Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Optimal parameters extraction of photovoltaic triple diode model using an

enhanced artificial gorilla troops optimizer
Abdullah M. Shaheen a, Ahmed R. Ginidi a, Ragab A. El-Sehiemy b, *, Attia El-Fergany c,
Abdallah M. Elsayed d
a
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Suez University, Suez, 43533, Egypt
b
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, 33516, Egypt
c
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt
d
Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Damietta University, Damietta, 34517, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Soteris Kalogirou This paper proposes an advanced intelligent application of Enhanced Artificial Gorilla Troops (EAGT) optimizer
for parameters extraction of three different PV modules. The proposed EAGT optimizer is inspired by gorilla
Keywords: group behaviors, in which different methods are replicated, including migration to a new location, migrating to
Artificial Gorilla other gorillas, migration toward a designated spot, following the silverback, and competing for adult females.
Troops Optimizer
The EAGT is improved by supporting the exploration phase involving a fitness-based crossover (FBC) strategy.
PV parameters extraction
Not only that, but also it is by supporting the exploitation phase involving a periodic Tangent Flight (TF)
Practical solar modules
Various irradiance levels operator. The effectiveness of the proposed EAGT is demonstrated using numerical assessments for the Kyocera
KC200GT and STM6-40/36 PV modules using the Triple-Diode Model (TDM). In addition, the proposed EAGT is
compared to the results of contemporary algorithms such as jellyfish search optimizer, forensic-based investi­
gation optimizer, heap optimizer, equilibrium optimizer, and marine predator’s optimizer. Also, the proposed
EAGT is effectively applied on the SP70 PV module subjected to varied levels of sun irradiances and tempera­
tures. The EAGT optimizer’s efficacy and superiority are signified by fitness function standard deviations that
indicate that TDM are less than 1 × 10− 7, and compared to current and reported findings by others.

1. Introduction The extraction of parameters from solar photovoltaic systems is a

Owing to the crisis of energy, worldwide warming, concerns about
the environment, and political challenges, it is now obligatory for global
governments to integrate energy produced from renewable alternatives
into electricity systems [1]. Amongst the various forms of renewable
sources of energy, photovoltaic solar systems have been particularly
common and promising in tackling energy challenges during the pre­
vious year’s [2]. The worldwide cumulative electricity produced by
photovoltaic panels has gone up from 40.336 GW in 2010 to 942 GW in
2021 [3]. Relative to wind power, which has historically been more
prevalent, its growth from 198 to 837 GW in the same period with an
addition of just 93 GW [4–6]. Many experts perceive the need to
concentrate on emerging sources of energy from photovoltaic panels and
intensifying investigations into them to maximize their utilization based
on these proportions.
difficult task because of the complicated nonlinear multivariable of
current-voltage and power voltage. Nevertheless, solar panel producers
aren’t providing sufficient details in their data sheets to offer the
necessary information to effectively mimic the properties of PVs,
particularly under various atmospheric and operation situations [7]. To
address these issues, researchers have focused on PV parameter deri­
vation depending on the data sheets besides the experimental data. Such
a problem represents a critical difficulty in assuring correct modelling
for greater performance operating and effectiveness of PV innovations.
Precise parameters determination could properly reflect the non-linear
current-voltage (I–V) properties of photovoltaic systems, that are
important in PV evaluation, simulation and maximum power operation
[8,9]. Regarding the currently available designs in literature, the
Single-Diode Model (SDM) [10], Double-Diode Model (DDM) [11] and
Three-Diode Model (TDM) [12,13] are prominent. In spite of those

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abdullah.mohamed.eng19@suezuni.edu.eg (A.M. Shaheen), ahmed.ginidi@eng.suezuni.edu.eg (A.R. Ginidi), elsehiemy@eng.kfs.edu.eg
(R.A. El-Sehiemy), el_fergany@ieee.org (A. El-Fergany), am.elsherif@du.edu.eg (A.M. Elsayed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.129034
Received 2 May 2023; Received in revised form 25 July 2023; Accepted 7 September 2023
Available online 7 September 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

intricate designs, simpler, less itemized models have also been published measurements on the I–V characteristic curve, resulting in improved
in the literature. Examples include the SDM with parasitic capacitor precision in the findings and correlating the predicted outcomes with the
[14], modified DDM [15], reverse DDM, generalized TDM [16], results that were observed. Numerical techniques rely heavily on re­
multi-diode model [18], and diffusion based model [17]. Throughout petitive mathematical models, that are employed by optimizers to
the many modeled designs, the SDM is regarded as the reference address problems. Lastly, for precise attainment, the researchers inves­
approach, and it is widely employed considering its compliance between tigated metaheuristic approaches. In Ref. [25], a modified TLBO method
simplicity and accuracy, in addition to the benefits of having fewer was used to estimate the unknown parameters of PV models, where
parameters. The DDM has been recognized as a seven-parameter model. TLBO was separated into multiple levels throughout the learning and
The TDM, despite its complexity and increased number of included teaching phases. In Ref. [26], a multi-swarm spiral leader PSO
factors (nine parameters), has been claimed to be a superior model [13, (M-SLPSO) was used to extract the PV parameters, which included many
19,20]. swarms with various search algorithms. In Ref. [27], a modified
Previously, numerous methodologies were used to estimate param­ gaining-sharing knowledge optimizer was used to determine the PV
eters for PV systems [21]. Table 1 summarizes some of the previous parameters where an adaptive technique was used to automatically
relative techniques used for parameter estimation of solar PVs. The first modify the value of the knowledge rate parameter. These studies
involves analytical approaches [22–24], that are distinguished by their [25–27], was performed on SDM and DDM.
straightforwardness and quickness of response at the price of accuracy. The survey reveals the tremendous efforts made to assess the char­
Analytical procedures are mostly based on data sheets provided by acteristics of PV modules properly and precisely. Though such optimi­
manufacturers. The data inputs to the analytical procedures used to zation techniques provide good results, there is still a gap in their
predict I–V characteristics include open-circuit voltage, short-circuit accuracy and dependability. As a result, this research proposes a unique
current, maximum power voltage, and maximum power current. The approach for estimating these electrical parameters known as Artificial
main reason for significant error, in some cases, of the estimated PV Gorilla Troops (AGT) optimization.
parameters using the analytical approaches is its dependence on the The standard AGT is improved in this article introducing an
selected points. To overcome this drawback, the interested researchers enhanced AGT (EAGT) version. Supporting the exploration phase with a
proceeded to use numerical approaches that take into account entire the fitness-based crossover (FBC) technique enhances the EAGT. Addition­
ally, it is done by assisting the exploitation phase, which involves a
recurring Tangent Flight (TF) operator. This optimizer has few settings
Table 1 to alter and is easy to use in engineering disciplines. To demonstrate the
Literature survey of PV parameter estimation. investigation and exploitation of the optimization procedure, EAGT has
Ref Year Algorithm Ref Year Algorithm illustrated five ways. Three methods are utilized during the exploration
stage: movement to an unknown region, movement towards different
[8] 2020 Harris Hawk [28] 2019 Linear adaptive
Optimization (HHO) differential gorillas, and travel in the path of a recognized site. Track the silverback
evolution and compete for adult females are the two polices adopted during the
[9] 2021 Supply Demand [29] 2015 Shuffled frog exploitation stage. The EAGT efficacy gets analyzed by evaluating
Algorithm leaping algorithm
experimental datasets while adjusting the parameters of three modules.
[22] 2011 Analytical methods [30] 2019 Analytical and
sunflower algorithm
These modules are operated with two sets of I–V data attained from the
(SFA) KC200GT PV module STM6-40/36 PV module and SP70 module.
[23] 2016 Analytical methods [31] 2016 Cat swarm The following are some of the notable characteristics of this article:
optimization
[24] 2017 Analytical methods [32] 2016 Moth-flame
• For the first time, many contemporary optimizers are used on the PV
optimization
[33] 2018 Hybrid version of two [34] 2020 Opposition Learning parameter extraction problem, which are Equilibrium Optimizer
algorithms called Modified Salp (EO) [55], Forensic-Based Investigation Optimizer (FBIO) [56],
differential evolution Swarm Algorithm Heap-Based Optimizer (HBO) [57,58], Jellyfish Search Optimizer
whale optimization
(JSO) [59,60], Marine Predators Optimizer (MPO) [61], and
algorithm and denoted as
(DE/WOA)
Enhanced Marine Predators Optimizer (EMPO) [61,62].
[35] 2022 Heap-based algorithm [36] 2022 Hunter-prey-based • A novel EAGT is presented and employed on the TDM to precisely
optimization extract the 9 parameters of the PV model.
[37] 2022 Social Network Search [38] 2020 Self-adaptive • TDM compares AGT efficiency to other algorithms by examining the
Algorithm (SNSA) ensemble-based
fitness score and convergence rates.
differential
evolution • For diverse environmental conditions, the EAGT quality is evaluated
[39] 2019 Flexible particle swarm [40] 2017 Improved ant lion using different tests and statistical studies with contrast to newly
optimization (FPSO) optimizer produced optimizers.
[41] 2010 Genetic algorithm [42] 2017 Bee pollinator FPA
[43] 2019 Salp Swarm Algorithm [44] 2018 Shuffled complex
evolution algorithm
The remaining sections are ordered as follows: In the first following
[45] 2012 Simulated annealing (SA) [46] 2020 Grasshopper section, Section 2, depicts the mathematical description of the PV
Optimization models, while Section 3 describes the procedures of the EAGT optimizer.
Algorithm (GOA) Section 4 describes and examines the EAGT optimizer’s results in
[47] 2019 Performance-guided [48] 2018 Improved whale
contrast to previously produced optimizers, whilst Section 5 concludes a
JAYA algorithm optimization
algorithm final remark to this current article.
[49] 2013 Improved adaptive [50] 2020 Manta-Rays
Differential Evolution Foraging Optimizer 2. Problem formulation and mathematical models
(MRFO)
[51] 2019 Coyote optimization [52] 2020 An interval branch/
algorithm bound global The PV panel system is comparable to a large diode exposed to
optimization sunlight based on its basic architecture [44]. Thus, the
[53] 2014 Simplified teaching- [54] 2023 Northern Goshawk Shockley-diode-based equivalent circuits were widely used and recog­
learning based optimizer Optimization nized description of solar cells. The PV system can theoretically be
algorithm
described as an ideal photocurrent source in parallel with an ideal diode.

2
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Nevertheless, due to the difficulty of obtaining the ideality of solar absolute temperature and the electron’s charge, respectively. n1, n2 and
panels in practice, the losses impact and many conduction phenomenon n3 are ideality factor of the diodes, respectively. From these equations,
that contribute heavily to the features of PV solar cells must be nine parameters are needed to be identified for the TDM that are IPh, IS1,
considered for accurate modeling and analysis [63]. Even among the IS2, IS3, n1, n2, n3, Rsh, and Rs.
numerous existing models available, the single, double, and three-diode
models are the noteworthy stand out used models [10,11,13].
2.2. Objective function formulation
Notwithstanding these thorough models, there are simpler, less item­
ized, and less reliable models. The SDM is regarded as the base model,
The fundamentally required purpose of TDM parameter extracting is
which is the most usually applied due to its compatibility between
to obtain values for parameters with the lowest possible error between
precision and efficiency with smaller number of variables. Although its
computed and measured current. Essentially, the best set of parameter
complexity and the greater number of related variables, the TDM is the
values for the TDM should be somewhat more or lower than the
appropriate model. The output current (I) of the solar panel is derived
experimental results.
from the applied voltage (V), and thus the whole IV characteristics are
The commonly recognized method in this context depends on
acquired.
calculating the difference between the experimental and the estimated
currents which are based on the recorded experimental voltages and the
2.1. Triple-Diode Model (TDM) of SPV decision variables. It is planned to develop the root mean square error
(RMSE) as an objective function [65]:
The TDM equivalent circuit of the SPV cell is described in Fig. 1. This √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√
circuit has a current source that is connected with 3 diodes in parallel. √1 ∑ M
( ( ))2
RMSE = √ Iexp (j) − Isim Vexp (j), x (8)
The first diode, D1, mimics the diffusion process of the minority carriers M j=1
into the depletion layer. The second diode, D2, signifies the carrier
recombination of the junction’s space charge area. The influence of
where Iexp (j) and Vexp (j) denote the current and voltage regarding the
substantial leakage and recombination in the defect area is explored in
experimental point (j), accordingly; M illustrates the number of recorded
this model using D3.
points; x refers to the decision parameters. Also, the expression
Two lumped resistors indicate the losses which the series resistance
Isim (Vexp (j), x) indicates the evaluated current output.
(Rs) and the shunt resistance (Rsh). The photocurrent (IPh) is the current
produced by the PV in response to sun radiation at a given ambient
3. Parameters extraction of PV modules using proposed EAGT
temperature.
optimizer
For a given irradiance and operating temperature, using Kirchhoff’s
current law and the equivalent TDM depicted in Fig. 1 can be repre­
3.1. AGT optimizer
sented as follows [33,47,64];
I = IPh − ID1 − ID2 − ID3 − ISh (1) The optimization process of AGT [66] is inspired by the group be­
[ ( ) ] haviors of gorillas. Three methods are utilized during the exploration:
ID1 = IS1 exp
V + I.Rs
− 1 (2) movement to an unknown region, movement towards different gorillas,
n1 Vth and travel in the path of a recognized site. Track the silverback and
[ ( ) ] compete for adult females are the two techniques adopted during the
ID2 = IS2 exp
V + I.Rs
− 1 (3) exploitation.
n2 Vth Throughout the process of exploration, every gorilla serves as
[ ( ) ] candidate solution, and the most promising one is designated as a
ID3 = IS3 exp
V + I.Rs
− 1 (4) silverback throughout the AGT and at each optimization operation step.
n3 Vth When a parameter (p) is randomly picked. The p indicates the likelihood
of selecting the migration method to an undetermined place and has to
KB .T
Vth = (5) be entered into a scale of 0–1, prior to the optimization procedure. The
q
migration to an unnamed location is chosen if another randomized
number rand is less than p. Furthermore, a movement to other gorillas’
V + I.Rs
Ish = (6) strategy is chosen, if rand is greater than p and 0.5, as well, while a
I.Rsh
migration in the direction of an identified location is chosen, if rand is
P = V.I (7) greater than p and less than 0.5. The three above exploration tactics
could be expressed as follows:

⎧ If rand <p (UL− LL)×r1+LL,

⎨ {
GX(t+1)= (r2− C)×GXr(t)+L×H,rand ≥0.5, (9)
⎩ Else
GX(t)+L×(L×(GXr(t)− GX(t))− r3×(GXr(t)− GX(t))),rand <0.5

where I and IPh are the output current of the cell and photocurrent,
respectively. ID1, ID2 and ID3 are the diode currents, respectively. IS1, IS2
and IS3 are the reverse saturation current of diodes, respectively. V, Rs,
and Rsh are the terminal voltage of the PV cell, the series resistance, and
the shunt resistance, respectively. Vth is the thermal voltage. KB de­
scribes the Boltzmann’s constant, whilst T and q characterize the
where GX(t) and GX(t+1) represent, respectively, the current vector of
gorilla position and the candidate position vector of gorilla in the
following t iteration; while rand, r1, r2, and, r3 signify random values in
the range from 0 to 1; GXr depicts a single gorilla across all of the in­
dividuals that can be arbitrarily assigned. The variables’ lower and
upper bounds are denoted by LL and UL, correspondingly. Eqs. (10), (12)

3
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Q = 2 × r5 − 1 (19)

A=β × E (20)
{
N1 rand ≥ 0.5
E= (21)
N2 rand < 0.5

3.2. Proposed EAGT optimizer

In this part, the (EAGT optimizer is proposed where two modifica­

Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit for the TDM. tions are incorporated to support both exploitation and exploration
features of the standard AGT optimizer. At first, to support the explo­
and (13), accordingly, describe the factors C, L, and H mathematically. ration phase, a fitness-based crossover (FBC) strategy is added [68,69].
In the proposed FBC operator, two random searching gorillas are picked
C = F × (1 − t / MaxIt) (10)
for each dimension and the new generated solution is selected based on
the minimum fitness as follows:
F = cos(2 × r4) + 1 (11)
GX(t + 1) = PR × Md(t) + (1 − PR) × GX(t) (22)
L=C ×l (12)
{
1 If rand ≤ 0.5
H = Z × GX(t) (13) PR = (23)
0 Else

Z = [− C, C] (14)
where (t) and (MaxIt) signify the present iteration and maximum iter­
ation number of the optimization procedure, as well as (cos) and r4
define the cosine function and arbitrary numbers ranging from 0 to 1.
Furthermore, the symbol (l) represents a random value in the range of
[− 1, 1] while Z belongs to a random value in the range of [− C, C],
respectively.
Two strategies which are (follow the silverback) and competition for
adult females, in the exploitation of AGT, are developed. One of these
two tactics can be used based on the value of the parameter C described
via Eq. (10) in comparison to the parameter (W). The parameter (W) that
must be specified before to the optimization process. It is set to 0.8 as
referred in Ref. [66]. Following the silverback gorilla is designated, if
the C ≥ W value which is described in Eq. (15).
GX(t + 1) = GX(t) − L × MM × (Xsi − GX(t)) (15)
where Xsi corresponds to the overall best position that is defined by the
silverback gorilla.
(⃒ ⃒g )(1/g)
⃒
⃒ ∑ N ⃒
⃒ fl = tan sp × ,
MM = ⃒(1/N) GXi (t)⃒ (16)
⃒ i=1
⃒
where N indicates the population size of gorillas.
g = 2L (17)
where L is previously illustrated using Eq. (12).
In the event where C < W, the other tactic is activated where
adolescent gorillas reach adulthood, they engage in a violent rivalry
with other males for adult females. Eq. (18) may be employed to express
such behavior. Q simulate the impact force that can be stated via Eq.
(19); r5 represents a random number within band [0, 1]. A is a vector
that typically indicates the degree of violence in a dispute and may be
calculated using Eq. (20); β refers to a pre-determined parameter value
before the optimization maneuver, and E in Eq. (21) serves to mimic the
violent impact on the dimensions of the individuals [67].
GX(t) = Xsi − (Xsi × Q − GX(t) × Q) × A, (18)
{
GXR1,k (t) If Fit(GXR1 (t)) ≤ Fit(GXR2 (t))
Mdk (t) = k = 1, 2, …Dim
GXR2,k (t) If Fit(GXR1 (t)) > Fit(GXR2 (t))
(24)
where, GX(t+1) indicates the new generated position of the gorilla
based on the FBC operator; PR is a binary variable which may be zero or
one; Md(t) is an assistant solution vector which is created based on the
FBC operator; GXR1 and GXR2 represent two gorillas selected randomly
from the population, k refers to each control variable of the PV param­
eters extraction problem with the whole dimension of Dim. Fit(GXR1)
and Fit(GXR2) are the regarding fitness value of the two randomized
gorillas.
By employing the proposed strategy of FBC, the new generated
searching vector of gorilla’s position replaces the current position.
Hence, the FBC operator maintains the same number of function eval­
uations and so it preserves the same computational speed.
At second, to support the exploitation phase, a Tangent Flight (TF)
operator is added by incorporating a periodic tangent function [70] as
follows:
( π)
(25)
2
sp = randn(1, Dim) (26)
where sp is a random uniformly distributed number inside the range [0,
1]. The search space can be effectively searched using this method. The
proposed EAGT method adds the TF operator to Eq. (15). This change
dramatically reduces the final step size and increases the objective value
by narrowing the gap between the gorilla and silverback. This model
may be mathematically described as follows:
⎡ ( )⎤
tan (2p − 1) × π
GX(t + 1) = L × M × (X(t) − Xsi) × ⎣ 2 ⎦
+ X(t) (27)
100
The suggested EAGT’s important processes are indicated as seen in
Fig. 2.

4
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Fig. 2. Main steps of the proposed EAGT.

Table 2 4. Simulation results and discussions

Ranges per cell for the electrical parameters in the module.
Parameter KC200GT STM6-40/36 SP70 The first solar module, the Kyocera KC200GT PV panel, consists of 54
multi-crystalline cells connected in series and has a short circuit current
LL UL LL UL LL UL
and open circuit voltage of 8.21 A and 32.90 V, respectively. This
IPh (A) 0.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 module’s maximum point voltage, current, and power are 26.30 V, 7.61
Rsh (Ω) 0.0 100.0 0.0 1000.0 0.0 100.0
A, and 200 W, respectively. The second solar module, monocrystalline
Rs (Ω) 0.0 0.50 0.0 0.360 0.0 0.50
IS1, IS2 and IS3 (μA) 0.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 1.0 STM6-40/36, consists of 36 cells connected in series with size of 38 mm
n1, n2 and n3 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 × 128 mm for each cell at temperature of 51 ◦ C and an irradiance of
(1000 W/m2) [71]. Table 2 depicts the LL and UL of parameters for the
three modules.

5
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 3
Extracted parameters of the proposed EAGT, the standard AGT and recent algorithms for TDM of KC200GT (results per cell).
Item EO FBIO HBO JSO MPO EMPO AGT Proposed EAGT

IPh (A) 8.032636 8.032509 8.030842 8.031571 8.029474 8.032164 8.216098 8.216164
Rs (Ω) 0.042652 0.041787 0.038574 0.039553 0.032594 0.04128 0.004862 0.00487
Rsh (Ω) 19.52163 19.83001 24.07769 22.73545 35.8066 21.09771 6.477886 6.459302
IS1 (μA) 0.220 0.609 1.720 0.854 4.500 0.647 0.00811 9.280*10− 4
n1 1.243198 1.227083 1.299012 1.261867 1.379052 1.360814 1.15979 1.085995
3
IS2 (μA) 0.790 0.695 0.233 0.980 0.086*10− 0.821 0.0335 4.28*10− 2
n2 1.250006 1.344994 1.365446 1.357364 1.388871 1.246635 1.409121 1.272579
IS3 (μA) 0.487 0.383 0.511 0.4551 0.0797 0.279 0.026 0
n3 1.327117 1.31411 1.375791 1.349301 1.388819 1.288993 1.338047 1.822265
Min 1.837*10− 3 1.852*10− 3 2.091*10− 3
1.971*10− 3
2.647*10− 3
2.267*10− 3 3.46*10− 4 3.41*10− 4
Mean 1.948*10− 3 2.028*10− 3 2.469*10− 3
2.055*10− 3
3.023*10− 3
2.779*10− 3 4.083*10− 3 5.81*10− 4
Max 2.204*10− 3 2.408*10− 3 2.592*10− 3
2.125*10− 3
0.119 0.249 1.287*10− 2 1.9*10− 3
STd 1.02*10− 4 1.47*10− 4 0.984*10− 4
0.369*10− 4
10.44*10− 4
3.67*10− 4 5.207*10− 3 3.31*10− 4

Fig. 3. Convergence curves of the applied algorithms for TDM of KC200GT module.

The proposed EAGT and the standard AGT are used to extract TDM
parameters from various solar cells/modules. In order to compare with
comparable strategies in current literatures, both modules were chosen.
Otherwise, different sun irradiation and temperatures are used to vali­
date the efficiency of EAGT considering the KC200GT PV Module.
Also, the created EAGT and the standard AGT algorithms are
compared to many well-known approaches, including EO, FBIO, HBO,
JSO, MPO, and EMPO. Throughout their examination on three various
PV modules, comprising the KC200GT, the STM6-40/36 and SP70 PV
modules, such algorithms are applied to obtain the unknown optimal
values for the parameters of the TDM. These bounds accord with those
stated in the literatures for fair comparisons. The number of iterations,
the size of the population, and the stated meta-parameters in the applied
algorithms of the proposed EAGT, AGT, EO, FBIO, HBO, JSO, MPO and

6
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 4 saturation current for D3, ideality factor for D3, series resistance and
Percentage error and the accuracy of the applied optimizers for TDM of shunt resistance, respectively.
KC200GT module. Also, the convergence curves of the proposed EAGT for KC200GT
Algorithms RMSEAverage PE Accuracy Rank module are developed in Fig. 3 in comparison to the other applied al­
EO 1.948*10− 3 10.12% 89.88% 4
gorithms. According to Fig. 3 (a), the convergence characteristics of the
FBIO 2.028*10− 3 3.04% 96.96% 2 standard AGT seem to be better than the proposed EAGT method. This
HBO 2.469*10− 3 65.35% 34.65% 7 remark is significantly obvious in the first half of the iterations journey.
JSO 2.055*10− 3 39.95% 60.05% 5 On the other hand, as displayed in the zooming part with logarithmic
MPO 3.023*10− 3 66.99% 33.01% 8
scale in Fig. 3(b), the proposed EAGT illustrates significant improvement
EMPO 2.779*10− 3 46.26% 53.74% 6
AGT 4.083*10− 3 4.63% 95.37% 3 of the best solution while the AGT seems to be stuck in a local best so­
Proposed EAGT 5.81*10− 4 2.03% 97.97% 1 lution from the 529th iteration till the end.
For the sake of comparison, it is better to evaluate the accuracy of the
implemented estimation methods. Therfore, considering the best RMSE
Table 5 objective value as the targeted score (RMSETarget), Table 4 derives the
Statistical findings of EAGT and other reported techniques for TDM of KC200GT
percentage error (PE) and the corresponding accuracy of the proposed
module.
technique which can be mathematically identified as follows:
Method min mean max STd
RMSEAverage − RMSETarget
Proposed 3.41*10− 4
5.81*10− 4
1.9*10− 3
3.31*10− 4
PE% = × 100% (29)
EAGT RMSEAverage
AGT 3.46*10− 4 4.083*10− 3 1.287*10− 2 5.207*10− 3
PSO [72] 3.8581*10− 2 4.3886*10− 2 5.478*10− 2 6.5312*10− 3 Accuracy = (1 − PE) × 100% (30)
ISA [72] 2.6742*10− 2 4.0453*10− 2 5.7023*10− 2 1.3777*10− 2
AEO [72] 8.6377*10− 2 10.552*10− 2 14.206*10− 2 2.3373*10− 2
As shown, the deveoped EAGT algorithm derives the best accuracy
EO [72] 3.3072*10− 2 3.7819*10− 2 4.5793*10− 2 4.9503*10− 3 with 97.97%. The FBIO algorithm comes second with accuracy of
HBO [72] 4.044*10− 2 4.758*10− 2 5.1868*10− 2 4.3897*10− 3 96.96% while the standard AGT comes third with accuracy of 95.37%.
GO [73] 9.049*10− 3 1.1929*10− 2 1.7417*10− 2 2.021*10− 3 Also, EO technique provides suitable accuracy with 89.88% while the
EHBO [72] 2.211*10− 2 2.2165*10− 2 2.2384*10− 2 1.2249*10− 4
other applied algorithms achieves bad accuracy with less than 80%. In
SNSA [37] 3.60584*10− 4 1.6195*10− 3 5.3502*10− 3 1.3846*10− 3
AHBT [74] 4.4472*10− 4 1.4902*10− 2 2.7956*10− 2 7.4799*10− 3 this regard, JSO, EMPO, HBO and MPO achieve bad accuracies of
FPSO [39] 2.82136401*10− 2
– – – 60.05%, 53.74%, 34.65% and 33.01%, respectively.
HHO [8] 3.1769*10− 2 – – – Moreover, Table 5 compares the RMSE of EAGT for obtaining the
SFA [30] 3.1746*10− 2 – – – parameters from the Kyocera KC200GT TDM module with newly created
MRFO [50] 2.2185*10− 2 – – –
GOA [46] 3.0134*10− 2 – – –
optimizers, such as EO, EO, FBIO, HBO, JSO, MPO, and EMPO. The
WOA [75] 8.6149*10− 2 – – – developed EAGT finds the least minimum, mean and maximum RMSE
objective of 3.41*10− 4, 5.81*10− 4, 1.9*10− 3 and 3.31*10− 4, respec­
tively, with respect to all algorithms. On the other side, the EHBO
EMPO are presented in the appendix in Table A1. To avoid the influence achieves the least standard deviation of 1.2249*10− 4 whereas the
of randomization, thirty distinct executions of every technique were developed EAGT obtains a standard deviation of 3.31*10− 4. Despite
investigated. that, the worst RMSE objective, obtained by the developed EAGT, of
The reported best values for the 9 paramters of the TDM are per cell. 1.9*10− 3 is better than the best RMSE objective, obtained by the EHBO
If the audience is interested to have per module values, Eq. (28) indi­ of 2.0507*10− 3. Table 6 also shows the experimental and anticipated
cated the series, shunt and idiality factor (RSm ,RSHm ,nim ), per module as: power values, as well as the biassed errors between them, while using
RSm = Ns .RS the EAGT on TDM of Kyocera KC200GT module. In that table, the ab­
solute error for the current and the power, which are symbolized by IAE
RSHm = Ns .RSH nim = Ns .ni ∀i = 1 : 3 (28) and PAE, respectively, are estimated for each experiment reading. Figs. 4
and 5 show the simulation of the current-voltage (I–V) and power-
voltage (P–V) employing the TDM versus the data applied to the
4.1. KC200GT PV module
parameter estimate.

For this module, the parameters of TDM of the KC200GT PV module

are identified by the proposed EAGT and the standard AGT. The
regarding outcomes are shown in Table 3. The result of the proposed
EAGT, which has the lowest error, is contrasted to that of other
contemporary algorithms. Table 3 shows the comparison findings of the
suggested EAGT, that particularly obtains the minimal RMSE value and
standard deviation value of (3.41*10− 4 and 3.31*10− 4), in relation to
various contemporary methods for optimization such as EO, FBIO, HBO,
JSO, MPO, and EMPO, respectively. Furthermore, the table denotes the
obtained electrical parameters by AGT which are 8.216164 A, 9.84 nA,
1.0859, 0.0428 μA, 1.2726, zero μA, 1.82226, 0.00487 Ω and 6.4593 Ω
for the photo current, reverse saturation current for D1, ideality factor
for D1, reverse saturation current for D2, ideality factor for D2, reverse
4.2. STM6-40/36 PV module
For the STM6-40/36 PV module, the TDM electrical parameters are
determined by employing the suggested EAGT, and the outcome of this
approach, which has the lowest error, is contrasted to the numerous
described methods in their published works. This is further explained in
Table 7, that presents comparison findings of EAGT, which produces the
smallest RMSE value and standard deviation value of (1.688*10− 3 and
9.9378*10− 5), with regard to other contemporary optimization ap­
proaches, such as AGT, EO, FBIO, HBO, JSO, MPO, and EMPO,
respectively.
The convergence features associated with EAGT for STM6-40/36

7
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 6
Simulated current and power depending on EAGT for TDM of KC200GT PV module.
Vexp (V) Iexp (A) Isim (A) Pexp (W) Psim (W) IAE (A) PAE (W)

0 8.210 8.210458 0 0 0.000458 0

4.2 8.198 8.198082 34.4316 34.43194 0.0000817 0.00034
8.3 8.186 8.185989 67.9438 67.94371 0.000011 0.00000879
12.5 8.174 8.17347 102.175 102.1684 0.00053 0.006619
16.5 8.161 8.16016 134.6565 134.6426 0.00084 0.013864
20.2 8.136 8.135846 164.3472 164.3441 0.00015 0.003115
23.5 8.035 8.035615 188.8225 188.837 0.000615 0.01446
26.3 7.610 7.610914 200.143 200.167 0.000914 0.02405
27.9 6.915 6.915134 192.9285 192.9322 0.000134 0.00373
29.3 5.785 5.784098 169.5005 169.4741 0.0009 0.02643
30.4 4.458 4.457639 135.5232 135.5122 0.00036 0.010971
31.2 3.239 3.239311 101.0568 101.0665 0.000311 0.00971
31.9 2.006 2.005855 63.9914 63.98678 0.00014 0.004619
32.4 1.036 1.037325 33.5664 33.60932 0.001325 0.04292
32.9 0 − 0.0009 0 − 0.02951 0.0009 0.029507

Fig. 4. Comparison of the measured and computed data obtained by EAGT for
the I–V curve for TDM of KC200GT module. Fig. 5. Comparison of the measured and computed data obtained by EAGT for
the P–V curve for TDM of KC200GT module.

module are presented in Fig. 6, wherein AGT and EAGT attain the most
favorable convergence properties and arrive at the optimum outcome
faster than various subsequently created techniques. Figs. 7 and 8 show
the mimicked behavior of the I–V and P–V making use of the TDM
outcome versus the data utilized for parameter estimate.
To evaluate the accuracy of the implemented estimation methods,
Table 8 derives the percentage error (PE) and the corresponding accu­
racy of the proposed technique. As shown, the deveoped EAGT algo­
rithm derives the best accuracy with 58.69% with the least percentage
error of 41.31%. The other applied algorithms achieves bad accuracy
with less than 20%. In this regard, EO, FBIO, JSO, HBO, EMPO, MPO and
standard AGTachieve bad accuracies of 17.51%, 16.81%, 16.59%,
13.81%, 12.27%, 11.28% and 8.35% respectively. Table 9 also shows
the experimental and estimated power levels, as well as the biassed er­
rors between them, while using the EAGT on TDM of an STM6-40/36
module.
4.3. SP70 PV module
The proposed EAGT is employed on SP70 PV of Siemens module. The
electrical characteristics can be extracted from Ref. [76] at diverse
operating temperatures of 25, 30, and 60o C with constant irradiance of
1000 W/m2 as manifested in Fig. 9(a). Table 10 shows the extracted
TDM parameters of the SP70 PV using the developed EAGT and the AGT.
As shown, the proposed EAGT algorithm demonstrates great superiority
compared to the AGT optimizer in achieving lower minimum, mean,
maximum and standard deviation with improvement percentages of
0.997%, 79.208%, 97.068% and 96.3%, respectively. Table 11 presents
the simulated and experimental current and power based on the esti­
mated parameters.

8
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 7
Statistical analysis and Parameter estimation extracted of EAGT with competing optimizers results when employed on TDM of STM6-40/36 PV module.
Parameters EO FBI HBO JFS MPA EMPA AGT Proposed EAGT

IPh (A) 1.663589 1.663842 1.66142 1.661822 1.661531 1.664662 1.663927 1.66400
Rs (Ω) 0.004067 0.004305 0 0.002783 0.002188 0.005166 0.007927 0.007959
Rsh (Ω) 16.43707 16.24671 23.94597 20.14378 23.70728 14.71232 17.13984 17.16000
IS1 (μA) 31.700 45.200 5.540 2.760 2.110 19.400 3.220 0.000
n1 1.85416 1.946258 1.659292 1.572584 1.550201 27.08396 1.642866 2.000
IS2 (μA) 1.860 42.000 0.268 14.700 12.800 1.310 17.500 3.245
n2 1.527805 1.9137 1.959 1.804205 1.885687 1.489494 1.293143 1.644
IS3 (μA) 0.2190 0.0171 0.0360 0.1430 0.5000 0.4630 4.5900 4.6340*10− 4
n3 1.94859 1.518672 1.96524 1.97363 1.98918 1.910355 1.0000 1.0000
Min 1.738*10− 3 1.728*10− 3 3.331*10− 3 2.113*10− 3
2.596*10− 3 1.85*10− 3 1.688*10− 3 1.688*10− 3
Mean 1.878*10− 3 1.741*10− 3 4.872*10− 3 2.811*10− 3
5.113*10− 3 3.141*10− 3 1.77*10− 3 1.723*10− 3
Max 2.165*10− 3 1.991*10− 3 5.831*10− 3 3.172*10− 3
6.445*10− 3 5.079*10− 3 3.33*10− 3 2.2353*10− 3
STd 9.21*10− 6 4.75*10− 5 7.37*10− 4 2.3*10− 4 8.02*10− 4 6.83*10− 4 2.96*10− 4 9.9378*10− 5

Fig. 6. Convergence curves of the applied methods for TDM of STM6-40/

36 module.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the measured and computed data obtained by EAGT for
the P–V curve for TDM of STM6-40/36 module.

Table 8
Percentage error and the accuracy of the applied optimizers for TDM of STM6-
40/36 PV module.
Algorithms PE Accuracy Rank

EO 82.49% 17.51% 2
FBIO 83.19% 16.81% 3
HBO 86.19% 13.81% 5
JSO 83.41% 16.59% 4
MPO 88.72% 11.28% 7
EMPO 87.73% 12.27% 6
AGT 91.65% 8.35% 8
Proposed EAGT 41.31% 58.69% 1

Finally, as shown in Fig. 9(b), the suggested EAGT is executed at

various operational irradiance levels ranging from 200 to 1000 W/m2 at
Fig. 7. Comparison of the measured and computed data obtained by EAGT for steps of 200 W/m2 maintaining a fixed temperature of 25o C. The chart
the I–V curve for TDM of STM6-40/36 PV module. additionally demonstrates that as irradiance rates increase, so do the
currents. Similarly, the P–V properties of the SP70 PV module are

9
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 9
Simulated power and current depending on EAGT for TDM of STM6-40/36 module.
Vexp (V) Iexp (A) Isim (A) Pexp (W) Psim (W) IAE (A) PAE (W)

0 1.663 1.661551581 0 0 0.000148606 0

0.118 1.663 1.661412045 0.196234 0.196047 4.27256E-05 0.000187
2.237 1.661 1.658898411 3.715657 3.710956 0.001483999 0.004701
5.434 1.653 1.655006768 8.982402 8.993307 0.001245659 0.0109
7.26 1.65 1.652569073 11.979 11.99765 0.001057577 0.01865
9.68 1.645 1.648317802 15.9236 15.95572 0.000976973 0.03212
11.59 1.64 1.64215304 19.0076 19.03255 0.000441053 0.02495
12.6 1.636 1.636185937 20.6136 20.61594 0.00221166 0.00234
13.37 1.629 1.629108634 21.77973 21.78118 0.001876683 0.00145
14.09 1.619 1.619252295 22.81171 22.81526 0.001074721 0.00355
14.88 1.597 1.602754695 23.76336 23.84899 0.005539161 0.08563
15.59 1.581 1.580023151 24.64779 24.63256 3.8693E-06 0.015229
16.4 1.542 1.539581627 25.2888 25.24914 1.53884E-05 0.039661
16.71 1.524 1.518250213 25.46604 25.36996 0.002956701 0.096079
16.98 1.5 1.496210831 25.47 25.40566 0.000730011 0.06434
17.13 1.485 1.482357817 25.43805 25.39279 0.000487677 0.045261
17.32 1.465 1.462947875 25.3738 25.33826 0.001033407 0.035543
17.91 1.388 1.386627464 24.85908 24.8345 0.00036683 0.024582
19.08 1.118 1.127166998 21.33144 21.50635 5.6038E-05 − 0.17491
21.02 0 − 0.00137626 0 − 0.02893 6.32581E-07 0.028929

Table 10
Estimated parameters at 1000 W/m2 and 25o C of SP70 PV module (results per
cell).
Parameters AGT Proposed EAGT

IPh (A) 4.717128 4.71714

Rs (Ω) 0.012688 0.012689
Rsh (Ω) 3.469144 3.469489
IS1 (μA) 1.63*10− 2 0.245
n1 1.191138 1.788579
IS2 (μA) 1.93*10− 7 1.61*10− 2
n2 1.288248 1.190527
IS3 (μA) 0.247 1.38*10− 9
n3 1.797355 1
Min 8.32*10− 5 8.23*10− 5
Mean 1.03*10− 3 2.14*10− 4
Max 2.35*10− 2 6.90*10− 4
STd 4.26*10− 3 1.57*10− 4

mimicked at various operational temperatures of 25, 30, and 60o C under

1000 W/m2 steady irradiation scale, as shown in Fig. 10(a), wherein the
voltages decrease as the temperature levels rise. Nevertheless, the
module is simulated at various operational irradiation levels of 200,
400, 600, 800, and 1000 W/m2 maintaining a set temperature of 25o C,
as shown in Fig. 10(b), wherein the power rates are substantially
increased as the irradiation rates rise. Changes in temperatures and ir­
radiances are seen to alter the model’s output power. There is a large
similarity between the mimicked and experimental P–V curves,
demonstrating the great performance of the suggested EAGT to embrace
this problem irrespective of various operating conditions.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, an EAGT metaheuristic version has been developed to

Fig. 9. Principal performance of I–V curves based on TDM of the SP70 module.
extract accurately the parameters of the PV Triple-Diode Model. The
exploration portion of the EAGT is supported by a fitness-based cross­
over method, which enhances the test. In addition, it helps the exploi­
tation phase by working with a periodic Tangent Flight operator. The
proposed EAGT can achieve a good balance among the exploitation and

10
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table 11
Simulated current and power of for TDM SP70 Module.
Vexp (V) Iexp (A) Isim (A) Pexp (W) Psim (W) IAE (A) PAE (W)

0 4.7 4.699957 0 0 − 0.000043 0

1.9 4.6848 4.68479 8.90112 8.901101 − 0.00001 0.0000194
3.4 4.6728 4.672812 15.88752 15.88756 0.0000121 − 0.000041
4.9 4.6608 4.660824 22.83792 22.83804 0.0000244 − 0.00012
6.4 4.6488 4.648804 29.75232 29.75235 0.000000396 − 0.000025
7.9 4.6366 4.636672 36.62914 36.62971 0.0000722 − 0.00057
9.4 4.6241 4.624148 43.46654 43.46699 0.00000478 − 0.00045
10.9 4.6103 4.610211 50.25227 50.2513 − 0.0000089 0.000967
12.4 4.5912 4.591108 56.93088 56.92974 − 0.000092 0.001144
13.9 4.5530 4.553019 63.2867 63.28697 0.0000191 − 0.00027
15.4 4.4472 4.447386 68.48688 68.48974 0.000186 − 0.00286
16.5 4.2500 4.249825 70.12500 70.12211 − 0.000180 0.002891
18.4 3.3472 3.347266 61.58848 61.58969 0.0000659 − 0.001210
19.9 1.9378 1.937773 38.56222 38.56168 − 0.000027 0.000543
21.4 0 5.33E-06 0 0.000114 0.00000533 − 0.00011

STM6-40/36 and KC200GT PV modules to extract the nine ungiven

parameters. For both PV modules, the effectiveness of the developed
EAGT is demonstrated using numerical assessments with recent
contemporary algorithms, which are jellyfish search optimizer, forensic-
based investigation optimizer, heap optimizer, equilibrium optimizer,
and marine predator’s optimizer. In addition, comparative evaluations
of different published procedures from literature are made. The
comparative investigations declare the superior performance of the
designed EAGT. The experimental results illustrate comprehensively
that the proposed EAGT is able to accelerate the global searching process
and overcome premature convergence simultaneously. Furthermore, the
SP70 module has been tested to derive the efficiency of the developed
EAGT under diverse solar irradiance and temperatures. Thus, the pro­
posed EAGT outperforms the current approaches and is extremely viable
with newly developed parameter extraction techniques. The promising
results of the proposed EAGT motivate the researchers to expand their
investigation to study the performance of such PV modules with
maximum power tracker in real conditions and to study the behaviors of
such PV modules connected to a microgrid.

Credit author statement

Abdullah M. Shaheen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software

Ahmed R. Ginidi.: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation.
Abdallah M. Elsayed: Visualization, Investigation. Ragab A. El-Sehiemy
and Attia El-Fergany: Software, Validation Writing- Reviewing and
Editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Fig. 10. Principal performance of P–V curves based on TDM of the
SP70 module.

exploration. The superiority of proposed EAGT has been validated on the

Appendix

The number of iterations, the size of the population, and the stated meta-parameters in the applied algorithms of the proposed EAGT, AGT, EO,
FBIO, HBO, JSO, MPO and EMPO are presented in Table A1 to determine the benefit of the suggested method over the well-known ones. To avoid the
influence of randomization, thirty distinct executions of every technique were investigated.

11
A.M. Shaheen et al. Energy 283 (2023) 129034

Table A.1
Meta-parameters of the proposed EAGT, AGT and recent optimizers for Parameter estimation of PV systems

Algorithm Specified meta-parameters Size of population Number of iterations

EO Coefficients a1 = 2; a2 = 1; 100 1000

Generation probability GP = 0.5;
FBIO Randomly generated coefficients 100 1000
HBO Adaptive parameters as functions of the current iteration 100 1000
JSO A fluctuating value of control function (CF) ∈ [0, 1], while its initial value is set to 0.5. 100 1000
MPO Fish Eddy formation and FADs’ effect = 0.2; 100 1000
Constant parameter (P) = 0.5;
EMPO Fish Eddy formation and FADs’ effect = 0.2; 100 1000
Constant parameter (P) = 0.5;
AGT Probability of choosing the migration strategy p = 0.03; 100 1000
Parameter (β) = 3;
Parameter (W) = 0.8;
Proposed EAGT Probability of choosing the migration strategy p = 0.03; 100 1000
Parameter (β) = 3;
Parameter (W) = 0.8;

References [20] Fan Y, Wang P, Heidari AA, Chen H, HamzaTurabieh, Mafarja M. Random
reselection particle swarm optimization for optimal design of solar photovoltaic
modules. Energy 2022;239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121865.
[1] Ragb O, Bakr H. A new technique for estimation of photovoltaic system and
[21] Yang B, et al. Comprehensive overview of meta-heuristic algorithm applications on
tracking power peaks of PV array under partial shading. Energy 2023;268. https://
PV cell parameter identification, vol. 208. Energy Conversion and Management;
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126680.
2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112595.
[2] Pan JS, Tian AQ, Snášel V, Kong L, Chu SC. Maximum power point tracking and
[22] Saloux E, Teyssedou A, Sorin M. Explicit model of photovoltaic panels to determine
parameter estimation for multiple-photovoltaic arrays based on enhanced pigeon-
voltages and currents at the maximum power point. 2011. https://doi.org/
inspired optimization with Taguchi method. Energy 2022;251. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2010.12.022.
10.1016/j.energy.2022.123863.
[23] Batzelis EI, Papathanassiou SA. A method for the analytical extraction of the single-
[3] Guo X, Dong Y, Ren D. “CO2 emission reduction effect of photovoltaic industry
diode PV model parameters. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2503435.
through 2060 in China,”. Energy 2023;269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[24] Soeriyadi AH, et al. Extraction of essential solar cell parameters of subcells in a
energy.2023.126692.
tandem structure with a novel three-terminal measurement technique. IEEE J
[4] Renewables 2020 Global status report [Online]. 2020. http://www.ren21.net/statu
Photovoltaics 2018;8(1):327–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/
s-of-renewables/global-status-report/.
JPHOTOV.2017.2762596.
[5] “Global market outlook for solar power 2017/2021 by solar power europe.
[25] Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed R, Chakrabortty RK, Sallam K, Ryan MJ. An efficient
http://www. solarpowereurope.org; 2021.
teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm for parameters identification of
[6] Gao F, Hu R, Yin L. “Variable boundary reinforcement learning for maximum
photovoltaic models: analysis and validations. Energy Convers Manag 2021;227.
power point tracking of photovoltaic grid-connected systems,”. Energy 2023;264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113614.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126278.
[26] Nunes HGG, Silva PNC, Pombo JAN, Mariano SJPS, Calado MRA. Multiswarm
[7] Bana S, Saini RP. Identification of unknown parameters of a single diode
spiral leader particle swarm optimisation algorithm for PV parameter
photovoltaic model using particle swarm optimization with binary constraints.
identification. Energy Convers Manag 2020;225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Renew Energy 2017;101:1299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.113388.
renene.2016.10.010.
[27] Sallam KM, Hossain MA, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ. An improved gaining-sharing
[8] Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S. Parameters extraction of three-diode
knowledge algorithm for parameter extraction of photovoltaic models. Energy
photovoltaic model using computation and Harris Hawks optimization. Energy
Convers Manag 2021;237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114030.
2020;195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117040.
[28] Biswas PP, Suganthan PN, Wu G, Amaratunga GAJ. Parameter estimation of solar
[9] Ginidi AR, Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Elattar E. Supply demand optimization
cells using datasheet information with the application of an adaptive differential
algorithm for parameter extraction of various solar cell models. Energy Rep Nov.
evolution algorithm. Renew Energy 2019;132:425–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2021;7:5772–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.08.188.
renene.2018.07.152.
[10] Ayodele TR, Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Ekoh EE. Evaluation of numerical algorithms used
[29] Hasanien HM. Shuffled frog leaping algorithm for photovoltaic model
in extracting the parameters of a single-diode photovoltaic model. Sustain Energy
identification. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2015;6(2):509–15. https://doi.org/
Technol Assessments 2016;13:51–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2015.11.003.
10.1109/TSTE.2015.2389858.
[11] Sudhakar Babu T, Prasanth Ram J, Sangeetha K, Laudani A, Rajasekar N.
[30] Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S. Identification of electrical parameters for
Parameter extraction of two diode solar PV model using Fireworks algorithm. Sol
three-diode photovoltaic model using analytical and sunflower optimization
Energy 2016;140:265–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.10.044.
algorithm. Appl Energy 2019;250:109–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[12] Said M, et al. Estimating parameters of photovoltaic models using accurate
apenergy.2019.05.013.
turbulent flow of water optimizer. Processes 2021;9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/
[31] Guo L, Meng Z, Sun Y, Wang L. Parameter identification and sensitivity analysis of
pr9040627.
solar cell models with cat swarm optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manag
[13] Shaheen AM, El-Seheimy RA, Xiong G, Elattar E, Ginidi AR. Parameter
2016;108:520–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.11.041.
identification of solar photovoltaic cell and module models via supply demand
[32] Allam D, Yousri D, Eteiba M, Yousri DA, Eteiba MB. Parameters extraction of the
optimizer. Ain Shams Eng J Jun. 2022;13(4):101705. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
three diode model for the multi-crystalline solar cell/module using moth-flame
ASEJ.2022.101705.
optimization algorithm. Elsevier2016 ;. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[14] Suskis P, Galkin I. Enhanced photovoltaic panel model for MATLAB-simulink
enconman.2016.06.052.
environment considering solar cell junction capacitance. IECON Proc. (Industrial
[33] Xiong G, Zhang J, Yuan X, Shi D, He Y, Yao G. Parameter extraction of solar
Electron. Conf. 2013:1613–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON.2013.6699374.
photovoltaic models by means of a hybrid differential evolution with whale
[15] Mazhari B. An improved solar cell circuit model for organic solar cells. Sol Energy
optimization algorithm. Sol Energy 2018;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Mater Sol Cells 2006;90(7–8):1021–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.10.050.
solmat.2005.05.017.
[34] Abbassi A, et al. Parameters identification of photovoltaic cell models using
[16] De Castro F, Laudani A, Riganti Fulginei F, Salvini A. An in-depth analysis of the
enhanced exploratory salp chains-based approach. Energy 2020;198:117333.
modelling of organic solar cells using multiple-diode circuits. Sol Energy 2016;135:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117333.
590–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.06.033.
[35] Ginidi AR, Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Hasanien HM, Al-Durra A. Estimation of
[17] Lumb MP, et al. Analytical drift-diffusion modeling of GaAs solar cells
electrical parameters of photovoltaic panels using heap-based algorithm. IET
incorporating a back mirror. Conf Rec IEEE Photovolt Spec Conf 2013:1063–8.
Renew Power Gener Aug. 2022;16(11):2292–312. https://doi.org/10.1049/
https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2013.6744324.
RPG2.12523.
[18] Soon JJ, Low KS. Optimizing photovoltaic model for different cell technologies
[36] Elshahed M, El-Rifaie AM, Tolba MA, Ginidi A, Shaheen A, Mohamed SA. An
using a generalized multidimension diode model. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2015;62
innovative hunter-prey-based optimization for electrically based single-, double-,
(10):6371–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2015.2420617.
and triple-diode models of solar photovoltaic systems. Mathematics Dec. 2022;10
[19] Liu Y, Heidari AA, Ye X, Liang G, Chen H, He C. Boosting slime mould algorithm for
(23):4625. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10234625.
parameter identification of photovoltaic models. Energy 2021;234. https://doi.
[37] Shaheen AM, Elsayed AM, Ginidi AR, El-Sehiemy RA, Elattar E. Enhanced social
org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121164.
network search algorithm with powerful exploitation strategy for PV parameters

12
A.M. Shaheen et al.
estimation. Energy Sci Eng 2022;10(4):1398–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ese3.1109.
[38] Liang J, et al. Parameters estimation of solar photovoltaic models via a self-
adaptive ensemble-based differential evolution. Sol Energy 2020;207:336–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.100.
[39] Ebrahimi SM, Salahshour E, Malekzadeh M, Gordillo Francisco. Parameters
identification of PV solar cells and modules using flexible particle swarm
optimization algorithm. Energy 2019;179:358–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.04.218.
[40] Wu ZQ, Shen DD, Shang MY, Qi SQ. Parameter identification of photovoltaic cell
model based on improved grasshopper optimization algorithm. Jiliang Xuebao/
Acta Metrol. Sin. 2020;41(12):1536–43. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-
1158.2020.12.15.
[41] Zagrouba M, Sellami A, Bouaïcha M, Ksouri M. Identification of PV solar cells and
modules parameters using the genetic algorithms: application to maximum power
extraction. Sol Energy 2010;84(5):860–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2010.02.012.
[42] Ram JP, Babu TS, Dragicevic T, Rajasekar N. A new hybrid bee pollinator flower
pollination algorithm for solar PV parameter estimation. Energy Convers Manag
2017;135:463–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.082.
[43] Abbassi R, Abbassi A, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S. An efficient salp swarm-inspired
algorithm for parameters identification of photovoltaic cell models. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;179:362–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.10.069.
[44] Gao X, et al. Parameter extraction of solar cell models using improved shuffled
complex evolution algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 2018;157:460–79. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.033.
[45] El-Naggar KM, AlRashidi MR, AlHajri MF, Al-Othman AK. Simulated Annealing
algorithm for photovoltaic parameters identification. Sol Energy 2012;86(1):
266–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.09.032.
[46] Elazab OS, Hasanien HM, Alsaidan I, Abdelaziz AY, Muyeen SM. Parameter
estimation of three diode photovoltaic model using grasshopper optimization
algorithm. Energies 2020;13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13020497.
[47] Yu K, Qu B, Yue C, Ge S, Chen X, Liang J. A performance-guided JAYA algorithm
for parameters identification of photovoltaic cell and module. Appl Energy 2019;
237:241–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.008.
[48] Xiong G, Zhang J, Shi D, He Y. Parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models
using an improved whale optimization algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 2018;
174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.08.053.
[49] Jiang LL, Maskell DL, Patra JC. Parameter estimation of solar cells and modules
using an improved adaptive differential evolution algorithm. Appl Energy 2013;
112:185–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.004.
[50] El-Hameed MA, Elkholy MM, El-Fergany AA. Three-diode model for
characterization of industrial solar generating units using Manta-rays foraging
optimizer: analysis and validations. Energy Convers Manag 2020;219. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113048.
[51] Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S, Nouh AS. Coyote optimization algorithm
for parameters extraction of three-diode photovoltaic models of photovoltaic
modules. Energy 2019;187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116001.
[52] 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112400.
[53] Niu Q, Zhang H, Li K. An improved TLBO with elite strategy for parameters
identification of PEM fuel cell and solar cell models. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;
39(8):3837–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.12.110.
[54] El-Dabah MA, El-Sehiemy RA, Hasanien HM, Saad B. Photovoltaic model
parameters identification using Northern Goshawk Optimization algorithm. Energy
Jan. 2023;262:125522. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2022.125522.
[55] Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S. Equilibrium optimizer: a
novel optimization algorithm. Knowledge-Based Syst.; 2020. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105190.
[56] Shaheen AM, Ginidi AR, El-Sehiemy RA, Ghoneim SSM. A forensic-based
investigation algorithm for parameter extraction of solar cell models. IEEE Access
2021;9:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3046536.
[57] Askari Q, Saeed M, Younas I. Heap-based optimizer inspired by corporate rank
hierarchy for global optimization. Expert Syst Appl 2020;161:113702. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113702.
13
Energy 283 (2023) 129034
[58] Shaheen AM, Elsayed AM, Ginidi AR, Elattar EE, El-Sehiemy RA. Effective
automation of distribution systems with joint integration of DGs/SVCs considering
reconfiguration capability by jellyfish search algorithm. IEEE Access 2021. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3092337.
[59] Chou JS, Truong DN. A novel metaheuristic optimizer inspired by behavior of
jellyfish in ocean. Appl Math Comput 2021;389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amc.2020.125535.
[60] Shaheen AM, El-Sehiemy RA, Ginidi AR, Ghoneim SSM, Alharthi MM. Multi-
objective jellyfish search optimizer for efficient power system operation based on
multi-dimensional OPF framework. Energy 2021:121478. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.121478. Jul.
[61] Elsayed AM, Shaheen AM, Alharthi MM, Ghoneim SSM, El-Sehiemy RA. Adequate
operation of hybrid AC/MT-HVDC power systems using an improved multi-
objective marine predators optimizer. IEEE Access 2021;9. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3069456.
[62] Al Harthi M, Ghoneim S, Elsayed A, El-Sehiemy R, Shaheen A, Ginidi A. A multi-
objective marine predator optimizer for optimal techno-economic operation of AC/
DC grids. Stud Inf Control 2021;30(2):89–99.
[63] Ortiz-Conde A, Lugo-Muñoz D, García-Sánchez FJ. An explicit multiexponential
model as an alternative to traditional solar cell models with series and shunt
resistances. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2012;2(3):261–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JPHOTOV.2012.2190265.
[64] Chin VJ, Salam Z, Ishaque K. Cell modelling and model parameters estimation
techniques for photovoltaic simulator application: a review. Appl Energy 2015;
154:500–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.035.
[65] Chin VJ, Salam Z. “Coyote optimization algorithm for the parameter extraction of
photovoltaic cells,”. Sol Energy 2019;194:656–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2019.10.093.
[66] Abdollahzadeh B, Gharehchopogh FS, Mirjalili S. “Artificial gorilla troops
optimizer: a new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization
problems,”. Int J Intell Syst 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/INT.22535. int.22535,
Jul.
[67] Ginidi A, Ghoneim SM, Elsayed A, El-Sehiemy R, Shaheen A, El-Fergany A. Gorilla
troops optimizer for electrically based single and double-diode models of solar
photovoltaic systems. Sustainability 2021;13:9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13169459.
[68] Weng X, et al. A vertical and horizontal crossover sine cosine algorithm with
pattern search for optimal power flow in power systems. Energy May 2023;271:
127000. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2023.127000.
[69] Shen X, Zou D, Duan N, Zhang Q. An efficient fitness-based differential evolution
algorithm and a constraint handling technique for dynamic economic emission
dispatch. Energy 2019;186:115801. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2019.07.131. Nov.
[70] Wang M, Wang J-S, Li X-D, Zhang M, Hao W-K. Harris hawk optimization
algorithm based on cauchy distribution inverse cumulative function and tangent
Flight operator. Appl Intell 2022;52:10999–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10489-021-03080-0.
[71] Tong NT, Pora W. A parameter extraction technique exploiting intrinsic properties
of solar cells. Appl Energy 2016;176:104–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.05.064.
[72] Rizk-Allah Rizk M, El-Fergany AA. Emended heap-based optimizer for
characterizing performance of industrial solar generating units using triple-diode
model. Energy 2021;237:121561.
[73] Ben Aribia H, et al. Growth optimizer for parameter identification of solar
photovoltaic cells and modules. Sustainability May 2023;15(10):7896. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su15107896.
[74] Shaheen A, El-Sehiemy R, El-Fergany A, Ginidi A. Representations of solar
photovoltaic triple-diode models using artificial hummingbird optimizer. Energy
Sources, Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 2022;44(4):8787–810. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15567036.2022.2125126.
[75] Elazab OS, Hasanien HM, Elgendy MA, Abdeen AM. In: Parameters estimation of
single- and multiplediode photovoltaic model using whale optimisation algorithm,
vol. 12. IET Renewable Power Generation; 2018. p. 15. https://doi.org/10.1049/
iet-rpg.2018.5317.
[76] Arias García RM, Pérez Abril I. “Photovoltaic module model determination by
using the Tellegen’s theorem,”. Renew Energy 2020;152. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2020.01.048.