Received: 21 April 2020 Revised: 4 June 2020 Accepted: 26 June 2020

DOI: 10.1002/er.5747

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Identifying the parameters of different configurations

of photovoltaic models based on recent artificial
ecosystem-based optimization approach

Dalia Yousri1 | Hegazy Rezk2,3 | Ahmed Fathy4,5

1
Electrical Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum
Summary
University, Faiyum, Egypt Identifying accurate and precise photovoltaic models' parameters is the pri-
2
College of Engineering at Wadi mary gate in providing a proper PV system design simulate its real behavior.
Addawaser, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz
Therefore, this article proposed a new approach based on a recent meta-
University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia
3
Electrical Engineering Department,
heuristic algorithm of artificial ecosystem-based optimization (AEO) to identify
Faculty of Engineering, Minia University, the optimal parameters of PV cell and module models. Various PV models are
Minya, Egypt considered in this work as single diode (SD), double diode (DD), and triple
4
Electrical Engineering Department, diode (TD)-based circuits. The analysis is performed on which are
Faculty of Engineering, Jouf University,
Al-Jouf, Saudi Arabia R.T.C. France silicon solar cell, FSM-25 PV module, and Canadian-Solar-
5
Electrical Power & Machine Department, (CS6P-240P) multi-crystalline solar panel with the aid of experimental data
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig under different operating conditions. Moreover, Lambert form is employed to
University, Zagazig, Egypt
validate the constructed model. Furthermore, comparative analysis with Harris
Correspondence hawks optimizer (HHO), gray wolf optimizer (GWO), and salp swarm algo-
Dalia Yousri, Electrical Engineering rithm (SSA) is performed. Additionally, statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon
Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
signed rank test is implemented across the three series of experiments for all
Email: day01@fayoum.edu.eg employed optimizers. The obtained results confirmed the competence of the
proposed approach in identifying the PV cell and modules equivalent circuits'
parameters.

KEYWORDS
artificial ecosystem-based optimizer, double diode PV model, PV parameters estimation, single
diode PV model, three-diode model

1 | INTRODUCTION Many problems arise with operating the PV panels as their

Recently, renewable energy sources (RESs) penetrated in
many engineering applications as alternatives of fossil fuel
sources. Solar energy is one form of RESs in which the sun-
light is converted to electrical energy via solar photovoltaic
(PV) panels. Different PV panels are available which are
mono-crystalline, multi-crystalline, and amorphous type.
Dalia Yousri, Hegazy Rezk, and Ahmed Fathy contributed equally to
this article.
characteristics are very sensitive to the irradiance and tem-
perature. Therefore, many researchers face great challenges
in modeling the PV panel especially with the presence of
parameters not defined in the module datasheet given by
the manufacturer. It is important to establish an equivalent
circuit of the PV panel converges to the practical one. Many
studies have been reported in estimating the unknown
parameters of the PV panels.
Several methods have been presented for extracting
the unknown parameters of the PV models that can be

Int J Energy Res. 2020;1–21. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 YOUSRI ET AL.
categorized to (i) deterministic (ie, Analytical and
Numerical methods), (ii) Soft computing algorithms. The
deterministic methods include the analytical method that
was proposed by the authors in Reference 1. These
methods utilized several points on the current-voltage
curve (I-V), such as Vmp, and Imp, Isc, Voc, and inter-
section of axis of I-V curve.2 The efficiency of the analyti-
cal approach mainly relies upon the selection of points
on the I-V curve. On the other hand, the numerical
extraction method was presented by the authors in Refer-
ence 3, where the parameters can be identified by
implementing curve fitting. The curve fitting algorithm
requires high amount of computations. Its accuracy relies
upon the proper selection of the fitting method. The huge
number of parameters cause also increasing the complex-
ity of the algorithm and reducing its capability to esti-
mate accurate values.4-6 These methods are more
dominant in the local search process since they have
been executed via a gradient-based approach. Therefore,
they can easily get absorbed in local optimal.7
In the circumstance of the soft computing algorithms,
Alam et al8 presented flower pollination algorithm (FPA) as
a tool to identify the parameters of PV module modeled via
single and double diodes. The analysis has been performed
with the aid of experimental data of voltage–current charac-
teristic of the module. Fathy et al9 introduced imperialist
competitive algorithm (ICA) for identifying the PV module
parameters considering maximum power point (MPP) as
objective function. Yu etal10 adopted the performance-
guided JAYA (PGJAYA) algorithm to estimate the parame-
ters of single diode (SD) and double diode (DD) models for
PV cell and module. In Reference 7, the authors applied the
multiple learning backtracking search algorithm (MLBSA)
to determine the parameters of SD and DD models, the pro-
posed algorithm results have been validated against several
optimization algorithms in terms of the accuracy and com-
putational time. Oliva et al11 incorporated chaotic maps in
the whale optimizer to adapt its internal parameters auto-
matically, the modified approach has been employed to esti-
mate the optimal parameters of solar cells. Chin et al12
reviewed many approaches of estimating the optimal
parameters of PV cells showing the features, advantages,
and defects of each one. A simplified bird mating optimizer
(SBMO) has been employed to identify the electrical param-
eters of the amorphous type panel operated under different
conditions.13 Chikh et al14 presented a maximum power
point tracker approach for PV system with estimating its
model parameters via adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference sys-
tem (ANFIS) and measuring the voltage and current of the
array. Ram et al15 introduced a hybrid approach comprising
bee pollinator and FPA to extract the PV module circuit
parameters considering single and double diode models.
Many reported approaches employed in parameter
estimation of PV cell equivalent circuit have been
reviewed.16 The author divided the approaches into three
categories; analytical, meta-heuristic, and hybrid methodol-
ogies comprising both. Yu et al17 modified JAYA optimizer
to solve the parameter estimation process of different PV
modules. The modification has been presented via incorpo-
rating self-adaptive weight to avoid stuck in local optima.
Abbassi et al18 solved the problem of evaluating the
unknown parameters of the PV panel circuit via salp swarm
algorithm (SSA) with the aid of experimental data. Xu
et al19 introduced an approach comprising FPA and Nelder-
Mead simplex method to evaluate the solar cells and PV
panels equivalent circuits' parameters.
Moth-flame optimizer has been proposed for modeling
the multi-crystalline PV solar cell and module.20 Teaching-
learning-based optimization (TLBO) has been combined
with artificial bee colony (ABC) and employed to solve the
parameter estimation problem of solar PV modules.21
Nassar et al22 presented two approaches to identify the opti-
mal parameters of PV modules, the first one is iterative
method while the second one is Lambert W function analyt-
ical method. Ma et al23 investigated different meta-heuristic
approaches of genetic algorithm (GA), differential evolu-
tion (DE), particle swarm optimization (PSO), bacteria for-
aging algorithm (BFA), ABC, and Cuckoo search (CS) in
estimating the electrical parameters of the PV module
model. A self-adaptive TLBO has been introduced by Yu
et al17 to obtain the parameters of PV circuit. Hasanien24
employed shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA)to evalu-
ate the parameters of single diode-based circuit of PV mod-
ule with the aid of experimental data. Guo et al25 presented
cat swarm optimizer (CSO) to identify the unknown param-
eters of solar cells modeled via single and double diodes. A
generalized oppositional TLBO based approach has been
presented to solve the solar cell single and double diodes
based model parameter estimation problem.26 Jordehi27
presented an improved PSO via incorporating enhanced
leader to improve its convergence to estimate the optimal
parameters of solar cells and PV modules equivalent cir-
cuits. Chen et al28 presented a methodology based on diver-
sification enhanced Harris hawks optimizer (HHO) to
estimate the unknown parameters of PV module circuit.
SDM, DDM, and the dynamic PV model have been pro-
posed in Reference 29. Comparative analysis of several opti-
mizers employed in estimating the solar cells' parameters
has been presented in Reference 30. Chenouard et al31
introduced interval branch and bound algorithm to esti-
mate the parameters of three models (SD, DD, and TD) of
PV module. The maximum absolute error has been
employed as objective function. Ridha et al32 determined
the parameter of the SDM-based module via electromagne-
tism like algorithm (IEM). Grasshopper optimization algo-
rithm (GOA) has been employed to estimate the optimal
YOUSRI ET AL.
parameters of three-diode model of PV module under dif-
ferent operating conditions.33 Long et al34 introduced a
modified whale optimization algorithm (WOA) named
refraction-learning-based WOA as a tool available for esti-
mating the PV models parameters. Yousri et al35 utilized
the fractional chaos maps to improve the ensemble particle
swarm optimizer (FC-EPSO) during extracting the parame-
ters of single, double and three-diode models.
As per the literature some drawbacks have been
detected, first, although many meta-heuristic approaches
have been employed in estimating the unknown parame-
ters of both solar cells and modules models, most of them
have defects in converging to the global solution due to
stuck in local optima. Moreover, many researchers
employed experimental data available in some other
works which lack of accuracy. Furthermore, some
approaches are complex in construction, requiring large
controlling parameters, and consuming long time in
implementation. Most of the proposed techniques have
been implemented for SDM and DDM only without test-
ing them for the more detailed and complicated model as
TDM. Furthermore, the output of the meta-heuristic is
dependent on many considerations, the employed fitness
function is the main one of them. By reviewing the litera-
ture, it can be recognized that some of the researchers
determined the estimated current on the basis of the
actual measurement values of the current and the
extracted parameters that can be regarded as an approxi-
mate procedure, because from the mathematical perspec-
tive, this nonlinear equation should be solved
numerically.35-37 Therefore, the authors motivated to
highlight this point and clarify the precise objective func-
tion that is the root mean square error (RMSE) between
the measured and estimated current since the extracted
current was determined with the aid of the estimated
parameters, and the nonlinear equation of the PV models
was resolved on the basis of the Newton–Raphson
method. Since detecting which objective is most suitable
for the identification of more precise parameters is a key
issue for the provision of precise PV model; therefore the
authors motivated to employ this approach while com-
puting the objective function.
In this article, a simple, less controlling parameters,
and consuming acceptable time approach named artifi-
cial ecosystem-based optimizer (AEO) has been proposed
for the first time to estimate the electrical parameters of
solar cell and PV modules models based on several series
of experiments to tackle the early mentioned drawbacks.
Measured experimental datasets under several environ-
mental condition of radiation and temperature values are
considered to assess the quality of the algorithm with
handling the parameters of SDM, DDM and TDM
models. The proposed algorithm is compared with more
3
than 20 well established algorithms to confirm its superi-
ority based on several statistical measures. Moreover, the
Lambert W function is implemented to validate the iden-
tified parameters by the proposed algorithm. Addition-
ally, Wilcoxon signed rank test with significant difference
0.05 is performed to assess the consistency of the pro-
posed AEO technique in comparable with well-regarded
algorithms such as (HHO), gray wolf optimizer (GWO),
and salp swarm algorithm (SSA) techniques. Further-
more, the proposed algorithm compared with 20 recent
optimization algorithm in the literature to highlight the
reliability and applicability of the proposed AEO. The
obtained results confirmed the competence of AEO in
providing the best fitting with highest detection for the
maximum power point value with fastest convergence
speed and highest consistency for the RMSE value. More-
over, the comparison with the reported literature reveal
that the AEO is the algorithm that applied for identifying
the SDM, DDM, and TDM. Whereas most of the litera-
ture have been proposed for SDM and DDM besides most
of the algorithms utilized huge number of iterations to
converge that is why the authors recommended AEO as
most applicable optimizer in comparable with the
literature.
2 | DIFFERENT MODELS OF P V
MODULE
In the literature, three different mathematical models;
single, double, and triple diodes are very common to
mimic the performance of the solar PV panel. The main
advantage of single diode model (SDM) is its simplicity.
However, the accuracy of SDM is less than double and
three diodes models specifically under low solar irradi-
ance.38 This because the SDM declines the consideration
of recombination losses developed in the depletion
region.35 The different models of solar PV panel are illus-
trated in Figure 1. The generated solar PV current based
on the SDM can be estimated using the following
relations35,39:
I = I g −I d −I p ð1Þ



ðV + IRs Þ ðV + IRs Þ
I = I g − I o exp −1 I 0 − ð2Þ
aV t Rp
where Ig, Id, Ip, Rs, and Rp are the generated-light current,
diode current, shunt-leakage current, series, and shunt
resistances. The symbol of a denotes the diode ideality
factor and Vt represents the thermal voltage which is
defined as:
4 YOUSRI ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Different models of solar photovoltaic panel [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

N s KT Equation (4), it can be see that DDM has seven parame-

Vt = ð3Þ
q ters which are Ig, Io1, Io2, a1, a2, Rs, and Rp.
In order to simulate the leakage current in the grain
where k is the constant of Boltzmann with value of boundaries of multi-crystalline silicon solar cells, third
1.35 * 10−23J/K, T is the cell temperature in Kelvin, q is diode must be inserted to DDM35 as illustrated in three-
the electron charge (1.6 × 10−19 C) and Ns is the number diode model (TDM) (Figure 1). To estimate the generated
of series cells. solar PV current based on TDM, Equation (4) can be
Based on Equation (2), it can be noted that there are modified as following;
main five parameters; Ig, Io, a, RS, and RP that requited to be

  
 
identified for accurate simulating the behavior of PV panel. qðV + IRs Þ qðV + IRs Þ
I = I g −I o1 exp −1 − I o2 exp −1
Whereas in (DDM), as illustrated in Figure 1, additional a1 kT a2 kT

 
diode has been added to SDM in order to enhance the accu- qðV + IRs Þ ðV + IRs Þ
− I o3 exp −1 −
racy of simulating the physical effects at the P-N junction. a3 kT Rp
The first diode simulates the diffusion current while the sec- ð5Þ
ond one simulates the recombination effects. This will
increase the number of the parameters to seven instead of where Io3 denotes the saturation current and a3 is the ide-
five as in SDM. The generated solar PV current based on the ality factor of the third diode. Therefore, based on Equa-
DDM can be estimated using the following relation.38 tion (4), it can be see that TDM has nine parameters.
These parameters are Ig, Io1, Io2, Io3, a1, a2, a3, Rs, and Rp.

 
qðV + IRs Þ
I = Ig −Io1 exp −1
a1 kT

  ð4Þ
qðV + IRs Þ ðV + IRs Þ 3 | PROB LEM FOR MULATION
−Io2 exp −1 −
a2 kT Rp
The process of parameter determination of different
models of PV panel is considered as nonlinear optimiza-
where Io1 and Io2 denote the diffusion and saturation cur- tion problem. It is accounted as vital process to provide
rents whereas a1 and a2 are the ideality factors of the first an accurate model of PV that converges to the real one.
and second diode respectively.Accordingly, based on The implementation of such optimization problem
YOUSRI ET AL. 5

requires identifying the variables to be designed and the where Imeas is the measured current, and Iest is the esti-
objective function to be minimized. The accuracy of the mated current. The estimated current is calculated with
obtained model parameters via the optimization tech- the aid of the extracted parameters and solving Equa-
niques are sensitive to the variation of the employed fit- tions (2), (4), and (5) using Newton-Raphson method as
ness function. In this work, the authors employed the root follows:
mean square error (RMSE) between the measured and the
estimated current for identifying the SDM, DDM, and ðdI Þ
I est = I est −  0  ð7Þ
TDM parameters as an objective function. The estimated dI
current can be computed based on the identified parame-
ters via employing Newton-Raphson function to solve the
nonlinear equations of the PV model as given below: where dI is the difference function of I. The symbol dI' is
• The objective function: the first derivative of dI with respect to I, their expres-
sions can be written as follows:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u M Regarding to SDM, the dI and dI' functions can be
u1 X
objðZ Þ = t ðI measi − I esti ðV measi , Z ÞÞ2 ð6Þ expressed as follows:
M i=1

FIGURE 2 Flowchart of AEO-based PV parameters estimation process [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 1 The lower and upper boundaries of SDM, DDM, and TDM parameters

RTC solar cell (SDM/DDDM) FSM-25 PV solar panel (SDM) CS6P-240P solar module (DDM/TDM)

Parameters LB UB Parameters LB UB Parameters LB UB

Rs(Ω) 0 0.5 Rs(Ω) 0 2 Rs(Ω) 0 2
Rp(Ω) 0 1000 Rp(Ω) 0 3000 Rp(Ω) 0 5000
Ipv(A) 0 2 Ipv(A) 0 15 Ipv(A) 0 9
Io1(μA) 0 2 Io(μA) 0 1 Io1(μA) 0 2
Io2(μA) 0 2 a 0.5 2.5 Io2(μA) 0 2
a1 1 2 Io3(μA) 0 2
a2 1 2 a1 1 2
a2 1 3
a3 1 5

Note: LB is lower bounds and UB is the upper boundaries.

6 YOUSRI ET AL.


ðV + IRs Þ ðV + IRs Þ

0.00015132

0.00019391
0.00022802
0.00082216
4.5711e-05

9.7749e-05
dI = I g −I o1 exp −1 − −I: ð8Þ

0.0019025

0.0011438
aV t Rp

AEMPP



0 Rs ðV + IRs Þ ðR s Þ
dI = −I o1 exp −1 − −1 ð9Þ
aV t aV t Rp

−0.00010545
−1.2902e-17

−2.9273e-16
2.8623e-17

2.8623e-17
1.4456e-05

1.2531e-05
3.0047e-05
DiffRMSE
Similarly, for DDM and TDM the Iest, dI, and dI' can
be calculated.

The estimated parameters R.T.C. France cell obtained via the proposed approach under different irradiances and temperatures for SDM and DDM

RMSElambert
0.00077301

0.00076068
0.0021607
0.0010452
0.0014255

0.0012491
0.0011226
0.0017887
4 | EVALUATING THE RESULTS

In order to investigate the results obtained via the pro-

posed meta-heuristic approach, Lambert forms are

0.00077301

0.00074623
employed to calculate the current of the constructed

0.0021607
0.0010452
0.0014255

0.0013545
0.0011101
0.0017587
RMSE
model (SDM and DDM), accordingly RMSE values are cal-
culated. The maximum difference value among the RMSE
based on Lambert and for Equation (6) refers to inaccuracy
in the estimated parameters. Therefore, the corresponding

0.76079
0.76143
0.76059
0.76183
0.76081
0.76035
0.75952
0.76119
Iph(A)
fitness function is considered as an approximation one.
Regarding to SDM and DDM, the Lambert forms have
been presented whereas for TDM, it faces complexity in

2.0341e-07
2.3956e-07
1.3523e-07

2.2658e-07
providing its empirical formula. Therefore, the authors

Io2(A)
employed Lambert equation for SDM and DDM as follows:

—
—
—
—
Lambert form for SDM Equation (2)
  3.1067e-07

2.4365e-07
5.2224e-07
8.9974e-07
9.1286e-07
5.0049e-07
3.8853e-07
Rp I g + I o1 −V a1 V t
I Lambert = − W ðδÞ, where ð10aÞ 9.65e-07
Io1(A)

Rs + Rp Rs

 !
I o1 Rp Rs Rp Rs I g + Rs I o1 + V
δ=   exp   ð10bÞ
52.8891
72.4432
51.3267
49.7338
55.5501
64.5645
75.7797
67.0463
,
Rp(Ω)

a1 V t Rs + Rp a1 V t R s + R p

Lambert form for DDM Equation (4)

0.036547
0.031311
0.038051

0.037239
0.034875
0.037154
0.036546
0.03414
Rs(Ω)

RpðIoh + Io1 + Io2 − V Þ a1 Vt

ILambert = −r W ðδ 1 Þ
Rs + Rp Rs
ð11aÞ
a2 Vt
1.4111
1.4498
1.4549

− ð1 −r Þ W ðδ2 Þ, where
1.467

Rs
—
—
—
—
a2

h
i
I o1 exp ðVa+1 VIRt s Þ −1
1.4771
1.6004
1.4532
1.5314
1.8662
1.8645
1.9797
1.6909

r= h
i h
i ð11bÞ
a1

I o1 exp ðVa+1 VIRt s Þ − 1 − I o2 exp ðVa+2 VIRt s Þ −1

Cond/ Mod/Alg

 !
I o1 Rs Rp Rp Rs I g + Rs I o1 =r + V
δ1 =   exp   ð11cÞ
ra1 V t Rs + Rp a1 V t R s + R p
GWO

GWO
HHO

HHO
AEO

AEO
SSA

SSA

!
Parameters


Rp Rs I g + Rs I o2 =ð1− r Þ + V
TABLE 2

I o2 Rs Rp
δ2 =   exp   ,
ð1 − r Þa2 V t Rs + Rp a2 V t Rs + Rp
DDM
SDM

ð11dÞ
YOUSRI ET AL. 7

F I G U R E 3 The algorithms approaches performances for RTC-France solar cell of SDM (A) (I-V) characteristic, (B) (P-V) characteristic,
(C) absolute error curve, (D) mean convergence curve, and (E) RMSE values across 30 independent runs [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8 YOUSRI ET AL.

FIGURE 4 Legend on next page.

YOUSRI ET AL. 9

TABLE 3 Statistical analysis followed to assess the performance of the proposed AEO algorithm

Metric Formula Metric Formula

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PM ffi
2
i = 1 ðI m − I e Þ
1 RMSE
RMSE M Weighted RMSE (ξ) I sc
PM PM jI m −I e j
Summation absolute error (SAE) 1 j Im − Ie j Mean absolute error (MAE) 1 M
PM 2 PM I m − I e
Sum squared error (SSE) 1 ðI m − I e Þ Mean bias error (MBE) 1 M

Note: Im, Ie are the measured and estimated currents.

where ILambert is the calculated current via Lambert form, U 1 ðt + 1Þ = ð1 −dÞU n ðt Þ + dU rand ðt Þ, where ð13aÞ
W is Lambert W function solution. Accordingly RMSE
can be written as follow:

t
d = 1− rand1 ð13bÞ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi T max
u M
u1 X
RMSELambert = t ðI measi − I Lamberti Þ2 ð12Þ U rand ðt Þ = rand2 ðÞðUB−LBÞ + LB, ð13cÞ
M i=1

where LB and UB are the lower and upper bounds of the

5 | ARTIFICIAL ECOSYSTEM- optimized variables. rand1 and rand2 are random values
BASED O PTIMIZATION ( AEO) drawn in the range of [0, 1] and d is a weight
OVERVIEW coefficient.
2. Consumption operation: the consumer with low
The transformation process of the foods among the living energy or the producer are the source of the food in this
creatures is the basic idea in the Artificial ecosystem- stage. Some of the consumers feed on another consumer
based optimization (AEO) where the foods transfer via only and other feed on consumers and producer. Each
three sequential operations which are (1) production, type of those consumer (herbivores, omnivores, and car-
(2) consumption, and (3) decomposition.40 Zhao et al40 nivores) has its own feature in updating its location with
modeled these sequential operation mathematically in respect to its food source as presented below:
form of AEO optimizer. Zhao et al40 considered the pro- a. The herbivore consumers feed on the producers
duction operation is the responsible stage on achieving the only therefore they update their location based on the
balance among the algorithm exploration and exploitation producers location only as below:
capabilities. For the exploration phase, the consumption
operator devoted for discovering the search space whereas U i ðt + 1Þ = U i ðt Þ + KðU i ðt Þ −U 1 ðt ÞÞ ð14Þ
the decomposition operator is excluded in the exploitation
phase.40 Accordingly, Zhao et al40 assumed existing one where producer U1 refers to the producer location and
producer and decomposer agent while the other agents are K is a consumption factor which calculated via levy flight
recognized as consumers. The consumers can be catego- as below:
ries for three classes based on their type of foods as herbi-
vores (creatures eat plants), omnivores (creatures eat 1u
K= , , uNormð0, 1Þ, vNormð0, 1Þ ð15Þ
plants and animals), and carnivores creatures which eat 2v
animals only. Based on this hierarchy Zhao et al40 used the
following equations to proposed the AEO algorithm: where Norm(0, 1) is a normal distribution that has zero
1. Production operation: the producer is the worst mean with unity variance.
agent in the populations therefore it updates its solution b. The carnivore consumers feed on another animal
based on the best one in the search space as well as ran- only therefore they update their location based on a ran-
domly selected individual in the problem search space to dom consumer with high level energy with an index (l).
generate a new randomly individual agent in this land- The mathematical formula of updating the carnivore
space as defined below location can be written as below:

F I G U R E 4 The algorithms approaches performances for RTC-France solar cell of DDM (A) (I-V) characteristic, (B) (P-V)
characteristic, (C) absolute error curve, (D) mean convergence curve, and (E) RMSE values across 30 independent runs [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10 YOUSRI ET AL.

TABLE 4 Statistical analysis by AEO vs EPSO, HCLPSO variants and recent published algorithms in case of R.T.C France solar cell and
CPU time (s)

Statistical analysis

Models/
Techs RMSE ± STD ξ SAE MAE SSE MBE CPU time (s)

SDM AEO 7.7301e-04± 1.6402e-05 1.01673e-04 1.7632e-02 6.7818e-04 1.5536e-05 −5.9995e-09 40.5233

EPSO 8.0621e − 04 ± 4.3109e − 04 1.0604e − 03 1.8787e − 02 7.2259e − 04 1.6900e − 05 −1.0023e − 05 13.6707

PGJAYA 10
9.8602e − 04 ± 1.4485e − 09 1.2966e − 03 − 1.2969e − 03 − − 41

CWOA 43
9.98678e − 04 ± 6.33831e − 03 1.3132e − 03 − − − − −

PSO-WOA43 1.07101e − 03 ± 1.17001e − 03 1.4083e − 03 − − − − −

SATLBO 17
9.86022e − 04 ± 2.3002e − 06 1.2965e − 03 − − − − −

ELPSO 27
7.7301e − 04 ± 3.4508e − 07 1.0164e − 03 − − − − −

HFAPS 44
9.8602e − 04 ± − 1.2965e-03 − 7.5e − 03 − − −

MLBSA7 9.8602e − 04 ± 9.1461e − 12 1.2965e-03 − − − − 44

TVACPSO 47
7.7301e − 04 ± 5.5805e − 10 — − − − − −

CPSO 47
7.7301e − 04 ± 2.8344e − 5 — − − − − −

GSA 45
4.1020e − 03 ± 2.7197e − 03 — − − − − −

CSA46 9.86023e − 04 ± 8.570571e − 06 — − − − − −

ICSA 46
9.8602e − 04 ± 2.987589e − 12 — − − − − −

GA 51
19.08e − 03 ± − — − − − − −

CS 52
1.000e − 03 ± − — − 7.00e − 4 − − −

HCLPSO29 7.89580e − 04 ± 3.0090e − 04 1.03851e-03 1.83898e-02 7.07300e-04 1.62093e-05 6.48591e-07 204.5567

ISCE 6
9.86022e − 04 ± − 1.29688e-03 1.77041e-02 6.80926e-04 — —

CWOA 11
9.8600e − 04 ± − 1.29686e-03 2.15280e-02 8.2800e-04 — 7.2800e-08

BMO 11
9.8608e − 4 ± − 1.29696e-03 2.20480e-02 8.4800e-004 — 1.1302e-06

STLBO11 9.8602e − 04 ± − 1.29688e-03 2.15540e-02 8.2900e-04 — 4.0948e-7

EHA-NMS 26
9.8602e − 04 ± − 1.2965e-03 1.7704e-02 6.80923e-04 — —

NM-MPSO 53
9.8602e − 04 ± − 1.2965e-03 1.19548e-01 4.5980e-03 — —

PPSO 50
— — 1.77798e-02 6.8384e-04 — —

FPA8 7.7301e − 04 ± − 1.01672e-03 1.5971e-02 6.14269e-04 5.181638e-06 —

MPSO49 9.8602e − 04 ± − 1.2965e-03 — — — —

CPSO 48
2.6500e − 03 ± − 3.48547e-03 1.6800e-03 1.6800e-03 — 6.100e-05

DDM AEO 7.6068e − 04 ± 1.4844e − 04 1.0005e-03 1.7042e-02 6.5546e-04 1.4478e-05 4.5618e-06 10.4134

EPSO35 7.6312e − 04 ± 1.5424e − 04 1.0037e − 03 1.7439e − 02 6.7075e − 04 1.5141e − 05 −6.5272e − 06 15.4857

PGJAYA10 9.8263e − 04 ± 2.5375e − 06 1.4859e − 03 − − − − −

CWOA 43
1.130041e − 03 ± 2.153407e − 03 2.1959e − 03 − − − − −

PSO-WOA 43
1.669996e − 03 ± 9.551144e − 04 1.2923e − 03 − − − − −

SATLBO17 9.828037e − 04 ± 1.951533e − 05 9.7620e − 04 − − − − −

ELPSO 27
7.4240e − 04 ± 9.4291e − 06 1.2919e − 03 − − − − −

HFAPS 44
9.8248e − 04 ± − 1.2919e − 03 − 7.1e − 03 − − 39

MLBSA 7
9.8249e − 04 ± 1.3482e − 06 — − − − − −

GA45 5.91958e − 03 ± 1.818e − 03 — — — — — —

CSA 46
9.8292e − 04 ± 4.1755e − 06 — — — — — —

ICSA 46
9.8249e − 04 ± 2.8197e − 07 — — — — — —

HCLPSO 29
7.6680e − 04 ± 1.8624e − 04 1.0086e-03 1.7399e-02 6.6919e-04 1.5288e-05 −1.3767e-05 265.3884
YOUSRI ET AL. 11

TABLE 4 (Continued)

Statistical analysis

Models/
Techs RMSE ± STD ξ SAE MAE SSE MBE CPU time (s)

ISCE 6
9.8248e-04 1.2922e-03 1.7319e-02 — — —

CWOA11 9.8279e-04 1.2926e-03 2.1294e-02 8.1900e-04 — 1.23263e-07

BMO 11
9.8262e − 04 ± − 1.2924e-03 2.1554e-02 8.2900e-04 — 5.8807e-07

STLBO 11
9.8248e − 04 ± − 1.2922e-03 2.3348e-02 8.9800e-04 — 1.3684e-07

TVACPSO47 7.4365e − 04 ± − 9.7784e-04 — — — —

EHA-NMS26 9.8248e − 04 ± − 1.2923e-03 1.7319e-02 6.6612e-04 — -

NM-MPSO 53
9.8250e − 04 ± − 1.2919e-03 11.6610e-02 4.4850e-03 — -

PPSO50 — — 1.7267e-02 6.6415e-04 — -

FPA 8
7.8425e − 04 ± − 1.0312e-03 1.7298e-02 6.6531e-04 1.6873e-05 -

MPSO 49
9.8247e − 04 ± − 1.2919e-03 — — — -

Note: (−) For the not available data in the corresponded paper.

TABLE 5 The estimated parameters FSM-25 PV solar panel by proposed techniques under different irradiance and temperatures
for SDM

Parameters

Cond/Mod
/Alg a1 Rs(Ω) Rp(Ω) Io1(A) Iph(A) RMSE RMSElambert DiffRMSE AEMPP
SDM AEO 1.8846 0.58203 2968.2654 4.5348e − 05 1.3156 0.0065206 0.0065529 3.2297e − 05 0.073598
HHO 2.0309 0.39057 2853.1507 9.5957e − 05 1.3184 0.0073067 0.0073379 3.1203e − 05 0.15338
GWO 1.8686 0.59075 1902.1776 4.1488e − 05 1.3166 0.0065497 0.0065371 −1.2545e − 05 0.070386
SSA 1.8603 0.58814 1630.5361 3.9577e − 05 1.3163 0.0065999 0.006632 3.2036e − 05 0.067767

U i ðt + 1Þ = U i ðt Þ + KðU i ðt Þ −U l ðt ÞÞ, where ð16aÞ U i ðt + 1Þ = U i ðt Þ + DðeU n ðt Þ −hU i ðt ÞÞ, i = 1, …, N, where

ð18aÞ
l = randið½2i−1Þ,i = 3, …, N, ð16bÞ
D = 3u, uN ð0, 1Þ ð18bÞ
c. The Omnivore consumers feed on both the producer
and consumers therefore they update their location using the e = rand4 randið½1 2Þ− 1, ð18cÞ
producer position and randomly selected consumer with
index (l) and with higher level of energy as given below: h = 2rand4 −1, ð18dÞ

Ui ðt + 1Þ = Ui ðt Þ + Kðrand3 ðUi ðtÞ −U1 ðt ÞÞÞ
+ ð1 −rand3 ÞðUi ðtÞ −Ul ðt ÞÞ, where
l = randið½2i−1Þ,i = 3, …, N,
3. Decomposition process: it is the last process in the
ecosystem where the decomposer feed on the remains of
the died agents. Zhao et al40 realized that in this process
the algorithm performs its exploitation capability to con-
verge for the optimal solution as given below:
where D is the decomposition factor, h and e are the
ð17aÞ weight parameters.
The flowchart of the proposed AEO depicts on
ð17bÞ Figure 2 to illustrate the structure of the AEO-based PV
parameters estimation process. The algorithm starts with
generating an initial solutions for the PV model parame-
ters then the RMSE via Equation (6) has been computed.
The estimated current obtained via solving Equation (7)
based on the identified parameters. Then the solutions
have been modified based on the main structure of AEO
algorithm until the termination criteria has been met.
12 YOUSRI ET AL.

F I G U R E 5 The algorithms approaches performances for FSM-25 PV solar panel (A) (I-V) characteristic, (B) (P-V) characteristic,
(C) absolute error curve, (D) mean convergence curve, and (E) RMSE values across 30 independent runs [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
 YOUSRI ET AL.

TABLE 6 The estimated parameters CS6P-240P solar module by proposed techniques under different irradiance and temperatures for DDM and TDM

Parameters

Cond/Mod/Alg a1 a2 a3 Rs(Ω) Rp(Ω) Io1(A) Io2(A) Io3(A) Iph(A) RMSE RMSElambert DiffRMSE AEMPP
2
673.5 W/m , DDM AEO 1.1635 4.764 — 0.31127 315.075 1.6992e − 07 4.0582e − 07 — 6.9848 0.028487 0.028487 −1.3706e − 08 0.071084
45.92 ∘C HHO 1.239 1.2554 — 0.29856 2689.9386 4.6208e − 07 4.2034e − 08 — 6.9536 0.033909 0.03391 4.8672e − 07 0.47437
GWO 1.1153 4.0846 — 0.3253 258.382 7.9781e − 08 4.6593e − 07 — 6.989 0.029892 0.029892 −2.491e − 07 0.28051
SSA 1.2529 3.8288 — 0.28078 1554.168 5.9983e − 07 3.0496e − 07 — 6.9524 0.030669 0.030669 −1.5715e − 07 0.4184
TDM AEO 1.163 2.9876 3.5586 0.31149 313.7978 1.6866e − 07 1.8524e − 07 2.5812e − 07 6.9852 0.028487 — — 0.066118
HHO 1.1574 2.5144 2.5962 0.30363 1599.6091 1.5731e − 07 7.7785e − 08 4.9075e − 07 6.9364 0.037768 — — 0.79602
GWO 1.1815 2.4468 3.9519 0.30306 270.3277 2.2167e − 07 1.1371e − 07 4.2953e − 08 6.9895 0.029233 — — 0.47076
SSA 1.1918 2.6839 2.5052 0.30946 973.8534 2.5838e − 07 1.8568e − 07 7.7269e − 07 6.9563 0.030313 — — 0.011843
2
347.8W/m , DDM AEO 1.1033 3.0964 — 0.34327 663.0711 3.7329e − 08 1.1161e − 07 — 3.0402 0.015148 0.015148 −1.4601e − 08 0.086586
43.95 ∘C HHO 1.0118 1.3801 — 0.43027 2720.246 6.5074e − 09 1.3346e − 07 — 3.0246 0.018686 0.018886 0.00019965 0.34561
GWO 1.8293 1 — 0.42152 601.9616 9.0974e − 07 5.565e − 09 — 3.0396 0.016151 0.016201 4.9608e − 05 0.29257
SSA 1.299 2.8876 — 0.14576 3207.0614 5.9169e − 07 3.6055e − 07 — 3.0271 0.023728 0.023727 −1.0773e − 06 0.52374
TDM AEO 1.1069 2.6588 2.8927 0.34068 705.1794 3.9606e − 08 4.7689e − 12 2.1848e − 08 3.0391 0.015157 — — 0.076422
HHO 1.3456 2.5925 3.7072 0.16626 1961.0107 9.9991e − 07 9.9991e − 07 9.9991e − 07 3.0377 0.021712 — — 1.0549
GWO 1.1513 2.669 3.2013 0.30766 2114.7241 8.0489e − 08 2.6105e − 07 4.753e − 08 3.0304 0.015956 — — 0.032393
SSA 1.0846 2.3338 4.8289 0.38097 3864.5112 2.7351e − 08 8.1702e − 07 4.0798e − 07 3.0271 0.017038 — — 0.36461
109.2 W/m2, DDM AEO 1.0232 2.1834 — 0.68879 482.6963 3.5682e − 09 — 2.0935e − 08 0.99776 0.0036421 0.003642 −4.5151e − 08 0.034826
37.32 ∘C HHO 1.3644 1.7096 — 0.0019576 744.6646 4.575e − 07 — 1.124e − 07 0.99394 0.0057763 0.0057763 −1.9326e − 09 0.38843
GWO 1.2604 4.7914 — 0.20458 846.6237 1.4098e − 07 — 9.1601e − 08 0.99375 0.005341 0.005341 −6.3432e − 10 0.040251
SSA 1.2807 3.4991 — 0.43672 1878.1577 1.8234e − 07 — 4.575e − 07 0.99046 0.007656 0.0076561 1.4517e − 07 0.016281
TDM AEO 1.0487 2.5487 4.9253 0.60401 455.3895 5.6883e − 09 6.8265e − 07 2.5339e − 07 0.9981 0.003696 — — 0.079783
HHO 1.2563 2.025 2.0217 0.31942 763.8902 1.3211e − 07 3.6182e − 08 1.0936e − 07 0.99399 0.0055414 — — 0.20803
GWO 1.3458 2.773 2.232 0.0063652 1259.4814 3.8544e − 07 1.5497e − 07 1.0983e − 07 0.99087 0.0062726 — — 0.032709
SSA 1.3872 2.3969 3.0739 0.14379 1349.2457 5.9427e − 07 8.7248e − 07 2.8701e − 07 0.99162 0.0072735 — — 0.29747

Note: DiffRMSE is the difference among RMSElambert and RMSE of Equation (6).
13
14 YOUSRI ET AL.

FIGURE 6 Legend on next page.

YOUSRI ET AL.
6 | S I MULATIONS A ND ANALYSES
To clarify the competence of the proposed approach for
determining the parameters of PV equivalent circuit of
SDm, DDM, and TDM models, several series of experi-
ments have been established as listed below.
1. Experiment series 1: A set of measured data of a
commercial R.T.C. France silicon solar cell at 1000W/m2
and 33 C. The electric specifications of the cell are
Isc = 0.7605 [A], Voc = 0.5727 [V], Imp = 0.6755 [A] and
Vmp = 0.4590 [V].41 The length of the dataset is
26 samples.
2. Experiment series 2: A dataset was measured for
FSM-25 PV module at 45 C, the length of the dataset is
36 samples. The electric specifications of the cell are
Isc = 0.7605 [A], Voc = 0.5727 [V], Imp = 0.6755 [A] and
Vmp = 0.4590 [V].42
3. Experiment series 3: Three measured datasets for
Canadian-Solar-(CS6P-240P) multi-crystalline solar panel
at different solar radiations and temperatures that have
profiles of 673.5, 347.8, and 109.2W/m2 with 45.92, 43.95,
and 37.32 C respectively. The length of the data is
128 samples. The electric specifications of the panel at
STC are Isc = 8.59 [A], Voc = 37 [V], Imp = 8.03 [A] and
Vmp = 29.9 [V].
The used instruments in the measuring process are
I-V 400 PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL ANALYZER with
HT304N radiating sensor and PT300 temperature sensor.
The software of TOPVIEW was utilized to transfer the
measured data to personal PC.
The employed algorithms are implemented for 30 runs
with 30 and 500 population size and number of iterations
respectively. All the simulations and analyses are per-
formed and established on Core i7-6500U CPU laptop
with 16 GB of RAM and 2.5 GHz of speed. The lower and
upper bounds of the models variables are listed in
Table 1.
6.1 | Experimental series 1:
R.T.C. France silicon solar cell
The obtained SDM and DDM parameters by the proposed
algorithms are reported in Table 2 with the
corresponding values of the RMSE based on Equation (6).
To validate the accuracy and precision of the identified
parameter, the RMSELambert has been computed as in
Table 2 with using the current based on Lambert W
F I G U R E 6 The algorithms performances for CS6P-240P solar module of DDM (A) (I-V) characteristic, (B) (P-V) characteristic,
(C) absolute error curve, (D) mean convergence curve, and (E) RMSE values across 30 independent runs [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
15
function and estimated parameters. The large deviation
among the two RMSE values refers to uncertainly in the
identified parameters. Furthermore, detecting the maxi-
mum power point is an essential target in the PV model-
ing process, therefore the absolute error at the maximum
power point (AEMPP) has been computed in the Table 2.
The results reveal that, the AEO algorithm provides the
least values of the RMSE of 7.77301 × 10−4 and
7.4623 × 10−4 for SDM and DDM respectively while the
GWO occupied the second rank with RMSE of
2.1607 × 10−3 and 1.1226 × 10−3. The identified parame-
ters by AEO illustrate more accurate and precise fitting
based on the deviation from RMSELambert that reach for
10−17 for SDM and 10−5 for DDM with most efficient
detection for the MPP as the AEMPP has values of 10−5 for
both of the considered models.
To check on the efficiency of the fitting process,
current-voltage and power-voltage curves have been plot-
ted in Figures 3A,B and 4A,B for both SDM and DDM.
As illustrated from the obtained curves the identified
parameters provide an accurate fitting for the dataset
while AEO exhibits a least deviation from the experimen-
tal dataset and followed by GWO as illustrated from Fig-
ures 3C and 4C of the absolute error curves across the
dataset points.
The speed of the algorithm in offering the optimal
solutions and its consistency in providing those solutions
for several independent runs are essential issues that
should be addressed. Therefore, the mean convergence
curves and the RMSE values for 30 independent runs are
plotted in Figures 3D, 4D and 3E, 4E for SDM and DDM
respectively. The drawn figures confirm that, the AEO
has capability to converge for the optimal solutions faster
than the HHO, GWO, and SSA with highest consistence
performance as depicted in Figures 3E and 4E for both
the studied models.
From the previous discussion, the AEO proved its effi-
ciency in providing accurate parameters with catching
the least RMSE and AEMPP as well as better fitting for the
dataset with the highest acceleration rate and reliability
in the results.
For further evaluation for the algorithm performance
it has been compared with numerous recent optimizers in
literature using several statistical measures as reported in
Table 3. The considered algorithms included a wide range
of the proposed algorithms across the previous decades
that are fractional chaotic ensemble particle swarm opti-
mizer (EPSO),35 chaotic heterogeneous comprehensive
16 YOUSRI ET AL.

FIGURE 7 Legend on next page.

YOUSRI ET AL. 17

TABLE 7 Wilcoxon signed rank test results AEO vs HHO, GWO or SSA

AEO VS HHO AEO VS GWO AEO VS SSA

Exp/model
R+ R− p-Value h0 R+ R− p-Value h0 R+ R− p-Value h0
2 
Exp series 1 1000 W/m , 33 C SDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
DDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
2 
Exp series 2 1000 W/m , 45 C SDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
2 
Exp series 3 673.5 W/m , 45.92 C DDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
TDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
347.8 W/m2, 43.95 C DDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 464 1 1.9209e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
TDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 463 2 2.1266e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
2 
109.2 W/m , 37.32 C DDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No
TDM 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No 465 0 1.7344e-06 No

learning PSO (HCLPSO),29 performance-guided JAYA
(PGJAYA),10 improved whale optimization algorithm var-
iants (CWOA) and (PSO-WOA),43 self-adaptive teaching-
learning-based optimization (STLBO),17 chaotic whale
optimizer (CWOA),11 improved shuffled complex evolu-
tion algorithm (ISCE),6 hybrid firefly and pattern search
algorithms (HFAPS),44 multiple learning backtracking
search algorithm (MLBSA),7 gravitational search algo-
rithm (GSA),45 improved cuckoo search algorithm (CSA)
and (ICSA),46 time varying acceleration coefficients parti-
cle swarm optimisation (TVACPSO),47 chaos PSO
(CPSO),48 modified PSO (MPSO),49 parallel PSO (PPSO),50
genetic algorithm (GA),51 and cuckoo search (CS).52 The
results of the Table 4 reveal the efficiency of the AEO in
providing higher accurate results with shorter execution
time in comparing with PGJAYA, MLBSA and HCLPSO
across the SDM and DDM.
6.2 | Experimental series 2: FSM-25 PV
solar panel
In the second series of experiments, the proposed algo-
rithms have been implemented for identifying the param-
eter of SDM of FSM-25 PV module. The identified
parameters are listed with RMSE, RMSELambert, and devi-
ation value among the obtained RMSE in the Table 5,
moreover, the AEMPP value has been calculated and tabu-
lated. Furthermore, the I-V, P-V characteristics, and AE
curves are plotted in Figure 5A-C respectively. The
inserted results show that, AEO and GWO have compa-
rable performance in providing the least RMSE value of
0.0065206 and 0.0065371 respectively while SSA displays
the least value of the AEMPP.
For meta-heuristic algorithms, one should investigate
the consistency of the algorithm that divulges if this solu-
tion occurred by chance or the algorithm is reliable.
Therefore, the mean convergence curves and the
obtained RMSE by the considered approaches have been
plotted in Figure 5D, E. The figures reveal that, the AEO
is the most reliable and stable algorithm in comparable
with the HHO, GWO, and SSA, Accordingly AEO is the
most applicable one.
6.3 | Experimental series 3: Canadian-
Solar-(CS6P-240P) multi-crystalline solar
panel
In this section, three measured datasets under different
levels of irradiation and temperature for CS6P-240P PV
module have been utilized to assess the quality of the
proposed AEO while dealing with DDM and TDM. The
extracted parameters of the considered models and the
corresponding values of RMSE, RMSELambert, and differ-
ence value among the two RMSE as well as the AEmpp
are reported in Table 6. The attached results are the evi-
dence for the applicability of AEO as it provides the least
RMSE values with less deviation from RMSELambert for
the first two datasets and it shows a comparable perfor-
mance with GWO for the third dataset. The drawn I-V,
P-V, and AE curves of Figures 6C and 7C illustrate that,
AEO provides better fitting for the measured data as
AEO-AE curves expose the least values across the curve

F I G U R E 7 The algorithms performances for CS6P-240P solar module of TDM (A) (I-V) characteristic, (B) (P-V) characteristic,
(C) absolute error curve, (D) mean convergence curve, and (E) RMSE values across 30 independent runs [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
18
points for the three employed datasets especially in com-
parison with HHO, and SSA. The mean convergence cur-
ves and the box-plots of RMSE values with number of
runs manifest the robust and efficiency of AEO as it dis-
plays a highest acceleration speed and highest uniformity
in the distribution of the obtained RMSE across 30 inde-
pendent runs for DDM and TDM.
7 | S T ATI S T I C AL AN A LY S I S
In this section, the AEO quality has been proven based
on statistical analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test across
the three series of experiments. Wilcoxon signed rank test
has been performed among the AEO and the other peers
based on the following criteria54:
1. Store the RMSE values for 30 runs obtained via the
employed techniques (AEO vs HHO, AEO vs GWO and
AEO vs SSA).
2. Calculate R+ which denotes the ranks sum for runs
in which AEO exposes the best performance (minimum
RMSE) in comparison with the other competitor (HHO,
GWO or SSA).
3. Calculate R− which denotes the ranks sum for runs
in which the peers (HHO, GWO or SSA) give minimum
RMSE values in comparison with AEO.
4. Calculate P-value which detects the significance
difference of the results in a statistical hypothesis test.
The smaller the P-value is, the more evidence against
null hypothesis.
Null hypothesis is valid when H0 = “Yes,” with P-value
is greater than .05, which denotes similar statistical perfor-
mance of the two handled algorithms. On the other hand,
there are significant difference between the algorithms if
P-value is less than .05. In such case, H0 = “No,”
The computed R+, R−, P-value, and H0 are listed in
Table 7 for the considered series of experiments and studied
models. The results show that AEO has a significant differ-
ence from the GWO, HHO, and SSA in favor of AEO. AEO
has the highest ranks values R+ where it provides the least
RMSE in comparison with GWO, HHO, and SSA as well as
the obtained P-value confirm the superiority of AEO (P-
value <.05). Consequently, based on this pairwise compari-
sons the AEO approved its efficiency and reliability.
8 | C ON C L U S I ON S
Construction of the PV module equivalent circuit simulat-
ing the practical operation is a big challenging especially
with the lack of some parameters given by the manufac-
turer. This article proposed a recent meta-heuristic
approach of artificial ecosystem-based optimization (AEO)
YOUSRI ET AL.
to identify the unknown parameters of the PV cell and mod-
ule equivalent circuits. This is achieved via minimizing
objective function of the root mean square error (RMSE)
between the measured and the estimated current that based
on the estimated parameters. The considered PV models
are single diode (SDM), double diode (DDM), and triple
diode (TDM)-based circuit. The analysis is performed on
which are R.T.C. France silicon solar cell, FSM-25 PV mod-
ule, and Canadian-Solar-(CS6P-240P) multi-crystalline
solar panel with the aid of experimental data under differ-
ent operating conditions. The obtained results via the pro-
posed AEO are compared to Harris hawks optimizer
(HHO), gray wolf optimizer (GWO), salp swarm algorithm
(SSA) and with more than 20 algorithm from literature.
Lambert form is employed to validate the constructed PV
model. For R.T.C. France silicon solar cell, the proposed
AEO succeeded in achieving RMSE of 7.77301 × 10−4 and
7.4623 × 10−4 for SDM and DDM, respectively. Addition-
ally, the proposed AEO outperformed others by achieving
RMSE of 0.0065206 for FSM-25 PV module. Regarding to
Canadian-Solar-(CS6P-240P) multi-crystalline solar panel,
three experimental datasets are considered, the minimum
RMSE is obtained via the proposed AEO of 0.0036421 and
0.003696 for DDM and TDM, respectively. Finally, Statisti-
cal analysis using Wilcoxon signed rank test is implemented
across the three series of experiments for all employed opti-
mizers. The obtained results confirmed the competence of
the proposed approach in determining the optimal parame-
ters of PV cell and modules equivalent circuits.
For future work, first, the authors will study several
PV models to achieve the highest representation for the
physical and electrical repose of numerous PV solar mod-
ules types. Moreover, formulating the PV optimization
problem as a multi-objective optimization problem is
accounted for as the second future plan.
NOMENCLATURE
Acronyms
ABC artificial bee colony
AEO artificial ecosystem-based optimizer
ANFIS adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
BFA bacteria foraging algorithm
CHCLPSO chaotic heterogeneous comprehensive
learning particle swarm optimizer
CS cuckoo search
CSO cat swarm optimizer
DDM double diode model
DE differential evolution
FC-EPSO fractional chaotic ensemble particle swarm
optimizer
FPA flower pollination algorithm
GA genetic algorithm
YOUSRI ET AL. 19

GOA grasshopper optimization algorithm 2. Ortiz-Conde A, Sánchez FJG, Muci J. New method to extract
GWO gray wolf optimizer the model parameters of solar cells from the explicit analytic
HHO Harris Hawks optimizer solutions of their illuminated I–V characteristics. Solar Energy
Mater Solar Cells. 2006;90(3):352-361.
I-V current-voltage curve
3. Wolf P, Benda V. Identification of PV solar cells and modules
ICA imperialist competitive algorithm parameters by combining statistical and analytical methods.
IEM electromagnetism like algorithm Solar Energy. 2013;93:151-157.
MLBSA multiple learning backtracking search 4. Hejri M, Mokhtari H, Azizian MR, Ghandhari M, Soder L. On
algorithm the parameter extraction of a five-parameter double-diode
MPP maximum power point model of photovoltaic cells and modules. IEEE J Photovoltaics.
P-V power-voltage curve 2014;4(3):915-923.
5. Laudani A, Fulginei FR, Salvini A. High performing extraction
PGJAYA performance-guided JAYA
procedure for the one-diode model of a photovoltaic panel from
PSO particle swarm optimization
experimental I–V curves by using reduced forms. Solar Energy.
PV photovoltaic 2014;103:316-326.
RESs renewable energy sources 6. Gao X, Cui Y, Hu J, et al. Parameter extraction of solar cell
RMSE root mean square error models using improved shuffled complex evolution algorithm.
SBMO simplified bird mating optimizer Energy Conver Manage. 2018;157:460-479.
SDM single diode model 7. Yu K, Liang J, Qu B, Cheng Z, Wang H. Multiple learning
SFLA shuffled frog leaping algorithm backtracking search algorithm for estimating parameters of
photovoltaic models. Appl Energy. 2018;226:408-422.
SSA salp swarm algorithm
8. Alam D, Yousri D, Eteiba M. Flower pollination algorithm
TDM triple diode model based solar PV parameter estimation. Energy Convers Manage.
TLBO teaching-learning-based optimization 2015;101:410-422.
WOA whale optimization algorithm 9. Fathy A, Rezk H. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic system
using imperialist competitive algorithm. Renew Energy. 2017;
Constants 111:307-320.
k Boltzmann constant 1.35 * 10−23J/K 10. Yu K, Qu B, Yue C, Ge S, Chen X, Liang J. A performance-
q charge of electron (1.6 × 10−19 C) guided JAYA algorithm for parameters identification of photo-
voltaic cell and module. Appl Energy. 2019;237:241-257.
11. Oliva D, El Aziz MA, Hassanien AE. Parameter estimation of
Variables photovoltaic cells using an improved chaotic whale optimiza-
Ig generated-light current tion algorithm. Appl Energy. 2017;200:141-154.
Id diode current 12. Chin VJ, Salam Z, Ishaque K. Cell modelling and model
ILambert calculated current via Lambert form parameters estimation techniques for photovoltaic simulator
Imp current at maximum power point application: a review. Appl Energy. 2015;154:500-519.
Io ,Io1, Io2, Io3 saturation currents 13. Askarzadeh A, dos Santos Coelho L. Determination of photo-
voltaic modules parameters at different operating conditions
Ip shunt-leakage current
using a novel bird mating optimizer approach. Energy Convers
Isc short circuit current
Manage. 2015;89:608-614.
Ns number of cells in series 14. Chikh A, Chandra A. An optimal maximum power point track-
Rp shunt resistance ing algorithm for PV systems with climatic parameters estima-
Rs series resistance tion. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy. 2015;6(2):644-652.
Vmp voltage at maximum power point 15. Ram JP, Babu TS, Dragicevic T, Rajasekar N. A new hybrid bee
Voc open circuit voltage pollinator flower pollination algorithm for solar PV parameter
Vt thermal voltage estimation. Energy Convers Manage. 2017;135:463-476.
16. Jordehi AR. Parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic
a,a1,a2,a3 ideality factors
(PV) cells: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;61:354-371.
T temperature of a PV cell in Kelvin 17. Yu K, Chen X, Wang X, Wang Z. Parameters identification
of photovoltaic models using self-adaptive teaching-learning-
ORCID based optimization. Energy Convers Manage. 2017;145:
Dalia Yousri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6551-2371 233-246.
Hegazy Rezk https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9254-2744 18. Abbassi R, Abbassi A, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S. An efficient salp
Ahmed Fathy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8340-4056 swarm-inspired algorithm for parameters identification of pho-
tovoltaic cell models. Energy Convers Manage. 2019;179:
362-372.
R EF E RE N C E S
19. Xu S, Wang Y. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic modules
1. Silva EA, Bradaschia F, Cavalcanti MC, Nascimento AJ. Parame- using a hybrid flower pollination algorithm. Energy Convers
ter estimation method to improve the accuracy of photovoltaic Manage. 2017;144:53-68.
electrical model. IEEE J Photovoltaics. 2015;6(1):278-285.
20
20. Allam D, Yousri D, Eteiba M. Parameters extraction of the
three diode model for the multi-crystalline solar cell/module
using moth-flame optimization algorithm. Energy Convers
Manage. 2016;123:535-548.
21. Chen X, Xu B, Mei C, Ding Y, Li K. Teaching–learning-based
artificial bee colony for solar photovoltaic parameter estima-
tion. Appl Energy. 2018;212:1578-1588.
22. Nassar-Eddine I, Obbadi A, Errami Y, Agunaou M, et al.
Parameter estimation of photovoltaic modules using iterative
method and the Lambert W function: a comparative study.
Energy Convers Manage. 2016;119:37-48.
23. Ma J, Bi Z, Ting TO, Hao S, Hao W. Comparative performance
on photovoltaic model parameter identification via bio-inspired
algorithms. Solar Energy. 2016;132:606-616.
24. Hasanien HM. Shuffled frog leaping algorithm for photovoltaic
model identification. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy. 2015;6(2):
509-515.
25. Guo L, Meng Z, Sun Y, Wang L. Parameter identification
and sensitivity analysis of solar cell models with cat swarm
optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manage. 2016;108:
520-528.
26. Chen X, Yu K, Du W, Zhao W, Liu G. Parameters identification
of solar cell models using generalized oppositional teaching
learning based optimization. Energy. 2016;99:170-180.
27. Jordehi AR. Enhanced leader particle swarm optimisation
(ELPSO): an efficient algorithm for parameter estimation of
photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules. Solar Energy. 2018;159:
78-87.
28. Chen H, Jiao S, Wang M, Heidari AA, Zhao X. Parameters
identification of photovoltaic cells and modules using
diversification-enriched Harris hawks optimization with cha-
otic drifts. J Clean Prod. 2020;244:118778.
29. Yousri D, Allam D, Eteiba M, Suganthan PN. Static and
dynamic photovoltaic models' parameters identification using
chaotic heterogeneous comprehensive learning particle swarm
optimizer variants. Energy Convers Manage. 2019;182:546-563.
30. Cuevas E, Gálvez J, Avalos O. Comparison of solar cells param-
eters estimation using several optimization algorithms. Recent
Metaheuristics Algorithms for Parameter Identification. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer; 2020:51-95.
31. Chenouard R, El-Sehiemy RA. An interval branch and bound
global optimization algorithm for parameter estimation of
three photovoltaic models. Energy Convers Manag. 2020;205:
112400.
32. Ridha HM, Gomes C, Hizam H. Estimation of photovoltaic
module model's parameters using an improved
electromagnetic-like algorithm. Neural Comput Appl. 2020;
1-16.
33. Elazab OS, Hasanien HM, Alsaidan I, Abdelaziz AY,
Muyeen S. Parameter estimation of three diode photovoltaic
model using grasshopper optimization algorithm. Energies.
2020;13(2):497.
34. Long W, Wu T, Jiao J, Tang M, Xu M. Refraction-learning-
based whale optimization algorithm for high-dimensional
problems and parameter estimation of PV model. Eng Appl
Artif Intel. 2020;89:103457.
35. Yousri D, Thanikanti SB, Allam D, Ramachandaramurthy VK,
Eteiba M. Fractional chaotic ensemble particle swarm
YOUSRI ET AL.
optimizer for identifying the single, double, and three diode
photovoltaic models' parameters. Energy. 2020;195:116979.
36. 
Calasan M, Aleem SHA, Zobaa AF. On the root mean square
error (RMSE) calculation for parameter estimation of photovol-
taic models: a novel exact analytical solution based on Lambert
W function. Energy Convers Manag. 2020;210:112716.
37. Chin VJ, Salam Z. Coyote optimization algorithm for the
parameter extraction of photovoltaic cells. Solar Energy. 2019;
194:656-670.
38. Nunes H, Pombo J, Bento P, Mariano S, Calado M. Collabora-
tive swarm intelligence to estimate PV parameters. Energy Con-
vers Manage. 2019;185:866-890.
39. Ibrahim MN, Rezk H, Al-Dahifallah M, Sergeant P. Hybrid
photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator powered synchronous
reluctance motor for pumping applications. IEEE Access. 2019;
7:146979-146988.
40. Zhao W, Wang L, Zhang Z. Artificial ecosystem-based optimi-
zation: a novel nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithm. Neu-
ral Comput Appl. 2020;32:9425-9383.
41. Easwarakhanthan T, Bottin J, Bouhouch I, Boutrit C.
Nonlinear minimization algorithm for determining the solar
cell parameters with microcomputers. Int J Solar Energy. 1986;
4(1):1-12.
42. Rezk H, Tyukhov I, Al-Dhaifallah M, Tikhonov A. Perfor-
mance of data acquisition system for monitoring PV system
parameters. Measurement. 2017;104:204-211.
43. Xiong G, Zhang J, Shi D, He Y. Parameter extraction of solar
photovoltaic models using an improved whale optimization
algorithm. Energy Convers Manage. 2018;174:388-405.
44. Beigi AM, Maroosi A. Parameter identification for solar cells
and module using a hybrid firefly and pattern search algo-
rithms. Solar Energy. 2018;171:435-446.
45. Jordehi AR. Gravitational search algorithm with linearly
decreasing gravitational constant for parameter estimation of
photovoltaic cells. IEEE Congress Evol Comput. 2017;2017:
37-42.
46. Kang T, Yao J, Jin M, Yang S, Duong T. A novel improved
cuckoo search algorithm for parameter estimation of photovol-
taic (PV) models. Energies. 2018;11(5):1060.
47. Jordehi AR. Time varying acceleration coefficients particle
swarm optimisation (TVACPSO): a new optimisation algorithm
for estimating parameters of PV cells and modules. Energy Con-
vers Manage. 2016;129:262-274.
48. Wei H, Cong J, Lingyun X, Deyun S. Extracting solar cell
model parameters based on chaos particle swarm algorithm.
Paper presented at: 2011 International Conference on IEEE
Electric Information and Control Engineering (ICEICE); 2011:
398-402.
49. Hachana O, Hemsas K, Tina G, Ventura C. Comparison of dif-
ferent metaheuristic algorithms for parameter identification of
photovoltaic cell/module. J Renew Sustain Eenergy. 2013;5(5):
053122.
50. Ma J, Man KL, Guan SU, Ting T, Wong PW. Parameter estima-
tion of photovoltaic model via parallel particle swarm optimi-
zation algorithm. Int J Energy Res. 2016;40(3):343-352.
51. Jervase JA, Bourdoucen H, Al-Lawati A. Solar cell parameter
extraction using genetic algorithms. Meas Sci Technol. 2001;12
(11):1922-1925.
YOUSRI ET AL. 21

52. Ma J, Ting T, Man KL, Zhang N, Guan SU, Wong PW. Parame-
ter estimation of photovoltaic models via cuckoo search. J Appl How to cite this article: Yousri D, Rezk H,
Math. 2013;2013:1-8. Fathy A. Identifying the parameters of different
53. Hamid NFA, Rahim NA, Selvaraj J. Solar cell parameters iden-
configurations of photovoltaic models based on
tification using hybrid Nelder-Mead and modified particle
recent artificial ecosystem-based optimization
swarm optimization. J Renew Sustain Energy. 2016;8(1):015502.
54. Yousri D, Allam D, Eteiba M. Chaotic whale optimizer variants approach. Int J Energy Res. 2020;1–21. https://doi.
for parameters estimation of the chaotic behavior in permanent org/10.1002/er.5747
magnet synchronous motor. Appl Soft Comput. 2019;74:
479-503.