
models. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 26, 883–889. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.
2011.2159268.
Chegaar, M., Ouennoughi, Z., Guechi, F., 2004. Extracting dc parameters of solar cells
under illumination. Vacuum 75, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2004.
05.001.
Chegaar, M., Ouennoughi, Z., Hoffmann, A., 2001. A new method for evaluating illu-
minated solar cell parameters. Solid-State Electron. 45, 293–296.
Chin, V.J., Salam, Z., Ishaque, K., 2016. An accurate modelling of the two-diode model of
PV module using a hybrid solution based on differential evolution. Energy Convers.
Manag. 124, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.06.076.
Chin, V.J., Salam, Z., Ishaque, K., 2015. Cell modelling and model parameters estimation
techniques for photovoltaic simulator application: A review. Appl. Energy 154,
500–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.035.
Chouder, A., Silvestre, S., Sadaoui, N., Rahmani, L., 2012. Modeling and simulation of a
grid connected PV system based on the evaluation of main PV module parameters.
Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 20, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2011.08.
011.
Cocco, D., Migliari, L., Petrollese, M., 2016. A hybrid CSP–CPV system for improving the
dispatchability of solar power plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 114, 312–323. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.015.
Corless, R.M., Gonnet, G.H., Hare, D.E., Jeffrey, D.J., Knuth, D.E., 1996. On the LambertW
function. Adv. Comput. Math. 5, 329–359.
Cuce, E., Cuce, P.M., Karakas, I.H., Bali, T., 2017. An accurate model for photovoltaic
(PV) modules to determine electrical characteristics and thermodynamic perfor-
mance parameters. Energy Convers. Manag. 146, 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2017.05.022.
De Soto, W., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 2006. Improvement and validation of a model
for photovoltaic array performance. Sol. Energy 80, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2005.06.010.
El Achouby, H., Zaimi, M., Ibral, A., Assaid, E.M., 2018a. New analytical approach for
modelling effects of temperature and irradiance on physical parameters of photo-
voltaic solar module. Energy Convers. Manag. 177, 258–271. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2018.09.054.
El Achouby, H., Zaimi, M., Ibral, A., Assaid, E.M., 2018. Exact analytical expressions
modelling effects of incident irradiance and temperature on physical parameters of
photovoltaic solar module. In: 2018 Renewable Energies, Power Systems & Green
Inclusive Economy (REPS-GIE). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
Elbaset, A.A., Ali, H., Abd-El Sattar, M., 2014. Novel seven-parameter model for photo-
voltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 130, 442–455. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solmat.2014.07.016.
Gao, X., Cui, Y., Hu, J., Tahir, N., Xu, G., 2018a. Performance comparison of exponential,
Lambert W function and special trans function based single diode solar cell models.
Energy Convers. Manag. 171, 1822–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2018.06.106.
Gao, X., Cui, Y., Hu, J., Xu, G., Wang, Z., Qu, J., Wang, H., 2018b. Parameter extraction of
solar cell models using improved shuffled complex evolution algorithm. Energy
Convers. Manag. 157, 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.033.
Gao, X., Cui, Y., Hu, J., Xu, G., Yu, Y., 2016. Lambert W-function based exact re-
presentation for double diode model of solar cells: Comparison on fitness and para-
meter extraction. Energy Convers. Manag. 127, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.09.005.
Guerrero Delgado, Mc., Sánchez Ramos, J., Rodríguez Jara, E.A., Molina Félix, J.L.,
Álvarez Domínguez, S., 2018. Decision-making approach: A simplified model for
energy performance evaluation of photovoltaic modules. Energy Convers. Manag.
177, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.080.
Hache, E., 2018. Do renewable energies improve energy security in the long run? Int.
Econ. 156, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2018.01.005.
Humada, A.M., Hojabri, M., Mekhilef, S., Hamada, H.M., 2016. Solar cell parameters
extraction based on single and double-diode models: A review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 56, 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.051.
IEC 60891, 2009. Photovoltaic devices. Procedures for temperature and irradiance cor-
rections to measured I-V characteristics: BSI British Standards. https://doi.org/10.
3403/30194574.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Mekhilef, S., Shamsudin, A., 2012. Parameter extraction of solar
photovoltaic modules using penalty-based differential evolution. Appl. Energy 99,
297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.05.017.
Ismail, M.S., Moghavvemi, M., Mahlia, T.M.I., 2013. Characterization of PV panel and
global optimization of its model parameters using genetic algorithm. Energy Convers.
Manag. 73, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.03.033.
Jain, A., 2004. Exact analytical solutions of the parameters of real solar cells using
Lambert W-function. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 81, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solmat.2003.11.018.
Jordehi, A.R., 2016. Parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.
049.
Kandiyoti, R., Herod, A., Bartle, K., Morgan, T., 2017. Fossil fuels and renewables. In:
Solid Fuels and Heavy Hydrocarbon Liquids. Elsevier, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-08-100784-6.00001-1.
Khan, S., 2017. Parameter estimation for photovoltaic diodes. Maple Appl. Cent.
Kratochvil, J.A., Boyson, W.E., King, D.L., 2004. Photovoltaic Array Performance Model.
Sandia National Laboratories.
Kyocera, KC130GT High Efficiency Multicrystal Photovoltaic Module Datasheet 2.
https://www.kyocerasolar.com/dealers/product-center/archives/spec-sheets/
KC130GT.pdf.
Laudani, A., Riganti Fulginei, F., Salvini, A., 2014. Identification of the one-diode model
M. Zaimi, et al.
for photovoltaic modules from datasheet values. Sol. Energy 108, 432–446. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.07.024.
Leiva-Illanes, R., Escobar, R., Cardemil, J.M., Alarcón-Padilla, D.-C., Uche, J., Martínez,
A., 2019. Exergy cost assessment of CSP driven multi-generation schemes: Integrating
seawater desalination, refrigeration, and process heat plants. Energy Convers. Manag.
179, 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.050.
Lineykin, S., Averbukh, M., Kuperman, A., 2014. An improved approach to extract the
single-diode equivalent circuit parameters of a photovoltaic cell/panel. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.015.
Malvoni, M., De Giorgi, M.G., Congedo, P.M., 2017. Forecasting of PV Power Generation
using weather input data-preprocessing techniques. Energy Procedia 126, 651–658.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.293.
Modis, T., 2018. Forecasting energy needs with logistics. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.008.
Muhsen, D.H., Ghazali, A.B., Khatib, T., Abed, I.A., 2015. Parameters extraction of double
diode photovoltaic module’s model based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm. Energy
Convers. Manag. 105, 552–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.08.023.
Ortiz-Conde, A., García Sánchez, F.J., 2005. Extraction of non-ideal junction model
parameters from the explicit analytic solutions of its I-V characteristics. Solid-State
Electron. 49, 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2004.12.001.
Ortiz-conde, A., Garciasanchez, F., Muci, J., 2006. New method to extract the model
parameters of solar cells from the explicit analytic solutions of their illuminated
characteristics. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 90, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2005.04.023.
Ouennoughi, Z., Chegaar, M., 1999. A simpler method for extracting solar cell parameters
using the conductance method. Solid-State Electron. 43, 1985–1988. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0038-1101(99)00174-4.
Peng, L., Sun, Y., Meng, Z., 2014. An improved model and parameters extraction for
photovoltaic cells using only three state points at standard test condition. J. Power
Sources 248, 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.07.058.
Qais, M.H., Hasanien, H.M., Alghuwainem, S., 2019. Identification of electrical para-
meters for three-diode photovoltaic model using analytical and sunflower optimiza-
tion algorithm. Appl. Energy 250, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.
2019.05.013.
Rauschenbach, H.S., 1980. Solar cell array design handbook. New York, Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Release Maple V. Copyright 1981–2015. Waterloo Maple Inc.; 2015.
Ruschel, C.S., Gasparin, F.P., Costa, E.R., Krenzinger, A., 2016. Assessment of PV modules
shunt resistance dependence on solar irradiance. Sol. Energy 133, 35–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.047.
Sera, D., Teodorescu, R., Rodriguez, P., 2007. PV panel model based on datasheet values.
In: 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics. Presented at the
2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, IEEE, Vigo, Spain, pp.
359
Solar Energy 191 (2019) 341–359
2392–2396. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIE.2007.4374981.
Shell, SM55 Photovoltaic solar module, Datasheet. http://www.atlantasolar.com/pdf/
Shell/ShellSM55_USv1.pdf.
Shongwe, S., Hanif, M., 2015. Comparative analysis of different single-diode PV modeling
methods. IEEE J. Photovolt. 5, 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2015.
2395137.
Siddiqui, M.U., Arif, A.F.M., Bilton, A.M., Dubowsky, S., Elshafei, M., 2013. An improved
electric circuit model for photovoltaic modules based on sensitivity analysis. Sol.
Energy 90, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.12.021.
Slimani, M.E.A., Amirat, M., Bahria, S., Kurucz, I., Aouli, M., Sellami, R., 2016. Study and
modeling of energy performance of a hybrid photovoltaic/thermal solar collector:
Configuration suitable for an indirect solar dryer. Energy Convers. Manag. 125,
209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.059.
Slimani, M.E.A., Amirat, M., Kurucz, I., Bahria, S., Hamidat, A., Chaouch, W.B., 2017. A
detailed thermal-electrical model of three photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) hybrid air
collectors and photovoltaic (PV) module: Comparative study under Algiers climatic
conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 133, 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.10.066.
Stone, R.J., 1993. Improved statistical procedure for the evaluation of solar radiation
estimation models. Sol. Energy 51, 289–291.
Talavera, D.L., Ferrer-Rodríguez, J.P., Pérez-Higueras, P., Terrados, J., Fernández, E.F.,
2016. A worldwide assessment of levelised cost of electricity of HCPV systems.
Energy Convers. Manag. 127, 679–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.
09.054.
Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Filho, E.R., 2009. Comprehensive approach to modeling and
simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24, 1198–1208.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2009.2013862.
Weng, Y., Hsu, K.-C., Liu, B.J., 2018. Increasing worldwide environmental consciousness
and environmental policy adjustment. Q. Rev. Econ. Finance. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.qref.2018.08.003.
Yıldız, İ., 2018. 1.12 Fossil fuels. In: Comprehensive Energy Systems. Elsevier, pp.
521–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809597-3.00111-5.
Zaimi, M., El Achouby, H., Ibral, A., Assaid, E.M., Maliki, M.S.E., Saadani, R., 2018.
Temporal monitoring of temperature and incident irradiance for predicting photo-
voltaic solar module peak power and efficiency using analytical expressions of model
physical parameters. In: 2018 6th International Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Conference (IRSEC). Presented at the 2018 6th International Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC), IEEE, Rabat, Morocco, pp. 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1109/IRSEC.2018.8702973.
Zhai, R., Liu, H., Chen, Y., Wu, H., Yang, Y., 2017. The daily and annual technical-eco-
nomic analysis of the thermal storage PV-CSP system in two dispatch strategies.
Energy Convers. Manag. 154, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.
040.