Mathematics 11 01861

mathematics
Article
Biogeography-Based Teaching Learning-Based Optimization
Algorithm for Identifying One-Diode, Two-Diode and
Three-Diode Models of Photovoltaic Cell and Module
Nawal Rai 1, *, Amel Abbadi 2 , Fethia Hamidia 2 , Nadia Douifi 1 , Bdereddin Abdul Samad 3, *
and Khalid Yahya 4
1 Advanced Electronic Systems Laboratory (AESL), Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology,
Dr. Yahia Fares University, Medea 26000, Algeria; douifi.nadia@univ-medea.dz
2 Electrical Engineering and Automatic Laboratory (EEAL), Electrical Engineering Department, Faculty of
Technology, Dr. Yahia Fares University, Medea 26000, Algeria; abbadi.amel@univ-medea.dz (A.A.);
hamidia.fethia@univ-medea.dz (F.H.)
3 School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, UK
4 Departement of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Nisantasi University, Istanbul 34467, Turkey;
khalid.yahya@nisantasi.edu.tr
* Correspondence: rai.nawal@univ-medea.dz (N.R.); abdulsamadbf@cardiff.ac.uk (B.A.S.)
Abstract: This article handles the challenging problem of identifying the unknown parameters of
solar cell three models on one hand and of photovoltaic module three models on the other hand.
This challenge serves as the basis for fault detection, control, and modelling of PV systems. An
accurate model of PV is essential for the simulation research of PV systems, where it has a significant
role in the dynamic study of these systems. The mathematical models of the PV cell and module
have nonlinear I-V and P-V characteristics with many undefined parameters. In this paper, this
Citation: Rai, N.; Abbadi, A.; identification problem is solved as an optimization problem based on metaheuristic optimization
Hamidia, F.; Douifi, N.; Abdul algorithms. These algorithms use root mean square error (RMSE) between the calculated and the
Samad, B.; Yahya, K. measured current as an objective function. A new metaheuristic amalgamation algorithm, namely
Biogeography-Based Teaching biogeography-based teaching learning-based optimization (BB-TLBO) is proposed. This algorithm is
Learning-Based Optimization
a hybridization of two algorithms, the first one is called BBO (biogeography-based optimization) and
Algorithm for Identifying One-Diode,
the second is TLBO (teaching learning-based optimization). The BB-TLBO is proposed to identify
Two-Diode and Three-Diode Models
the unknown parameters of one, two and three-diode models of the RTC France silicon solar cell
of Photovoltaic Cell and Module.
and of the commercial photovoltaic solar module monocrystalline STM6-40/36, taking into account
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861. https://
doi.org/10.3390/math11081861
the performance indices: high precision, more reliability, short execution time and high convergence
speed. This identification is carried out using experimental data from the RTC France silicon solar
Academic Editors: Adrian Deaconu,
cell and the STM6-40/36 photovoltaic module. The efficiency of BB-TLBO is checked by comparing
Petru Adrian Cotfas, Daniel
its identification results with its own single algorithm BBO, TLBO and newly introduced hybrid
Tudor Cotfas and
algorithms such as DOLADE, LAPSO and others. The results reveal that the suggested approach
Alessandro Niccolai
surpasses all compared algorithms in terms of RMSE (RMSE min, RMSE mean and RMSE max),
Received: 15 March 2023 standard deviation of RMSE values (STD), CPU (execution time), and convergence speed.
Revised: 9 April 2023
Accepted: 10 April 2023 Keywords: photovoltaic cell and module; biogeography-based optimization; teaching learning-based
Published: 14 April 2023
optimization algorithm; identifying the unknown parameters; double-diode model; three-diode model
MSC: 68T20; 90C26
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
1. Introduction
conditions of the Creative Commons Air and environmental pollution, rising costs, and possible depletion of fossil fuels
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// are disadvantages of generating electricity from fossil fuels [1]. To minimize these disad-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ vantages, a new energy strategy has been developed using new clean energy technologies
4.0/). such as solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, etc. [2,3]. Renewable energy power production has
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11081861 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 2 of 30
been significantly increasing worldwide [4]. Among all the sources of renewable energies,
solar energy holds the most promise. Inherent characteristics of semiconductors are used
by photovoltaic systems to convert sun energy to electrical energy which represents a
direct way of converting [5]. However, there are still significant obstacles to the practical
implementation of solar energy, such as low photoelectric conversion efficiency as well as a
lack of precision in the modelling of PV cells [6]. Furthermore, more precise PV modelling
can lead to the development of more advanced and efficient solar technologies, such as new
types of solar cells and modules. These technologies can be optimized and tested through
accurate modelling, allowing for rapid progress in the field of solar energy. Additionally,
more accurate modelling can improve the predictability of solar energy production, making
it easier to integrate solar energy into the existing power grid and increasing the stability
of the grid as a whole. This can also contribute to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions and the transition toward a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.
Accurate modelling of photovoltaic cells is very important to study the performance
of photovoltaic systems [7]. One-diode model (1DM) [8], improved one-diode model
(I1DM) [9], two-diode model (2DM) [10], modified two-diode model (M2DM) [10] and
three-diode model (3DM) [11,12], are some of the PV models that have been developed.
The most frequently used approaches in the literature to determine the parameters of
PV models are deterministic methods and flexible computational techniques.
The deterministic methods involve analytical and computational methods. The ana-
lytical method makes use of a number of locations along the current–voltage curve (I-V);
therefore, their effectiveness largely depends on the points that are chosen [13]. In contrast,
the computational method implements curve fit. This last procedure necessitates numerous
calculations. The appropriate choice of the fitting method will determine its correctness.
The large number of parameters increases the algorithm’s complexity and limits its ability
to estimate accurate values [14–16].
According to the literature, some researchers use flexible computational methods to
determine the parameters of PV models such as Fuzzy Logic reasoning (FL) [17], Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) [18,19], Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) [20]
. . . etc. Although these methods produced decent fitting results, they required very high
computational capacity with skilled personnel to train the datasets [21].
To overcome the drawbacks of the previous techniques, another approach has been
developed, that of metaheuristic methods. The latter has been the subject of several studies
in the literature. These techniques are more suitable for estimating PV parameters and they
are efficient with multimodal functions. They transform the PV cell parameter extraction
problem into an optimization problem. Its objective is to minimize the fitness metric
function by a metaheuristic optimization algorithm [1,22].
In the last few decades, metaheuristic algorithms have greatly increased in popularity
for solving challenging multi-objective optimization problems in a variety of engineering
disciplines. Its importance for the PV parameter identification problem was prompted by
its enormous capacity for identifying potential solutions. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) was
the first metaheuristic algorithm to evolve, followed by Differential Evolution (DE) and
Particle Swarm Optimization. (PSO) [23].
GA is a population-based algorithm inspired by biology that mimics the “survival
of the fittest” phenomenon. It has three main steps: selection, crossover and mutation. In
the problem of PV identification parameters, GA is a better utilization of search space due
to mutation and crossover operations and it is good in exploration but it suffers from a
high computational burden and is poor in exploitation [23]. To reduce the computational
burden of GA, a hybrid strategy (GA + NR) has been proposed in [24]. In this strategy,
GA was used to extract three parameters, Rs , Rsh and n whereas I ph and Is were extracted
analytically using Newton Raphson (NR) method. According to the findings, the NR
technique converges quickly when the number of unknowns is small, Low computational
burden and accuracy depends on the parameters that GA has optimized. Another version
of GA which is hybridization between GA and the interior point method is proposed in [25].
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 3 of 30
This algorithm GA +IP was used to identify the parameters of 1DM taking into account
the standard and nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) conditions of a PV. The
results of GA + IP indicate that this algorithm is accurate in real-time operating conditions,
multi-objective-based optimization and slow convergence. In addition to the two previous
versions of GA a new variant is developed and presented in [26]. This algorithm is Genetic
Algorithm with Convex Combination Crossover (GACCC), it is proposed to identify the
one-diode model, the two-diode model and the PV module. GACCC is accomplished
through the inclusion of a new crossover operation to maintain a good balance between
intensifying the best solutions and diversifying the search space. The results show a high
accuracy and efficiency of GACCC in identifying parameters. Moreover, there are other
variants and modifications of GA that have not been implemented, such as the Stud-Genetic
Algorithm (SGA) [27], which might have a high impact on PV identification parameters.
Differential evolution is a heuristic, population-based algorithm originally proposed
by Storn and Price in 1997. DE has mainly four stages: initialization, mutation, crossover,
and selection. In the problem of identifying parameters, DE lacks the ability to attain a
good optimization effect and does not accurately identify the model parameters, resulting
in a bias in describing the internal behaviour of photovoltaic systems due to a weak global
optimization capability, which will easily converge to the local optimum. Furthermore, it is
overly dependent on the initial value of the mutation and crossover factor [23]. To overcome
the above shortcoming, several variants of DE have been introduced. In [27], authors have
introduced an improved DE (DVADE) to identify the parameters of 1DM and 2DM of the
solar cell and PV module. This algorithm is based on reusing previous individual vectors
and an adaptive mutation strategy. In this algorithm DVADE, to enhance the effectiveness
of differential evolution, the successful difference vectors from earlier generations are
introduced to create the offspring in the following generations. The results demonstrate
the accuracy, reliability and convergence speed of DVADE. Another variant of DE used
to identify PV parameters has been proposed in [28], this proposed algorithm is based
on an adaptation of the DE technique (DET). The adaption is achieved through crossover
and mutation factors. DVADE is compared to GA, chaos particle swarm optimization
(CPSO), harmony search algorithm (HSA), and artificial bee swarm optimization (ABSO).
The outcome shows that it is an optimal method which suits the parameter extraction of
solar cells and modules. Recently, authors proposed an adaptative differential evolution
(ADE) with the dynamic opposite learning strategy (DOL), called DOLADE. The opposite
learning approach in DOLADE increases both the elite population and the population
of underperformers, enhancing the particles’ capacity for exploration. The outcomes
show that DOLADE brings superior competition in terms of accuracy, dependability, and
computational efficiency when it comes to extracting the best parameters for each PV cell
model [29].
Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) was introduced by Dan Simon in 2008 [30].
The BBO was applied to solve many optimization problems, and it proves its efficiency in
finding optimal solutions. This is due to its good exploration feature for the current popu-
lation. Nevertheless, BBO suffers from some drawbacks such as poorness in exploitation
features, negligence of the best individuals over generations, and generation of infeasible
solutions [30,31]. To overcome the above-mentioned disadvantages, various hybrids and
variants of BBO have been proposed. In [32] biogeography-based heterogeneous cuckoo
search (BHCS) algorithm has been proposed. This algorithm is a hybrid of two metaheuris-
tic algorithms namely: BBO and Cuckoo Search (CS). BHCS is used to identify 1DM and
2DM of solar cell and two PV modules. The results show that BHCS is accurate and reliable
compared to BBO and CS and other metaheuristic algorithms. In addition to BHCS, another
version of BBO, the BBO-M algorithm has been proposed in [31]. BBO-M is used to identify
two types of cells: solar cells and fuel cells. In this algorithm, the mutation step of DE and
the chaos theory are integrated into the BBO structure for enhancing the global searching
capability of the algorithm. The results show that BBO-M has fast convergence speed and
it can produce solutions of high quality in both types.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 4 of 30
The teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO) technique was introduced by RV

Rao et al. in 2012 [2]. TLBO algorithm mimics the school strategy in learning. TLBO com-
prises two fundamental stages, the teacher phase, and the learner phase. In the first phase,
the best individual is selected to be a teacher, and in the second phase, learners receive
knowledge from each other. In the PV identification problem, TLBO is simple to under-
stand, easy to implement, and good at exploitation however TLBO has some shortcomings
like convergence speed, it may require a large number of iterations to converge to the best
solution, lack of diversity, it may suffer from a lack diversity in the population, which
can limit its exploration capabilities and prevent it from escaping from local optima [23].
To overcome these limitations, various modifications of TLBO such as improving and
hybridization with other algorithms have been proposed. In [3], the authors develop a new
optimization method called oppositional teaching learning-based optimization (GOTLBO)
to identify the parameters of both 1DM and 2DM. The initialization step and generation
jumping of this algorithm are taken from generalized opposition-based learning (GOBL)
and integrated into the original TLBO. This algorithm was compared with four evolutional
algorithms: jDE, CLPSO, TLBO, and OTLBO. The results show that GOTLBO is very
competitive compared to other algorithms. Another variant of TLBO has been proposed
in [2]. The authors proposed a hybrid adaptive teaching–learning-based optimization with
differential evolution (ATLDE) reliably identify the unknown parameters of both 1DM
and 2DM of solar cell and 1DM of two PV modules. In order to verify the performance
of ATLDE, it is compared with TLBO, DE and other state-of-the-art metaheuristic algo-
rithms. The results demonstrate that ATLDE can obtain more accurate or similar values,
and consume fewer computing resources. In addition to all the algorithms cited above,
there are many metaheuristic algorithms used to identify PV parameters, such as the Social
Network Optimization (SNO) algorithm [33], the Firefly Algorithm (FA) [34], the Fireworks
Algorithm (Fwa) [35], Modified Bald Eagle Search Optimization Algorithm [36], Supply
Demand algorithm (SD) [37] and Northern Goshawk Optimization algorithm [38].
In this paper, a new variant of the TLBO algorithm is developed to determine the
parameters of PV models that achieve better results in terms of accuracy, robustness
and conversion speed. This algorithm is a biogeography-based-teaching–learning-based
optimization (BB-TLBO) algorithm which is a hybridization of BBO with TLBO. This
algorithm aims to combine the benefits of both TLBO and BBO to strike a balance between
exploration and exploitation for a good search process. BB-TLBO not only overcomes the
respective limitations of BBO and TLBO but also demonstrates improved performance
in determining the parameters of PV models, setting a new benchmark for optimization
methods in the field. The BB-TLBO is used for the identification of the PV parameters of
the RTC France silicon solar cell and the estimation of the PV parameters of the commercial
solar PV module: the monocrystalline STM6-40/36 module.
In this identification process, the one-diode model (1DM), two-diode model (2DM),
and three-diode model (3DM) were considered. It is worth mentioning that there are only a
few research papers that had done parameter identification of 3DM of PV cell and module,
therefore authors are motivated to study this model because it is more accurate compared
to the other two models (1DM and 2DM).
In 1DM there are five parameters identified as photocurrent I ph , current saturation
Is1 , series resistance Rs , shunt resistance Rsh and ideality factor n1 . For 2DM, in addition
to the first five parameters, two more parameters are introduced: ideality factor n2 and
the saturation current Is2 of the second diode. For 3DM, in addition to the previous seven
parameters, two more parameters are added: saturation current Is3 and the ideality factor
n3 of the third diode.
The BB-TLBO algorithm is first compared to BBO and TLBO and the results confirm
that BB-TLBO outperformed both individual algorithms (BBO and TLBO). Then, the results
of BB-TLBO are compared with the reported results of other algorithms recently introduced
in the literature. The comparison results demonstrate that BB-TLBO is more accurate, and
reliable, with high convergence speed and a short time of execution.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 5 of 30
The novelty and main contribution of this paper are as follows:

• The biogeography-based teaching learning optimization (BB-TLBO) algorithm is pro-
posed to efficiently identify PV model parameters.
• The identification is based on three models: 1DM, 2DM and 3DM of two cases, namely
the RTC France silicon solar cell and the monocrystalline STM6-40/36 module.
• In BB-TLBO, to balance between the exploitation and exploration, the initialization
process and migration step of BBO are integrated into the original form of TLBO before
the teaching phase and learner phase and after these steps, an elitism process which is
taken from BBO is added at the end.
• The results are compared with BBO, TLBO algorithms, and other reported state-of-the-
art algorithms.
• The results show that the BB-TLBO algorithm demonstrates improved performance in
determining the parameters of PV models, setting a new benchmark for optimization
methods in the field.
The rest of this article is structured as follows: Solar PV cell models with their objective
functions are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 presents the description of BB-TLBO pseu-
docode and its flowchart. The presentation of the experimental results and the discussion
of the comparative study are presented in Section 4. Finally, the conclusion is treated in
Section 5.
2. Equivalent Circuit for PV Cell/Module Models and Problem Formulation

The three most common models used to simulate photovoltaic cells or modules are
presented in this section. These models are one-diode model (1DM), two-diode model
(2DM) and three-diode model (3DM). They are discussed in detail below.
2.1. PV Cell Models

2.1.1. One-Diode Model (1DM)
The 1DM is composed of a photo-generated current represented as a current source in
parallel with a diode and a so-called shunt resistance Rsh , all in series with a resistance Rs
as shown in Figure 1. The current output can be formulated as:
IL = I ph − Id1 − Ish (1)
where: the photo-generated-current, the diode-current and the shunt-resistance-current are

denoted by I ph , Id1 and Ish respectively. The Id1 can be calculated according to Shockley
as follows:
VL + IL Rs
Id1 = Is1 exp −1 (2)
n1 Vt
Is1 : Diode reserve saturation current, VL : Output voltage, n1 : Diode ideality constant
and Vt represents junction thermal voltage, it is formulated as:
KT
Vt = (3)
q
where: K = 1.3806503 × 10−23 J/K stands for the constant of the Boltzmann, q = 1.60217646 ×
10−19 C stands for electron charge and T stands for junction temperature in Kelvin. The
parallel resistance current Ish is calculated as:

(VL + IL Rs )
Ish = (4)
Rsh
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 33
𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 (𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 )
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 (𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 ) − 1) − ((𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 ) ) (5)
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( 𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 ) − 1) − ( 𝑅𝑠ℎ ) 6 of(5)
30
𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 𝑅𝑠ℎ
Figure 1. Equivalent circuit of 1DM solar cell.

2.1.2.After replacing
Two-Diode ModelEquations
(2DM) (2) and (4) in Equation (1), the output current of the one-
2.1.2. Two-Diode Model (2DM)
diodeAs model is:
illustrated in Figure 2, the 2DM consists of two diodes (D1 replicates minatory
As illustrated in Figure 2, the2DM consists of two diodes (D1 replicates minatory
carrier diffusion in the depletion layer, and D2 depicts carrier recombination in the junc-

carrier diffusion Iin = theI depletion layer, + ILD2
VL and Rs depicts carrier + IL Rs )
(VLrecombination in the junc-
tion’s space charge L area)ph − Is1 exp
linked in parallel with − 1current
the − source, and a shunt resistance (5)
tion’s space charge area) linked in parallel n1 Vwith
t the current source, Rsh and a shunt resistance
𝑅𝑠ℎ . this combination is linked in series with a resistance 𝑅𝑠 [39].
𝑅𝑠ℎ . this combination is linked in series with a resistance 𝑅𝑠 [39].
2.1.2.I-V relationship
Two-Diode Model can(2DM)
be stated by using Kirchhoff’s current law with the Shockley di-
I-V relationship can be stated by using Kirchhoff’s current law with the Shockley di-
ode equation as
As illustratedfollows:
in Figure 2, the 2DM consists of two diodes (D1 replicates minatory car-
ode equation as follows:
rier diffusion 𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠depletion layer, and𝑉𝐿D2
in the + 𝐼depicts
𝑅 carrier(𝑉
recombination
𝑅𝑠)) in the junction’s
𝐼𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑠𝑠current 𝐿 + 𝐼𝐼𝐿𝑅
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ space
− 𝐼𝑠1 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 (𝑉𝐿 area)
charge + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅linked
𝑠 ) − 1)in − parallel (𝑉𝐿 + the
𝐼𝑠2 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 with ) − 1) − ((𝑉𝐿 +and
source, 𝐿 𝑠a )shunt resistance R(6)
sh .
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( 𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 ) − 1) − 𝐼𝑠2 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( 𝑛2 𝑉𝑡 ) − 1) − ( 𝑅𝑠ℎ ) (6)
this combination 𝑛 𝑉 𝑛 𝑉
1 𝑡is linked in series with a 2resistance
𝑡 Rs [39]. 𝑠ℎ𝑅
Figure 2. Equivalent
Figure 2. Equivalent circuit
circuit of
of 2DM
2DM solar
solar cell.
cell.
I-V relationship can be stated by using Kirchhoff’s current law with the Shockley diode
equation as follows:

VL + IL Rs VL + IL Rs (VL + IL Rs )
IL = I ph − Is1 exp − 1 − Is2 exp −1 − (6)
n1 V t n2 V t Rsh
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 7 of 30
2.1.3. Three-Diode Model (3DM)

2.1.3. Three-Diode Model (3DM)
In 3DM, the third diode is introduced in parallel with 2DM as shown in Figure 3 to
In 3DM, the third diode is introduced in parallel with 2DM as shown in Figure 3
simulate recombination in the defect region, grain borders and large leakage current as
to simulate recombination in the defect region, grain borders and large leakage current
exposed. The I-V relationship can be expressed by using Kirchhoff’s current law and
as exposed. The I-V relationship can be expressed by using Kirchhoff’s current law and
Shockley diode equation as follows [40]:
Shockley diode equation as follows [40]:
(𝑉𝐿+ 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 ) (𝑉 𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 ) (𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅𝑠 ) (𝑉𝐿 + 𝐼𝐿 𝑅 𝑠)
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( (V + I) L R−
s ) 1) − 𝐼𝑠2 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( (V L + IL Rs)) − 1) − 𝐼𝑠3 (𝑒𝑥𝑝 ((V L + IL Rs ) ) − 1) − (
(VL + IL Rs ) ) (7)

IL = I ph − Is1 exp 𝑛1 𝑉𝑡L − 1 − Is2 exp 𝑛2 𝑉𝑡 − 1 − Is3 exp 𝑛3 𝑉𝑡 −1 − 𝑅𝑠ℎ (7)
n1 V t n2 V t n3 V t Rsh
Figure3.3. Equivalent
Figure Equivalent circuit
circuitof
of3DM
3DMsolar
solarcell.
cell.
2.2. PV Module Models
2.2. PV Module Models:
The equivalent circuit of the PV module is exposed in Figure 4. Equations (8)–(10),
provide Theoutput
equivalent
current circuit of thefor
equations PV1DM,
module2DM,is exposed
and 3DM, inrespectively.
Figure 4. Equations (8)–(10),
provide output current equations for 1DM, 2DM, and 3DM, respectively.
" ! # !
q VL / Ns ) + Ns Rs IL /Np ( V L /N s ) + N s R s I L /N p
IL = I ph Np − Is1 Np exp 𝑞((𝑉𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑠 ) + 𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝 )) − 1 − ((𝑉𝐿 /𝑁𝑠 ) + 𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 /𝑁 𝑝 )) (8)
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ 𝑁𝑝 − 𝐼𝑠1 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( n1 Vt Ns ) − 1] − ( Rsh Ns /Np ) (8)
𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠ℎ (𝑁𝑠 /𝑁𝑝 )

q((VL / Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ) ) q((VL / Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ) )
IL = I ph Np − Is1 Np exp𝑞((𝑉𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑠 ) + 𝑁n𝑠1 V s 𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝 ))
𝑅t𝑠N(𝐼 − 1 − I N
s2 p exp𝑞((𝑉𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑠 ) +n2𝑁 𝑅s𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝 ))
V𝑠t N − 1
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ 𝑁𝑝 − 𝐼𝑠1 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1] − 𝐼𝑠2 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1]
𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 𝑛2 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 (9)
( (VL)/Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np )) (9)
− 𝐿 /𝑁𝑠 + 𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 /𝑁𝑝 ))
((𝑉
−( Rsh ( Ns /Np ) )
𝑅𝑠ℎ (𝑁𝑠 /𝑁𝑝 )

q((VL / Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ) ) q((VL / Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ) )
IL = I ph Np − Is1 Np exp 𝑞((𝑉 ⁄𝑁 )n + Ns𝑠 𝑅𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝 ))− 1 − Is2 Np exp 𝑞((𝑉𝐿 ⁄𝑁n𝑠2)Vt+ Ns𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠 (𝐼𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝− )) 1
𝐿 𝑠 1 Vt 𝑁
𝐼𝐿 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ 𝑁𝑝 − 𝐼𝑠1 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1] − 𝐼𝑠2 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1]
𝑛1 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 𝑛2 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 (10)
(10)
− I N exp 𝑞((𝑉L𝐿 ⁄𝑁s𝑠 ) +s 𝑁s𝑠 𝑅L𝑠 (𝐼𝐿p⁄𝑁𝑝 ))− 1 −
q (( V / N )+ N R ( I /N ) ) (( VL 𝐿 ⁄s𝑁𝑠 ) +
((𝑉/ N )+ N R (
s s𝑁𝑠L𝑅𝑠 (𝐼
I /N p𝐿 ⁄𝑁𝑝 ))
) )
− 𝐼𝑠3 𝑁𝑝 [𝑒𝑥𝑝 (
s3 p n3 Vt Ns ) − 1] − ( Rsh ( Ns /Np ) )
𝑛3 𝑉𝑡 𝑁𝑠 𝑅𝑠ℎ (𝑁𝑠 /𝑁𝑝 )
2.3. Problem Formulation
The problem of identifying unknown parameters for all models of PV cells and
modules can be solved by converting it into an optimization problem.
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 8 of 30
Figure 4. Equivalent circuit of the PV module.

Figure 4. Equivalent circuit of the PV module.
The discrepancy between calculated and measured data is minimized during the
optimization phase. The objective function is designed to find the optimal values of the
2.3. Problem Formulation
unknown parameters of different models in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) [40].
It The problem
is expressed of identifying unknown parameters for all models of PV cells and m
as follows:
ules can be solved by converting it into v an optimization problem.
u N
The discrepancy between calculated
u 1 and measured data is minimized during the
RMSE( x ) = t ∑ f M (VL , IL , x ) (11)
timization phase. The objective functionNis1 designed to find the optimal values of the
known parameters of different models in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) [4
where: N denotes collected experimental data, VL and IL are measured voltage and mea-
is expressed as follows:
sured current, respectively. x is the solution vector. f is the error function, which is
M
defined for different PV models as follows:
𝑁
2.3.1. For 1DM of PV Cell 1
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 (𝑥 ) = √ ∑ 𝑓𝑀 (𝑉𝐿 , 𝐼𝐿 , 𝑥)
𝑁 i
q(VL + RS IL )1
 h
(VL + Rs IL )
 f (VL , IL , x ) = I ph − Is1 exp −1 − − IL

 n1 KT Rsh
where: N denotes ncollected experimental o data, 𝑉𝐿 and 𝐼𝐿 are measured (12)voltage

measured current, respectively. x is the solution vector. 𝑓𝑀 is the error function, w
 x = I ph , Is1 , Rs , Rsh , n1

is defined forare
There different PV models
five parameters as follows:
in the equation expressed above that need to be identified:
I ph , Is1 , Rs , Rsh and n1 .
2.3.1. For 1DM of PV Cell
𝑞(𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑆 𝐼i𝐿 ) (𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑠 𝐼𝐿 )
𝑓 q((𝑉 , 𝐼 L )) = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 [exp
RS,I𝑥 ( ) −L +1]
Rs I− − 𝐼𝐿
 h i h
VL + q (VL + RS IL ) (V L)
 f (VL , IL , x ) = I ph − Is1 exp{ 𝐿 𝐿 − 1 − Is2 exp n2 KT 𝑛1 𝐾𝑇 −1 − − IL 𝑅

 n1 KT Rsh 𝑠ℎ
(13)
 x = I ph , Is1 , Is2 , Rs , Rsh , n1 , n𝑥2 = {𝐼𝑝ℎ , 𝐼𝑠1 , 𝑅𝑠 , 𝑅𝑠ℎ , 𝑛1 }
 n o

There
Thereare arefive parameters
seven inthe
parameters in theabove
equation expressed
equation above
which need that needI to, Ibe, identi
to be identified: ph s1
𝐼𝑝ℎ ,Is2𝐼𝑠1
, R, s ,𝑅R𝑠 sh
, ,𝑅n𝑠ℎ andn2𝑛. 1 .
1 and
𝑞(𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑆 𝐼𝐿 ) 𝑞(𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑆 𝐼𝐿 ) (𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑠 𝐼𝐿 )

𝑓 (𝑉𝐿 , 𝐼𝐿 , 𝑥 ) = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑠1 [exp ( ) − 1] − 𝐼𝑠2 [exp ( ) − 1] − − 𝐼𝐿
{ 𝑛1 𝐾𝑇 𝑛2 𝐾𝑇 𝑅𝑠ℎ
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 9 of 30

h i h i h i
q(VL + RS IL ) q(VL + RS IL ) q(VL + RS IL )


 f (VL , IL , x ) = I ph − Is1 exp n1 KT − 1 − Is2 exp n2 KT − 1 − Is3 exp n3 KT − 1



(14)

 − (VL + Rs IL )
Rsh − IL

 n o
 x = I ,I ,I ,I ,R ,R ,n ,n ,n
ph s1 s2 s3 s sh 1 2 3
There are nine parameters in the last expression which need to be identified:
I ph , Is1 , Is2 , Is3 , Rs , Rsh , n1 , n2 and n3 .
2.3.4. For 1DM of PV Module


q((VL / Ns )+ Ns RS ( IL /Np ) ) ((VL /Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ))
f ( V , I , x ) = N I − N I exp − 1 − − IL

L L p ph p s1


 n1 Vt Ns Rsh
(15)

 n o
 x = I ph , Is1 , Rs , Rsh , n1


q((VL / Ns )+ Ns RS ( IL /Np ) ) q((VL / Ns )+ Ns RS ( IL /Np ) )
f (VL , IL , x ) = Np I ph − Np I s1 exp − 1 − Np I s2 exp −1




 n1 Vt Ns n2 Vt Ns


((VL /Ns )+ Ns Rs ( IL /Np ))

 − Rsh − IL

 n o

 x = I ph , Is1 , Is2 , Rs , Rsh , n1 , n2

(16)

            
q VL / Ns )+ Ns RS I L /N p q VL / Ns )+ Ns RS I L /N p q VL / Ns )+ Ns RS IL /N p
f VL , IL , x = N p I ph − N p I s1 exp   − 1 − N p I exp 
s2
 − 1 − N p I exp 
s3
 − 1

 n1 Vt Ns n2 Vt Ns n3 Vt Ns


VL /Ns + Ns Rs IL /N p

(17)
 − Rsh
−I
L

 n o
x= I ph , Is1 , Is2 , Is3 , Rs , Rsh , n1 , n2 , n3
There are five, seven and nine parameters for the three models of the PV module
which must be identified, they are presented in vector x.
3. The Proposed Hybrid BB-TLBO Algorithm

In this section, the hybrid proposed algorithm is introduced, which combines biogeography-
based optimization (BBO) and teaching-learning based optimization (TLBO). A brief dis-
cussion of the BBO and TLBO algorithms. Following that, the innovative hybrid algorithm,
BB-TLBO, is discussed in detail, which leverages the strengths of both BBO and TLBO to
enhance optimization performance.
3.1. Biogeography-Based Optimization

Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) is a metaheuristic algorithm announced by
Dan Simon in the year 2008 that is inspired by the theory of island biogeography. This
theory employs mathematical models to describe the patterns of migration, speciation,
and extinction of species across different islands. Biogeography-based optimization (BBO)
considers each individual in the population as an island with a habitat suitability index
(HSI), where each variable of the island is referred to as a suitability index variable (SIV). A
desirable solution is indicated by an island with a high HSI that hosts a diverse range of
species, while an undesirable solution is represented by an island with a low HSI, which
has a small number of species. Consequently, individuals located on high HSI islands are
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 10 of 30
more likely to migrate to islands with low HSI, and the low HSI islands receive immigrants
from high HSI islands to promote genetic diversity and improve the overall quality of the
population. BBO employs two operators namely migration and mutation to evolve the
population [30–32].
3.1.1. Migration
Biogeography-based optimization involves assigning unique immigration λ and emi-
gration rates µ to each island in the population, which are the functions of species in the
habitat. The functions of the immigration rate and emigration rate can be defined as:

s
λs = I 1 − (18)
Np

s
µs = E (19)
Np
The maximum possible immigration rate (denoted by I) is achieved when an island has
no species present, whereas the maximum emigration rate (denoted by E) occurs when the
island has the maximum number of species. s is the number of species of the sth individual
in the ordered population according to fitness, and Np is the number of candidate solutions
in the population. With I and E typically being set to 1. Where the immigration rate (λ)
determines whether a selected solution should modify its suitability index variable (SIV),
while the emigration rate (µ) determines which solutions should migrate a random SIV to
the selected solution.
3.1.2. Mutation
Nature is subject to cataclysmic events that can significantly alter the solution of
an island, resulting in sudden changes to its habitat suitability index (HSI). In order to
incorporate this type of random variation into the BBO algorithm, a mutation process
is introduced, with mutation rates determined based on the species count probabilities.
Specifically, the species count probability P(s) represents the probability that an island
contains s species, and its change rate can be calculated as:

.  −(λs + µs ) Ps + µs+1 Ps+1 , s = 0
P= −(λs + µs ) Ps + λs+1 Ps−1 + µs+1 Ps+1 , 1 ≤ s ≤ smax − 1 (20)
−(λs + µs ) Ps + λs+1 Ps−1 , s = smax

where λs denotes the immigration rate and µs denotes the emigration rate when there are S
species on the island, and Smax denotes the maximal species on the island.
The mutation rate for each solution is determined based on its respective species count
probability. Solutions with a lower probability ( Ps ) are more likely to undergo mutations
to different solutions, while those with a higher probability are less likely to experience
mutations that lead to different solutions. The mutation rates can be proportional to the
species count probabilities as:
1 − Ps

m(S) = mmax (21)
Pmax
where mmax is the maximal mutation rate defined by the user, and Pmax is the maximal
species count probability. The mutation operator is implemented to enhance the genetic
diversity of the population, providing a means to improve solutions for islands with a low
habitat suitability index (HSI), while allowing high HSI islands to potentially achieve even
better solutions. In essence, the mutation operator helps to balance out the population and
promote progress towards an optimal solution for the given problem.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 11 of 30
3.2. Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization

TLBO is a population-based evolutionary algorithm that was proposed recently by
Rao et al., and its main idea is to simulate a classical learning process that consists of a
teacher phase and a learner phase. In the teacher phase, the best solution found in the
entire population is considered as the teacher, and it shares its knowledge with the students
to improve their outputs (i.e., grades or marks). In the learner phase, the students also
learn knowledge from each other to improve their outputs. TLBO conducts this process
through two basic operations, the teacher phase and the learner phase [2,3,41–44].
3.2.1. Teacher Phase

During the teacher phase, the best learner discovered so far is selected as the teacher
based on their fitness value. Additionally, the average position of all the learners must be
computed to update the positions of every learner. Assuming that Xi represents the position
of the ith learner in an n-dimensional optimization problem, then Xi can be expressed as:
Xi = { xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xin } (22)
The teaching process is formulated as follows:
Xnew,i = Xold,i + rand() ∗ ( XTeacher − TF ∗ Xmean ) (23)
The variables and computations utilized in the teacher phase include Xnew,i and Xold,i ,
which represent the new and old positions, respectively, of the ith learner. XTeacher denotes
the position of the current teacher, while Xmean is the mean position of the current class,
calculated
as the sum of all learners’ positions divided by the total number of students
Np (As it is shown in Equation (24)). The function rand() generates a random number
within the range [0 , 1], and TF denotes the teaching factor, which is typically set to either 1
or 2 using a heuristic approach.
It is necessary to re-evaluate all learners after each iteration of the teacher phase. If the
new position Xnew,i is better than the old position Xold,i , it will be accepted and will flow
into the learner phase. Otherwise, Xold,i will not be updated.
1 Np
N p ∑ i =1 i
Xmean = X (24)
3.2.2. Learner Phase

During the learner phase, the ith learner Xi is randomly paired with another learner
X j from the class who is distinct from Xi . The learning process is described as follows:

 Xold,i + rand() ∗ Xold,i − Xold,j ,
 i f f ( Xold,i ) < f Xold,j
Xnew,i = (25)
 Xold,i + rand() ∗ Xold,j − Xold,i ,

otherwise
In this context, Xnew,i represents the new position of the ith learner, while Xold,i and
Xold,j correspond to the old positions of the ith and jth learners, respectively. Additionally,
rand() generates a random number between 0 and 1.
To update the learner positions, Xnew,i is accepted if it results in a better function value
compared to the previous positions, Xold,i and Xold,j .
3.3. Proposed BB-TLBO Algorithm

The BBO was applied to solve many optimization problems, and it proves its effi-
ciency in finding optimal solutions. This is due to its good exploration feature for the
current population. Nevertheless, BBO suffers from some drawbacks such as poorness in
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 12 of 30
exploitation features, negligence of the best individuals over generations, and generation
of infeasible solutions.
In contrast, the TLBO algorithm is known as a new and simple-to-understand method.
Because of its design which mimics the school strategy in learning. However, TLBO suffers
from deficiencies such as trapping in local optima and poor population diversity.
To overcome the over mentioned disadvantages, a new hybrid BB-TLBO algorithm is
prosed in this paper. The BB-TLBO is described through the following phase:
3.3.1. Initialization

The population in the BB-TLBO are considered learners in class X1 , X2 , . . . , Xnp .
The initialization of the BB-TLBO is inspired by the BBO technique where an assignment
of positions is performed randomly to each individual along with the search space. Each
individual position is represented by a vector Xi .
3.3.2. Migration Process

In this phase, each individual (learner) changes his position inside the class to enhance
his level of knowledge. This movement is performed using the immigration and an
emigration rate represented by λ and µ respectively, using Equations (18) and (19).
3.3.3. Teaching Phase

After performing the migration process, the next step (inspired by the TLBO) is to
calculate the mean level of knowledge in the class using Equation (24).
The population is then sorted in descending order from the best to the worst according
to their fitness. X1 is selected as teacher, and the rest of the population is considered as
learners. The teaching phase aims to enhance the mean level of knowledge of learners.
Each learner Xi will update his knowledge level using Equation (23).
After evaluation, if the fitness of Xnew,i is better than the fitness of Xold,i then Xnew,i
replaces Xold,i and is accepted for pursuing the learning phase, otherwise Xold,i stays in its
current position.
3.3.4. Learning Phase

The learning process is characterized by sharing knowledge between each learner Xi
and other X j that is randomly selected among the population. This phase is mathematically
expressed as Equation (25):
After evaluating the fitness of Xnew,i , Xnew,i replaces Xold,i if it has a better fitness,
otherwise Xold,i stays in its current position. At the end of this phase, a sorting of the
current population is performed.
3.3.5. Elitism Phase

The final step in BB-TLBO is the elitism process, which is taken from the BBO. Here,
a predefined keeping rate Kr is used to select the best individuals among the current
population to be considered for the next iteration. The elitism process is expressed through
the following equation:
(
X Np −s+i i f s < round Kr ∗ Np
Xs = (26)
Xs i f s > round Kr ∗ Np
where Xs is the individual being selected to take part in the next generation. i denotes the
current iteration. After reaching the termination criterion, the algorithm returns X ∗ as the
optimal solution.
3.4. Pseudocode of the BB-TLBO Algorithm

The pseudocode of the BB-TLBO algorithm (Algorithm 1) is given below and its
flowchart is presented in Figure 5.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 13 of 30

2: Set algorithm parameters: Number of populations 𝑁𝑝 ; Keeping rate 𝐾𝑟 ; Immigration rates 𝜆; emigration rate 𝜇.
3: Generate a random set of habitats (learners)
4: for it =1: It_Max do Algorithm 1: Pseudocode of the BB-TLBO Algorithm
5: for i = 1 to 𝑁𝑝 do 1: Define problem aspects: Fitness function f(x), Dimension D; Search space boundaries; Maximum
number of iterations.
6: for k: 1 to D do 2: Set algorithm parameters: Number of populations Np ; Keeping rate Kr ; Immigration rates λ;
7: if rand ≤ λi then emigration rate µ.
3: Generate a random set of habitats (learners)
8: Assign rate of immigration 𝜆𝑖 and emigration 𝜇𝑖 to each candidate 𝑋𝑖 using Equations (18) and (19)
4: for it = 1: It_Max do
9: end if 5: for i = 1 to Np do
6: for k: 1 to D do
10: end for
7: if rand ≤ λi then
11: Calculate the mean level of knowledge
8: Assign using Equation
rate of immigration λi and (24)
emigration µi to each candidate Xi using
Equations (18) and (19)
12: Sort the current population from the best to the worst
9: end if
13: Set the best individual as
10:aend
teacher
for
14: Update knowledge level11: ofCalculate
each learner using
the mean Equation
level (23) (teaching
of knowledge phase)(24)
using Equation
12: Sort the current population from the best to the worst
15: Update knowledge level of each learner using Equation (25) (learning phase)
13: Set the best individual as a teacher
16: Sort the new population14:from the knowledge
Update best to the level
worstof each learner using Equation (23) (teaching phase)
15: Update knowledge level
17: Select the next generation population by using Equation of each learner using Equation (25) (learning phase)
(26) (Elitism)
16: Sort the new population from the best to the worst
18: End for 17: Select the next generation population by using Equation (26) (Elitism)
19: End for 18: End for
19: End for
Start
Define problem aspects, set algorithm parameters
Generate a random set of habitats (learners)
BBO
For each candidate Xi assign and using Eq. 18 and Eq. 19
respectively
Calculate the mean level of knowledge using Eq.24
Sort the current population from the best to the worst and select the
best fitness individual as teacher
TLBO
Perform the teaching phase using Eq.23 and the learning phase using
Eq.25
Sort the new population from the best to the worst
Perform the elitism process using Eq. 26.
Is termination criteria
No
BBO
achieved?
Yes
Return the best individual as the optimum solution
End
Figure5.5.Flowchart
Figure Flowchartof
ofBB-TLBO
BB-TLBOalgorithm.
algorithm.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 14 of 30
4. Results and Discussion

This section is dedicated to the discussion of the experimental results obtained and
the verification of the performance of the proposed hybrid algorithm.
In order to solve the parameter extraction problem, this algorithm is tested on two
different cases, namely: the RTC FRANCE silicon solar cell and the commercial PV solar
modules: the monocrystalline STM6-40/36 with their three different models (1DM, 2DM
and 3DM).
To collect the experimental data I-V, 26 pairs of voltage and current samples were
taken from a 57 mm diameter RTC France silicon solar cell at 33 ◦ C and 1000 W/m2 solar
irradiance in order to extract the unknown parameters of three models (1DM, 2DM and
3DM) [45] as shown in Appendix A.
Likewise, 20 pairs of voltage and current data sets were collected from the STM6-
40/36 module under the cell temperature of 51 ◦ C and solar irradiation of 1000 W/m2 [45]
as shown in Appendix A.
The lower and the upper limits (LL and UL) of the parameters of the three different
models (1DM, 2DM and 3DM) are shown in Table 1 [46].
Table 1. Upper and lower limits of the 1DM, 2DM and 3DM parameters.
RTC France Solar Cell STM6-40/36

Parameters LL UL LL UL
I ph ( A) 0 1 0 2
Is1 ( A) 0 1 × 10−6 0 50 × 10−6
1DM Rs (Ω) 0 0.5 0 0.36
Rsh (Ω) 0 100 0 1000
n1 1 2 1 2
I ph ( A) 0 1 0 2
Is1 , Is2 ( A) 0 1 × 10−6 0 50 × 10−6
2DM Rs (Ω) 0 0.5 0 0.36
Rsh (Ω) 0 100 0 1000
n1 , n2 1 2 1 2
I ph ( A) 0 1 0 2
Is1 , Is2 , Is3 ( A) 0 1 × 10−6 0 50 × 10−6
3DM Rs (Ω) 0 0.5 0 0.36
Rsh (Ω) 0 100 0 1000
n1 , n2 1 2 1 2
n3 2 5 1 2
To verify the efficiency of the proposed hybrid algorithm, it was compared to other
benchmarked methods such as DOLADE, LAPSO, ABC, BBO, TLBO, IQSODE, etc.
Each algorithm had been executed several times (in this example 30 executions) so
that they could start their exploration from the same random point in the search space.
The simulation was performed in MATLAB 2019b, Intel(R) Core (TM) i3-6600U
CPU@2.60 GHz 2.81 GHz.
4.1. Accuracy Analysis

4.1.1. RTC France Silicon Solar Cell Identification
For the RTC France silicon solar cell, Table 2 presents the results of the identification
of five, seven and nine parameters as well as the RMSE values of the 1DM, 2DM and 3DM
obtained by the proposed algorithm BB-TLBO and other metaheuristic algorithms.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 15 of 30
Table 2. Best values of the identified parameters for the three adopted models of the RTC France silicon solar cell.
Ref. Iph (A) Is1 (A) Is2 (A) Is2 (A) Rs (Ω) Rsh (Ω) n1 n2 n3 RMSE
1DM
[29] DOLADE 0.760776 3.230208 × 10−7 / / 0.036377093 53.7185226 1.48118359 / / 9.860219 × 10−4
[45] GWOCS 0.76077 3.21920 × 10−7 / / 0.03639 53.632 1.4808 / / 9.860700 × 10−4
[47] OLBGWO 0.760775 3.23023 × 10−7 / / 0.036377 53.718849 1.481184 / / 9.860220 × 10−4
[48] PSO 0.7682 3.30180 × 10−7 / / 0.03624 53.59878 1.48334 / / 9.861450 × 10−4
[49] IMFOL 0.760776 3.23021 × 10−13 / / 0.036377092 53.7185307 1.4811836 / / 9.860219 × 10−4
[49] MFO 0.760656 4.22288 × 10−13 / / 0.035295103 62.2888994 1.50865857 / / 1.111629 × 10−3
[50] LNMHGS 0.760758 3.35381 × 10−7 / / 0.0362279 54.7669545 1.48497347 / / 9.886170 × 10−4
[51] HSOA 0.760763 3.32135 × 10−7 / / 0.036266569 54.4885001 1.48399009 / / 9.874471 × 10−4
[52] IQSODE 0.760776 3.23021 × 10−7 / / 0.036377093 53.7185251 1.48118359 / / 9.860219 × 10−4
[53] RUN 0.760611 3.20 × 10−7 / / 0.03641606 53.6707057 1.4802504 / / 9.8624 × 10−4
[54] RLDE 0.76078 3.230200 × 10−7 / / 0.03638 53.71853 1.48118 / / 9.860220 × 10−4
[54] FLIDE 0.76078 3.230200 × 10−7 / / 0.03638 53.71852 1.48118 / / 9.860220 × 10−4
[54] LAPSO 0.76078 3.230200 × 10−7 / / 0.03638 53.71852 1.48118 / / 9.86022 × 10−4
BBO 0.76073 3.665000 × 10−7 / / 0.0356482 54.81141 1.49407 / / 1.060180 × 10−3
TLBO 0.7601 4.226240 × 10−7 / / 0.0351926 63.40126 1.50879 / / 9.868560 × 10−4
proposed BB-TLBO 0.760776 3.23021 × 10−7 / / 3.63771 × 10−2 53.7186 1.48118084 / / 9.860219 × 10−4
2DM
[48] GWOCS 0.76076 5.377200 × 10−7 2.485500 × 10−7 / 0.03666 54.7331 2 1.4588 / 9.833400 × 10−4
[48] OLBGWO 0.760781 2.259390 × 10−7 6.431510 × 10−7 / 0.036722 55.307755 1.451328 1.96175 / 9.825560 × 10−4
[48] CWOA 0.76077 2.415000 × 10−7 6.000000 × 10−7 / 0.03666 55.2016 1.45651 1.9899 / 9.827200 × 10−4
[29] DOLADE 0.760781 2.259740 × 10−7 7.493490 × 10−7 / 0.03674 55.4854 1.45102 2 / 9.824849 × 10−4
[49] IMFOL 0.760779 7.663201 × 10−13 3.673056 × 10−8 / 55.6567344 2 2.2515 × 10−7 1.4507788 / 9.825250 × 10−4
[53] RUN 0.7608025 2.60 × 10−7 5.58 × 10−7 / 0.03644583 55.3832189 1.46347838 1.9996951 / 9.8717 × 10−4
[49] MFO 0.760693 2.481684 × 10−13 3.604705 × 10−8 / 62.55984 1.461875 0.000001 2 / 1.053209 × 10−3
[52] IQSODE 0.760781 7.493445 × 10−7 2.259746 × 10−7 / 0.036740429 55.4854438 2 1.4510169 / 9.824849 × 10−4
[54] RLDE 0.76078 2.259700 × 10−7 7.493500 × 10−7 / 0.03674 55.48544 1.45102 2 / 9.824850 × 10−4
[54] FLIDE 0.76078 7.493500 × 10−7 2.259700 × 10−7 / 0.03674 55.48542 2 1.45102 / 9.824850 × 10−4
[54] LAPSO 0.76078 7.493500 × 10−7 2.259700 × 10−7 / 0.03674 55.48545 2 1.45102 / 9.82485 × 10−4
BBO 0.76083 1.000000 × 10−6 9.997310 × 10−7 / 0.0287533 100 1.62607 1.85384 / 1.130320 × 10−3
TLBO 0.76065 4.636840 × 10−7 8.371750 × 10−10 / 0.0348009 64.1189 1.51873 1.62049 / 1.004280 × 10−3
proposed BB-TLBO 0.760781 7.48262 × 10−7 2.26102 × 10−7 / 0.036739843 55.48268484 2 1.451061106 / 9.824848 × 10−4
3DM
[48] RAO 0.760795 2.62000 × 10−13 2.63000 × 10−13 9.780000 × 10−13 0.03674 55.35801 1.771502 1.451415 2.41101 9.84569 × 10−4
[48] TLO 0.760789 2.54000 × 10−13 4.56000 × 10−14 1.480000 × 10−13 0.03671 55.3144 1.460287 1.740863 2.25143 9.86125 × 10−4
[53] RUN 0.760836723 3.30 × 10−12 2.65 × 10−7 8.42 × 10−8 0.36313464 53.61258389 1.071707 1.47338 1.572965 9.89133 × 10−4
[48] CS 0.760776 1.40000 × 10−7 1.90000 × 10−7 3.100000 × 10−8 0.0363 53.7218 1.4872 1.4771 4.4663 9.87857 × 10−4
[48] R−II 0.760792 2.60000 × 10−7 5.60000 × 10−12 5.700000 × 10−7 0.0366 54.9149 1.4608 1.1466 2.0208 9.80467 × 10−4
BBO 0.76172 4.88556 × 10−7 6.61964 × 10−7 1.91131 × 10−7 0.03082 46.52017159 1.88106 1.56784 2 1.22456 × 10−3
TLBO 0.76071 3.51523 × 10−7 1.54967 × 10−9 7.49560 × 10−7 0.0359163 55.36847 1.489839 1.967693 3.50035 9.85769 × 10−4
proposed BB-TLBO 0.760781 2.650936 × 10−7 8.168814 × 10−27 1 × 10−6 0.036634534 55.21270072 1.46360555 2 2.2370724 9.80767 × 10−4
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
4.1.1. RTC France Silicon Solar Cell Identification 16 of 33
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 For the RTC France silicon solar cell, Table 2 presents the results of the identification 16 of 30
4.1.1.
obtained RTCby France Silicon Solar
the proposed algorithmCell Identification
BB-TLBO and other metaheuristic algorithms.
4.1. Accuracy Analysis −4
▪ For
For the
Forthe RTC
the 1DM France
1DM identification silicon
identification and solar cell, Tableto
and according
according to2thepresents
the lowestthe
lowest RMSEresults
RMSE value of (9.860219
value the identification
(9.860219 ××1010−4),),
4.1.1.
of five, RTC
seven France
and Silicon
nine Solar CellasIdentification
parameters well as the RMSE values of the 1DM, 2DM and 3DM
BB-TLBO, DOLADE,
BB-TLBO, DOLADE,IMFOL IMFOLand and IQSODE IQSODE havehave the best theresults compared
best results to GWOCS,
compared to
obtained For the
by
OLBGWO, RTC
the France
proposed
PSO, MFO, silicon
algorithm
LNMHGS,solar cell,
BB-TLBO
GWOCS, OLBGWO, PSO, MFO, LNMHGS, HSOA, RLDE, FLIDE, LAPSO, BBO and Table
HSOA, 2
and presents
RLDE, other the results
metaheuristic
FLIDE, LAPSO, of the identification
algorithms.
BBO and TLBO.
of −4 ,
▪ five,
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW For
TLBO. seven
For the 1DM
the and nine
2DM, BB-TLBOparameters
identification andasto
is able well
reach
according asthe
theto RMSE
minimum
the lowest values
RMSE of the
RMSE value1DM,
value 2DM and
of (9.860219
9.824848 × 3DM
×
16
10−4
10
of 33),
obtained
▪ which
BB-TLBO,
For by means
the the
2DM, proposed
that they
DOLADE,
BB-TLBO algorithm
allow
is ableus
IMFOL BB-TLBO
to
and
to obtain
reach theand
IQSODE the other
best
have
minimum metaheuristic
results.
the
RMSE bestvalue algorithms.
results compared
of 9.824848 × 10to −4,
▪ For Forthe
GWOCS,
which themeans
3DM,
1DMOLBGWO, the best
identification
that they parameters
PSO,
allow and
MFO, to identified
usaccording
LNMHGS,
obtain the to were
the
HSOA,
best obtained
lowest RMSE
RLDE,
results. by BB-TLBO
valueLAPSO,
FLIDE, (RMSE
(9.860219 × value
BBO 10 −4),
and
of 9.80767 × 10 − 4 ). parameters
▪ BB-TLBO,
TLBO.
For the 3DM, DOLADE,
the best IMFOL and IQSODE
identified were have the best
obtained results compared
by BB-TLBO (RMSE value to
4.1.
▪ Accuracy
GWOCS,
For the Analysis
OLBGWO,
2DM, BB-TLBO PSO, is MFO,
able to LNMHGS,
reach the HSOA,
minimum RLDE,
RMSE FLIDE,
value LAPSO,
of 9.824848 BBO and
16 of 33,
× 10 −4
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWof 9.80767 × 10 ).
−4
4.1.1. 4.1.2.TLBO. Monocrystalline

RTC France Silicon Solar SolarModule
Cell STM6-40/36
Identification
which means that they allow us to obtain the best results. Identification
▪4.1.2.For Tablethe3 3DM,
reports
2DM,
Monocrystalline
RTC the
Francethe
BB-TLBO Solar
best results
Module
parameters
silicon of the
is able
solar identification
toSTM6-40/36
reach
identified
cell, the 2minimum
Table of five,
Identification
were
presentsobtained
theseven,
RMSE byvalue
results andofof
BB-TLBO nine
the parameters
9.824848
(RMSE ×value
identification10−4,
for the
which 1DM, 2DM and 3DM respectively of the STM6-40/36 solar module obtained by
of 3means
9.80767 × 10 that they
). parameters allow us to obtain as thethe best results.
−4
of five,
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table seven and
reports nine the results of the as identification
well RMSE of five,values of the
seven, and1DM,nine 2DM parametersand16 3DM
offor
33
4.1. Accuracy
BB-TLBO and Analysis
▪obtained
the 1DM, For the by2DMtheother
3DM, thealgorithms
proposed
and 3DMbest algorithm
parameters(BBO,BB-TLBO
respectively
DE, ABC,and
identified
of the STM6-40/36
TLBO,
were other DE/BBO,
obtained
solarby
metaheuristicBLPSO
BB-TLBO
module
. . . (RMSE
algorithms.
obtained
).
byvalue
BB-
4.1.1.
4.1.2. RTC France
Monocrystalline Silicon
−4). Solar
3,Solar Cell1DM
Module Identification
STM6-40/36
▪TLBO of
For As9.80767
andshown
theother
1DM ×in
10 Table
algorithms
identification for the
(BBO, andDE, ABC,
according to Identification
identification,
TLBO, BB-TLBO
theDE/BBO,
lowest reaches
BLPSO
RMSE ...).the
value lowest ×RMSE
(9.860219 10−4),
For
Table the
value 3 RTC
reports
of France
1.729814 the × 10 −
silicon
results 3 ofsolar
the
followed cell, Table
identification
by IMFOL 2 presents
of
with five,
an the results
seven,
RMSE and
value of
nine
of the identification
parameters
1.729815 × −3 .
10for
▪4.1. AccuracyBB-TLBO,
As shown DOLADE,
in
AnalysisTable 3, for IMFOL
the 1DM and IQSODE have
identification, BB-TLBOthe best results
reaches the compared
lowest RMSE to
4.1.2.
of
thefive, Monocrystalline
seven Solar Module STM6-40/36 Identification
1DM, The
GWOCS,
value of and
2DM
TLBO-ABC nine
and
OLBGWO,
1.729814 3DM parameters
respectively
identification
× 10PSO, MFO,
−3 followed as well
results
LNMHGS,
by as
of IMFOL
the the
indicate RMSE
STM6-40/36that values
HSOA,
with solarofFLIDE,
metaheuristic
an RLDE,
RMSE the
module1DM,
value hybrid
LAPSO,
of 2DM
obtained and ×3DM
by
optimization
1.729815 BBO BB-
and
10 −3.
4.1.1.
obtained
TLBO TableRTC
and by3France
the
reports
other
algorithms Silicon
proposed
the
algorithms
demonstrate Solar
algorithm
results (BBO,Cell
of
better theIdentification
DE, BB-TLBO
identification
ABC,
performance and
TLBO, other
of five,
DE/BBO,
than metaheuristic
seven,
algorithmsBLPSO and algorithms.
nine
...).
without parameters
hybridization. for
TLBO.
The TLBO-ABC identification results indicate that metaheuristic hybrid optimization
For the RTC France −3
▪the 1DM, For
As BB-TLBO
the2DM
shown
algorithms 1DM and
obtained
2DM, in 3DM
BB-TLBO 3,silicon
the
identification
Table
demonstrate lowest
for solar
respectivelyvalue
isbetter
able
theand 1DM to cell,
of
reach
according Table
ofRMSE
thethe to
identification,
performance 2minimum
(best presents
STM6-40/36
the
thanRMSE)
lowest
BB-TLBO the
solar
which
RMSE results
RMSE
algorithms module
isvalue
equalofof
value
reaches
without the
to
the identification
obtained
1.693885
9.824848
(9.860219
lowest ××
by
hybridization.×10 BB-
10
10
RMSE ),,
−4−4
of
TLBO five, seven
and
for 2DM and
otherand nine
algorithms parameters
1.689064 ×(BBO,10 − 3as
DE, well
for ABC,
3DM as the
TLBO, RMSE
compared DE/BBO,values
to of
BLPSO
other the 1DM,
...).
algorithms 2DM and
mentioned 3DM in
▪ BB-TLBO,
which
value
BB-TLBO means DOLADE,
of 1.729814 that
obtained× the they IMFOL
allow
10 lowest
−3 followed us and
to
value byof IQSODE
obtain
IMFOL the
RMSEwith have
best
(bestan the
results.
RMSE
RMSE) best results
valueisof
which compared
1.729815
equal × 10 .
to 1.693885 to
−3
obtained
▪ ×the
GWOCS,
For
As
The by
same
the
10shown the
3DM,
TLBO-ABC
−3 for proposed
table.
OLBGWO,
in
2DM the
Table best algorithm
3, PSO,
parameters
for
identification
and 1.689064 theMFO,
×1DM BB-TLBO
−3LNMHGS,
results
10 3DMand
identified
identification,
for indicate other
HSOA,
were
that
compared metaheuristic
RLDE,
obtained
BB-TLBO
metaheuristic
to otherFLIDE,
by BB-TLBO
reaches algorithms.
LAPSO,
hybrid
algorithms (RMSE
the lowest BBO and
value
RMSE
optimization
mentioned
The MCSWOA provides the second-best RMSE value (1.706100 × 10 −3 ) for 2DM and
▪ TLBO.
of
For
value 9.80767
the
algorithms
in the of1DM
same ×demonstrate
10
1.729814 −4).
identification
table. ×▪ 10−3 followed and
better according
by IMFOL
performance to than
the
with lowest
an RMSERMSEvalue
algorithms value
without of(9.860219
1.729815 ××10
hybridization. 10−4−3),.
−3 for 3DM.
▪▪ For
The SDO
BB-TLBO,
BB-TLBO theprovides
2DM,
TLBO-ABC
MCSWOA DOLADE,
obtained the
BB-TLBO second-best
identification
provides isthe
IMFOL
the lowest able RMSE
to
andreach
results
value
second-best of value
theRMSE
IQSODE
indicate
RMSE of(best
1.701880
minimum
have
that value the ×best
RMSE 10
metaheuristic
RMSE) value
which
(1.706100 of
results
hybrid
×is10 −39.824848
equal ) compared × 10
optimization
for to2DM
1.693885
and −4,
to
4.1.2.GWOCS,
which
×SDO Monocrystalline
algorithms means
10−3provides
After for OLBGWO,
2DM
identifying andSolar
that
demonstrate
the they PSO,
1.689064Module
allow
second-best
the parameters × us
MFO,
better 10 STM6-40/36
to
−3
RMSE of obtain
LNMHGS,
performance
for all3DM
value the
models Identification
best
HSOA,
than
compared
of 1.701880results.
RTCRLDE,
foralgorithms 10FLIDE,
−3 without
to×France
other LAPSO,
algorithms
for 3DM.
silicone BBO
cell and
hybridization.
solarmentioned and
▪STM6-40/36 For
TLBO.
BB-TLBO
in the
Table the 3DM,
3same
reports
solar the
obtained
table.the
module,best theparameters
▪ resultslowest
the of value
the
output identified
of RMSE
identification
current and were
(best obtained
of five,
power RMSE)
seven,
relative byand
whichBB-TLBO
to theis measured
nineequal (RMSE
parameters value
to 1.693885for
voltage
▪the of
×
The
1DM, 9.80767
10 the
−3 for2DM,
MCSWOA
2DM ×
2DM 10
and −4).
can be determined. Figures 6 and 7 show the IAE absolute error of current and power,
For BB-TLBO
and 1.689064
provides
3DM is able
the
respectively × 10to−3reach
for
second-best
of 3DM
the the minimum
compared
RMSE
STM6-40/36 value RMSE
to other
(1.706100
solar value of
algorithms
module × 10 −39.824848
) for
obtained ×
mentioned
2DMby 10
and
BB-−4
TLBO which
in
SDO
calculated and means
theprovides
same
other
using that
the ▪they
table.
algorithms
Equations allow
second-best
(BBO,
(27) and us
DE, toABC,
RMSE
(28), obtain
value the
TLBO,
respectively.ofbest
1.701880
DE/BBO,results.
× BLPSO
10−3 for ...).
3DM.
▪4.1.2.
▪ For
The Monocrystalline
the 3DM, the Solarparameters
best Module STM6-40/36
identified
As shown in Table 3, for the 1DM identification, BB-TLBO reaches10
MCSWOA provides the second-best RMSE Identification
were obtained
value by
(1.706100 BB-TLBO
× (RMSE
the) lowest
−3 for 2DM value
and
RMSE
of 9.80767
SDO provides
Table × 10
3 reportsthe −4 ).
thesecond-best
results of theRMSE I AE ( I ) = | I −
valuec of of
identification I |
1.701880
m five, seven,× 10 and
−3 for 3DM.
nine parameters10 (27)
for
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWvalue of 1.729814 × 10−3 followed by IMFOL with an RMSE value of 1.72981516× of −3.
33
the 1DM, 2DM and 3DM respectively of the STM6-40/36
The TLBO-ABC identification results indicate that metaheuristic hybrid optimization solar module obtained by BB-
4.1.
4.1.2.
TLBO Accuracy
and other Analysis
Monocrystalline algorithms Solar (BBO,Module STM6-40/36 Identification
algorithms demonstrate betterDE, ABC, TLBO,
performance thanDE/BBO,
algorithms BLPSO ...). hybridization.
without
4.1.1. RTC
Table France
3 reports Silicon
the resultsSolar Cell
of the I AE ( P )
Identification =
identification | P c − Pm |
of five, seven, and nine parameters (28)
for
▪ As
BB-TLBOshown in Table
obtained 3,
thefor the
lowest 1DM
value identification,
of RMSE (best BB-TLBO
RMSE) reaches
which is the
equal lowest RMSE
to 1.693885
4.1.
the Accuracy
1DM, 2DM Analysis
where: For
× 10
value IC−3
theand
ofRTC
for Pcand
2DM are
France
1.729814 3DM
and 10respectively
the×1.689064
current
silicon and
−3 followed × 10the
solar ofpower
cell,
−3 for
by the
Table
3DM
IMFOL STM6-40/36
calculated
with an using
2compared
presents solar
the
to
RMSE module
BB-TLBO,
results
other ofof obtained
the
algorithms
value respectively.by
identification
1.729815 mentioned
× 10BB-
I−3m.
4.1.1.
TLBO
and
of five, P RTC
and
are
inm seven
The the France
other
the
same Silicon
algorithms
measured
andtable.
TLBO-ABC nine Solar
parameters
▪
identification (BBO,
current Cell andIdentification
DE,
as ABC,
power,
well as
results TLBO, DE/BBO,
respectively.
the RMSE
indicate BLPSO
values of the 1DM,
that metaheuristic ...).
hybrid 2DM and 3DM
optimization
▪
obtained ForAs shown
can
by be
the
algorithms
The
As RTC
the
MCSWOA seen in
France
proposed
demonstrate
in Table Figures
3,silicon
provides algorithm6 solar
for better
the
the and 7, the
cell,
BB-TLBO
performance
second-best
1DM current
Table 2than
and
RMSE
identification, IAE
presents
other value
value the for:
results
metaheuristic
algorithms
BB-TLBO (1.706100 ×of10
without
reaches identification
algorithms.
the−3hybridization.
) lowest
for 2DM and
RMSE
▪▪ five,
of SDO
value seven
BB-TLBO
RTC Franceand
provides nine
obtained
1.729814
solarthe parameters
×
cellsthe
10 −3lowest
second-best
followed
based on as well
value
RMSE
1DM, by ofas the
RMSE
value
IMFOL
2DM andRMSE
of (best
1.701880
For the 1DM identification and according to the lowest RMSE value (9.860219 × 10−4−3),.
of with
3DM values
RMSE)
anare ×
RMSE
lessof
10 the
which
−3
than 1DM,
for
value is
3DM.equal
of
0.0025(A), 2DM
1.729815 toand × 3DM
1.693885
10
0.002896(A)
obtained ×BB-TLBO,
Theand byforthe
10−3TLBO-ABC2DMproposed
0.00310(A), and
DOLADE, algorithm
1.689064
identification
respectively.IMFOL × 10 BB-TLBO
results
and 3DMand
−3 for indicate
IQSODE other
compared
that
have metaheuristic
to other
best algorithms
metaheuristic
the algorithms.
hybrid
results mentioned
optimization
compared to
▪ in
For the
algorithms
GWOCS, same
STM6-40/36
the 1DM table.
solar
demonstrate ▪ module
identification
OLBGWO, PSO, are
better
MFO, less
andperformance than
according
LNMHGS, 0.00609(A),
than
to HSOA,
the lowest 0.005581(A)
algorithms
RMSE
RLDE, and
without
valueLAPSO,
FLIDE, 0.005513(A)
hybridization.
(9.860219 × 10
BBO for
−4),
and
▪ The1DM,
BB-TLBO
BB-TLBO,
TLBO. 2DM
MCSWOA andprovides
obtained
DOLADE, 3DM, the respectively.
IMFOLthe second-best
lowest value
and of RMSE
IQSODE RMSE (bestvalue
have RMSE)(1.706100
the which
best ×is10
results −3) for
equal to2DM
compared and
1.693885 to
▪ ×SDO
For
As10can
GWOCS,−3provides
thefor 2DM
OLBGWO,
2DM,
be shown the
andin
BB-TLBO second-best
1.689064
PSO,
Figures MFO,
is able RMSE
6× and
10 −3 for
toLNMHGS,
reach
7, The value
3DMthe
value of 1.701880
compared
HSOA,
minimum
of IAE of×other
to
RLDE,
RMSE 10FLIDE,
the −3 for
value
power 3DM.
algorithms
LAPSO,
of
for: 9.824848mentioned
BBO and
× 10 −4,
• TLBO. in the
which same
RTC France table.
meanssolar that they▪cells allow
basedusonto1DM, obtain2DM the best andresults.
3DM are less than 0.0014583(w),
▪▪ The
For MCSWOA
the 2DM,
3DM, the provides
BB-TLBObest
0.001413(w) and 0.001813554(w). is the
able
parameters second-best
to reach
identified the RMSE
minimum
were value (1.706100
RMSE
obtained byvalue × 10
BB-TLBO ) for
of−39.824848
(RMSE 2DM and
×value
10 −4,
• which SDO
of provides
9.80767
STM6-40/36means × 10 the
that
−4
solar second-best
). they
module allow RMSE
areuslessto obtain
than value the ofbest
0.09062(w),1.701880 × 10 for and
results. −3
0.083042(w) 3DM. 0.082039(w) for
▪ For the 3DM, the
1DM, 2DM and 3DM, respectively. best parameters identified were obtained by BB-TLBO (RMSE value
4.1.2.of Monocrystalline
9.80767 × 10−4). Solar Module STM6-40/36 Identification
Moreover, the characteristic curves (I-V) and (P-V) for all the models and in the
differentTablecases
3 reports
showthe thatresults of the identification
the measured data and theofcalculated five, seven, dataand nine parameters
obtained by BB-TLBO for
4.1.2.
the 1DM, Monocrystalline
2DM and 3DM Solar Module STM6-40/36
respectively of the Identification
STM6-40/36 solar module obtained by BB-
are similar (Figures 8 and 9).
TLBO Table
can3other
Itand reports
be the results
algorithms
concluded from(BBO,ofTables
the
DE, identification
ABC,
2 andTLBO, 3 that of five,proposed
DE/BBO,
the seven,
BLPSO and nine parameters
...).
hybrid metaheuristic for
the
▪ 1DM,
algorithm 2DM
BB-TLBO and 3DM
can respectively
achieve better of the
RMSE STM6-40/36
value
As shown in Table 3, for the 1DM identification, BB-TLBO reaches the lowest RMSE and solar
exhibits module
very obtained
good by
accuracy BB-in
TLBO
parameter and other algorithms
estimation compared (BBO, to DE,
other ABC, TLBO,
algorithms
value of 1.729814 × 10 followed by IMFOL with an RMSE value of 1.729815 × 10 .
−3 DE/BBO,
for 1DM, BLPSO
2DM ...).
and 3DM whether for
−3
▪the RTC As France

Theshown
TLBO-ABC solar
in Table cell3,or forthe
identification theSTM6-40/36
1DM
results solar module.
identification,
indicate thatBB-TLBO
metaheuristicreaches the lowest
hybrid RMSE
optimization
value
algorithmsof 1.729814
demonstrate × 10 followed
−3 by IMFOLthan
better performance withalgorithms
an RMSE value without of 1.729815
hybridization.× 10−3.
▪ The
BB-TLBOTLBO-ABC obtained identification
the lowest results value ofindicate RMSE (best that metaheuristic
RMSE) whichhybrid is equal optimization
to 1.693885
algorithms
× 10 for 2DM
−3 demonstrate
and 1.689064 better × 10 performance
−3 for 3DM compared than algorithms to otherwithout
algorithms hybridization.
mentioned
▪ BB-TLBO
in the same obtained
table. ▪ the lowest value of RMSE (best RMSE) which is equal to 1.693885
▪ ×The
10−3MCSWOA
for 2DM and 1.689064
provides the×second-best
10−3 for 3DMRMSE compared valueto other algorithms
(1.706100 × 10−3) formentioned2DM and
in
SDOtheprovides
same table. the ▪second-best RMSE value of 1.701880 × 10−3 for 3DM.
▪ The MCSWOA provides the second-best RMSE value (1.706100 × 10−3) for 2DM and
SDO provides the second-best RMSE value of 1.701880 × 10−3 for 3DM.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 17 of 30
Table 3. Best values of the identified parameters for the three adopted models of the solar module STM6-40/36.
Ref. Algo Iph (A) Is1 (A) Is2 (A) Is2 (A) Rs (Ω) Rsh (Ω) n1 n2 n3 RMSE
1DM
[43] TLBO-ABC 1.66317 2.140430 × 10−6 / / 3.63 × 10−3 17.25952 1.54354 / / 1.806100 × 10−3
[45] GWO 1.656206 7.344000 × 10−6 / / 1.48 × 10−3 930.331 1.69641 / / 7.141200 × 10−3
[32] CS 1.66172 3.728150 × 10−6 / / 1.73 × 10−3 21.74472 1.60905 / / 2.515900 × 10−3
[45] GWOCS 1.6641 1.744900 × 10−6 / / 4.24 × 10−3 15.7326 1.5207 / / 1.733700 × 10−3
[49] IMFOL 1.6639175 1.729858 × 10−6 / / 0.15443712 572.509298 55.74263 / / 1.729815 × 10−3
[49] MFO 1.8623975 0 / / 0 32.8634387 27.04247 / / 3.107574 × 10−1
[49] LNMHGS 1.6634534 2.084166 × 10−6 / / 0.1327753 608.102259 56.5036 / / 1.781552 × 10−3
[49] HSOA 1.6629825 2.511230 × 10−6 / / 0.11062102 649.583949 57.28595 / / 1.935188 × 10−3
BBO 1.66096 5.412135 × 10−6 / / 0.00035139 25.84391774 1.656222 / / 2.301350 × 10−3
TLBO 1.6636873 1.781895 × 10−6 / / 0.0041756 16.09665216 1.523005 / / 2.141840 × 10−3
proposed BB-TLBO 1.6639048 1.73866 × 10−6 / / 4.27377 × 10−3 15.92829602 1.5203 / / 1.729814 × 10−3
2DM
[55] ELPSO 1.664843 6.210924 × 10−6 1.670100 × 10−9 / 0.5 606.8883 41.99348 67.344 / 1.830700 × 10−3
[56] MCSWOA 1.6639 6.103000 × 10−7 1.176290 × 10−5 / 0.0054 16.9519 1.4224 2.1992 / 1.706100 × 10−3
[57] SDO 1.6639 1.738500 × 10−6 4.999850 × 10−5 / 0.0043 15.9372 1.5203 54.5816 / 1.729800 × 10−3
[21] EPSO 1.6644 7.401100 × 10−6 1.433800 × 10−6 / 0.26591 560.55 1.7577 1.4527 / 2.057300 × 10−3
BBO 1.6738728 5.703159 × 10−6 2.357689 × 10−5 / 4.75 × 10−7 384.0411249 1.931814 1.908805 / 3.292930 × 10−3
TLBO 1.6638699 1.455541 × 10−6 5.277084 × 10−7 / 0.00425743 16.1306678 1.508304 1.708518 / 1.891110 × 10−3
proposed BB-TLBO 1.6637441 5.784671 × 10−8 5.939555 × 10−6 / 0.00643011 17.39713593 1.255163 1.80345 / 1.693885 × 10−3
3DM
[40] BSDE 1.6610885 1.489080 × 10−6 3.903720 × 10−6 1.365650 × 10−6 0.00201029 25.78757895 1.531215 1.868278 1.882878 2.894519 × 10−3
[40] SDO 1.6637443 6.359330 × 10−6 8.339200 × 10−7 4.720130 × 10−7 0.00537714 17.00997277 1.995203 1.969208 1.404689 1.701880 × 10−3
[40] MRFO 1.6623179 2.599330 × 10−6 6.333390 × 10−8 2.770140 × 10−7 0.0028541 19.10015605 1.566776 1.955282 1.974909 2.033192 × 10−3
[40] BSA 1.6575761 3.506960 × 10−7 2.188980 × 10−7 1.141650 × 10−5 0.00466652 43.38223673 1.392706 1.823212 1.969855 3.654669 × 10−3
[40] CSO 1.6608011 5.354570 × 10−6 4.538900 × 10−8 3.564310 × 10−7 0.00011186 25.49507041 1.657277 1.999604 1.85013 3.320772 × 10−3
BBO 1.6550041 6.93982 × 10−9 6.56508 × 10−9 6.89231 × 10−9 0.0155553 13.11044618 1.141827 1.334208 1.114979 3.366020 × 10−3
TLBO 1.6631291 1.68041 × 10−7 1.97437 × 10−6 1.20913 × 10−10 0.00381094 17.01133833 1.997693 1.534797 1.555108 1.805210 × 10−3
proposed BB-TLBO 1.6637666 7.76195 × 10−7 4.22435 × 10−6 1.76262 × 10−8 0.0068122 17.38999711 1.671175 1.761521 1.184057 1.689064 × 10−3
• RTC France solar cells based on 1DM, 2DM and 3DM are less than 0.0014583(w)
0.001413(w) and 0.001813554(w).
• STM6-40/36 solar module are less than 0.09062(w), 0.083042(w) and 0.082039(w) for
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 18 of 30
1DM, 2DM and 3DM, respectively.
1DM
IAE(I) IAE(P)
0.003
Individual Absolute Error

0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.0057
0.0646
0.1185
0.1678
0.2132
0.2545
0.2924
0.3269
0.3585
0.3873
0.4137
0.4373
0.459
0.4784
0.496
0.5119
0.5265
0.5398
0.5521
0.5633
0.5736
0.5833
0.59
-0.2057
-0.1291
-0.0588
Voltage (V)
2DM
IAE(I) IAE(P)
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.459
0.496
0.0057
0.0646
0.1185
0.1678
0.2132
0.2545
0.2924
0.3269
0.3585
0.3873
0.4137
0.4373
0.4784
0.5119
0.5265
0.5398
0.5521
0.5633
0.5736
0.5833
-0.2057
-0.1291
-0.0588
0.59
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 33
Voltage (V)
3DM
IAE(I) IAE(P)
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0.1185
0.1678
0.4784
0.0057
0.0646
0.2132
0.2545
0.2924
0.3269
0.3585
0.3873
0.4137
0.4373
0.5119
0.5265
0.5398
0.5521
0.5633
0.5736
0.5833
0.459
0.496
0.59
-0.2057
-0.1291
-0.0588
Voltage (V)
Figure 6. IAE of the 6.

Figure IAE of the
current andcurrent and the power
the power of theofthree
the three adopted models
adopted models of of
thethe
RTCRTC
FranceFrance
silicon silicon
solar cell. solar cell.
1DM
IAE(I) IAE(P)
0.1
Error
0.08
Mathematics 2023,
Figure
11, 1861
6.
solar cell.
Individual Absolute Error Individual Absolute Error

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0 0 -0.2
0
0.118 0.118 -0.1
0.118 -0.0
2.237 2.237 2.237 0.0
5.434 5.434 5.434 0.0
7.26 7.26 7.26 0.1
9.68 9.68 0.1
9.68
0.2
11.59 11.59 11.59 0.2
12.6 12.6 12.6 0.2
IAE(I)
IAE(I)
IAE(I)
13.37 13.37 13.37 0.3

0.3
1DM
14.09
3DM
2DM
14.09 14.09
0.3
14.88
IAE(P)
14.88 14.88
IAE(P)
IAE(P)
0.4
Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)
Voltage (V)
15.59
Voltage (V)
15.59 15.59 0.4

16.4 16.4 16.4 0.
16.71 0.4
16.71 16.71 0.
16.98
16.98 16.98 0.5
17.13 0.5
17.13 17.13
17.32 0.5
17.32 17.32
17.91 0.5
17.91 17.91 0.5
19.08
19.08 19.08 0.5
21.02
21.02 0.5
21.02
0
IAE of the current and the power of the three adopted models of the RTC France
Figure 7. IAE of the current and the power of the three adopted models of the solar module STM6-40/36.
19 of 30 silicon
ferent cases
ferent cases show
show that
that the
the measured
measured datadata and
and the
the calculated
calculated data
data obtained
obtained by
by BB-TLBO
BB-TLBO
are similar
are similar (Figures
(Figures 88 and
and 9).
9).
It can
It can be
be concluded
concluded from
from Tables
Tables 22 and
and 33 that
that the
the proposed
proposed hybrid
hybrid metaheuristic
metaheuristic algo-
algo-
rithm BB-TLBO can achieve better RMSE value and exhibits very good accuracy
rithm BB-TLBO can achieve better RMSE value and exhibits very good accuracy in param- in param-
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 eter estimation
eter estimation compared
compared to to other
other algorithms
algorithms for for 1DM,
1DM, 2DM
2DM and
and 3DM
3DM whether
whether 20
forofthe
for the
30
RTC France
RTC France solar
solar cell
cell or
or the
the STM6-40/36
STM6-40/36 solar
solar module.
module.
Figure8.8.
Figure
Figure 8.P-V
P-Vand
P-V andI-V
and I-Vcharacteristic
I-V characteristiccurves
characteristic curvesfor
curves forthe
for thethree
the threeRTC
three RTCFrance
RTC Francesilicon
France siliconsolar
silicon solarcell
solar cellmodels.
cell models.
models.
Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure 9.P-V
P-Vand
P-V andI-V
and I-Vcharacteristic
I-V characteristiccurves
characteristic curvesfor
curves forthe
for thethree
the threemodels
three modelsofof
models ofthe
theSTM6-40/36
the STM6-40/36solar
STM6-40/36 solarmodules.
solar modules.
modules.
4.2.
4.2.Statistics
4.2. StatisticsAnalysis
Statistics Analysis
Analysis
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWIn Inorder
In ordertoto
order toevaluate
evaluate
evaluate thethe robustness
the robustness
robustness andand reliability
and reliability
reliability of the ofproposed
of the proposed
the proposed BB-TLBO BB-TLBO
BB-TLBO algorithm,
algo-
algo-
16 of 33
the statistical
rithm, the results
statistical obtained
results by
obtained BB-TLBO by and
BB-TLBO
rithm, the statistical results obtained by BB-TLBO and other algorithms such as BBO, other and algorithms
other such
algorithms as BBO,
such asTLBO,
BBO,
DOLADE,
TLBO, DOLADE,
TLBO, LAPSO,LAPSO,
DOLADE, . . . are presented
LAPSO, … are
… in Tables
are presented
presented in4Tables
in and 5.44 and
Tables and 5.5.
These
These results
These results include:
results include: RMSE
include: 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 which represents
which represents
𝑚𝑖𝑛 which
min 𝑚𝑖𝑛 the lowest
represents thevalue
the lowest
lowest of RMSE,value RMSE
value of RMSE,
of RMSE,
mean
4.1. Accuracy to
corresponds Analysis
the average value of RMSE, RMSE is the worst value, It ( s ) is the number
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 corresponds
corresponds to
to the
the average
average value
value of
of RMSE,
max
RMSE, 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑚𝑎𝑥 is
is the
the worst
worst value,
value, 𝐼𝑡(𝑠)
𝐼𝑡(𝑠)
4.1.1.
of theRTC
isiterations
number France
to obtain Siliconthe Solar
of iterations
iterations best Cell Identification
to results,
obtain CPU
the (s)results,
best is the running
results, 𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠)time
𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠) and
is the
the STD istime
running the standard
time and 𝑆𝑇𝐷
is
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW the number of to obtain the best is running 16 of𝑆𝑇𝐷
and 33
4.1. Accuracy
deviation of Analysis
the RMSE values, it indicates the reliability of the algorithm.
is the
is the
For standard deviation
the RTCdeviation
standard France silicon of the
of thesolar
RMSE
RMSE cell,values,
Tableitit2indicates
values, indicates
presents the the reliability
reliability
results of the of the
of the algorithm.
identification
algorithm.
4.1.1.
of five, The
RTC
The
The statistical
seven France
statistical
and nine
statistical results
Silicon
results for
Solar
parameters
results forthe
for Cell
the
the 1DM,
as1DM,well2DM
Identification
1DM, 2DM and
as the
2DM and 3DM
RMSE
and 3DM
3DM of RTC
of RTC
values
of RTCFrance
of France
the silicon
1DM,
France solarand
silicon
2DM
silicon cells
solar
solar 3DMare
cells
cells
shown
are shown
obtained
are For in
shown Table
byin
the in
the
RTC 4.
Table
proposed
Table 4. silicon
France
4. algorithm solarBB-TLBO
cell, Tableand other metaheuristic
2 presents the results ofalgorithms.
the identification
of five,
▪▪▪ For Forseven
Forthe
For 1DM
1DM
1DM and
1DM nine
identified
identified parameters
on
identification
identified the
on the
on theand as
basis
basis
basis well
of as
BB-TLBO,the
of BB-TLBO,
BB-TLBO,
according
of RMSEit is
to theititlowestvalues
found
is found
is found of
that
RMSE the 1DM,
that value
that lowest
the lowest
the lowest 2DM
RMSE
(9.860219 RMSE
RMSE and × 3DM
value
10 −4is
value
value),
4.1.1.
obtained RTC France
by the Silicon
proposed Solar
algorithm Cell Identification
BB-TLBO − 19
reached
is reached
reached
BB-TLBO,
is after 50 50
after
DOLADE,
after iterations
50 iterations
iterations
IMFOL and and
and in
and1.14
in 1.14
in 1.14
IQSODE ssand
s with with
with another
STD
an STD
have
an metaheuristic
of
the8.821895
STD ofbest
of 8.821895
8.821895 × algorithms.
results 10
×× 10 . ..
10compared
−19
−19 to
▪▪▪ For For
GWOCS,
For
For the
Forthethe
the RTC
France
the1DM France France
OLBGWO,
France RTC
RTC silicon
identification
RTC cell
cellbased
PSO,
cell solaraccording
based
MFO,
and
based cell,
onon2DM,
LNMHGS,
on Tableto
2DM,
2DM, 2HSOA,
the
the
the presents
best
the best
lowest
best the
results
results
RLDE,RMSE
results results
are
areobtained
FLIDE,
are ofLAPSO,
obtained
value
obtained the identification
by
(9.860219 byBB-TLBO
by BB-TLBO
BBO × 10
BB-TLBOand
−4),
of five, seven
which
which and
records
records ninean anparameters
RMSE𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = as
9.824848
= well
9.824848 ×as the
10
× −4−4
10 RMSE
,
−4 ,STD𝑆𝑇𝐷 values
= = of
2.686117
2.686117 the× 1DM,
× 10 −−8
10 8−8, 2DM
, 𝐼𝑡(𝑠)
It ( s ) =and
= 117
1173DM
and
and
TLBO.
BB-TLBO,
which records DOLADE, an 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 IMFOL and IQSODE
= 9.824848 × 10 , 𝑆𝑇𝐷 have= the best ×results
2.686117 10 𝐼𝑡(𝑠) compared = 117 and to
obtained
▪ 𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠)
CPU
For
GWOCS,
𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠) by
the the
(s)2DM, proposed
===OLBGWO,
10.75355
10.75355s.
BB-TLBO
10.75355s. algorithm
s.PSO, is able
MFO, BB-TLBO
toLNMHGS, and
reach the minimum other
HSOA, RLDE, metaheuristic
RMSEFLIDE, value of algorithms.
LAPSO,9.824848 BBO × 10
and−4,
▪▪▪ For For

Forthe
which
TLBO.
For the
themeans
1DM identification
identification
that they allow
identification
identification ofof
of and
the the
theus 3DMto 3DM
3DM of RTC
obtain
according of RTCof
the
to the RTC
France,
best
France, France,
results.
lowest RMSEBB-TLBO
BB-TLBO
BB-TLBO value records
records(9.860219 records
an 𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸
an × 10−4an
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 ),==
−3.034764 −8 , and
▪ 9.807670
RMSE
For = 9.807670
the 3DM,
BB-TLBO,
9.807670 2DM, 10 −4, 𝑆𝑇𝐷
××DOLADE,
10the
BB-TLBO
−4 × 10
best
, 𝑆𝑇𝐷 is4 ,able
==IMFOL
parameters STDto
3.034764 =××reach
and −8, 𝐼𝑡(𝑠)=
10−8
3.034764
identified
10 , the
𝐼𝑡(𝑠)=
IQSODE × were
minimum 143
10143 It(the
obtained
have and 𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠)
sRMSE
= 143
)𝐶𝑃𝑈(𝑠) and
byvalue
best == 11.1490s.
BB-TLBO 11.1490s.
CPU
results s(RMSE
of 9.824848 ) = 11.1490
(compared ×value
10to−4s.
,
of 9.80767
which
For themeans
GWOCS, × 10
OLBGWO, −4).
that they
identification ofallow
PSO, theMFO, us to
STM6-40/36 obtainsolar
LNMHGS, theHSOA,best
module results.
RLDE,
basedFLIDE,
on 1DM, LAPSO, 2DM and BBO3DM, and
▪the statistical
For the 3DM,
TLBO. the best parameters identified were
results obtained by BB-TLBO and other algorithms are shown in Table 5. obtained by BB-TLBO (RMSE value
▪4.1.2.For Monocrystalline
of 9.80767
the 2DM, −4). Solar Module
× 10BB-TLBO is able toSTM6-40/36
reach the minimum Identification RMSE value of 9.824848 × 10−4,
which
Table 3meansreportsthat thethey
results allow us identification
of the to obtain the best results.
of five, seven, and nine parameters for
▪4.1.2. Monocrystalline Solar
best Module
the 1DM, 2DM and 3DM respectively of the STM6-40/36 solarby
For the 3DM, the parameters STM6-40/36
identified Identification
were obtained BB-TLBO
module obtained(RMSEby value
BB-
TLBO of 9.80767
and
Table 3other
reports× algorithms
10 the
−4 ). results (BBO, of theDE, ABC, TLBO,of
identification DE/BBO,
five, seven, BLPSO and ...).nine parameters for
the
▪ 1DM, As shown 2DM in andTable3DM respectively
3, for of the STM6-40/36
the 1DM identification, BB-TLBO solar reaches
modulethe obtained
lowestby RMSEBB-
4.1.2.
TLBO Monocrystalline
and other algorithmsSolar Module STM6-40/36 Identification
value of 1.729814 × 10−3(BBO,followed DE, by ABC,IMFOL TLBO, withDE/BBO,
an RMSE BLPSO value ...).of 1.729815 × 10−3.
▪ Table
The
As 3 reports
TLBO-ABC
shown in Tablethe results
identification
3, for the of the identification
results
1DM indicate that
identification, of five, seven,reaches
metaheuristic
BB-TLBO andhybridnine theparameters
optimization
lowest RMSE for
the 1DM, 2DM
algorithms
value and 3DM
demonstrate
of 1.729814 respectively
better performance
× 10 followed
−3 of the
by IMFOLthan STM6-40/36
withalgorithms solar
an RMSE value module
without obtained
hybridization.
of 1.729815 by BB-
× 10−3.
TLBO
▪ and
BB-TLBO
The other
TLBO-ABC algorithms
obtained (BBO,
the lowest results
identification DE, ABC,
value ofindicate TLBO,
RMSE (best DE/BBO, BLPSO
RMSE) whichhybrid
that metaheuristic ...).
is equal to 1.693885
optimization
▪ × 10shown
As −3 for 2DM and 1.689064 × 10−3 for 3DM compared to other algorithms mentioned
algorithms demonstrate
in Table 3, for better
the 1DMperformance than BB-TLBO
identification, algorithms without
reaches thehybridization.
lowest RMSE
−3 −3
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 21 of 30
Table 4. Statistical results obtained during the identification of 1DM, 2DM and 3DM of RTC France.
Ref. Alg RMSEmin RMSEmean RMSEmax STD It(s) CPU(s)

1DM
[52] ECM−JADE 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 4.609693 × 10−17 / /
[29] DOLADE 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 3.277377 × 10−17 / /
[49] IMFOL 9.860200 × 10−4 9.870500 × 10−4 9.897700 × 10−4 1.020700 × 10−6 / /
[54] RLDE 9.860220 × 10−4 9.860220 × 10−4 9.860220 × 10−4 5.451690 × 10−17 / /
[54] LaPSO 9.860220 × 10−4 9.860220 × 10−4 9.860220 × 10−4 3.668200 × 10−13 / /
[49] MFO 1.11160 × 10−3 2.20190 × 10−3 2.44800 × 10−3 3.81790 × 10−4 / /
BBO 1.06018 × 10−3 2.11037 × 10−3 2.46065 × 10−3 4.74228 × 10−4 >2000 >20.3542
TLBO 9.86856 × 10−4 1.05013 × 10−3 1.23504 × 10−3 6.75216 × 10−5 >2000 >10.4671
proposed BB-TLBO 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 8.821895 × 10−19 50 1.137621
2DM
[52] IQSODE 9.824849 × 10−4 9.860260 × 10−4 9.836710 × 10−4 1.345204 × 10−6 / /
[29] DOLADE 9.824849 × 10−4 9.860219 × 10−4 9.826028 × 10−4 6.457690 × 10−7 / /
[49] IMFOL 9.825300 × 10−4 9.959600 × 10−4 9.867500 × 10−4 3.226800 × 10−6 / /
[49] MFO 1.053200 × 10−3 2.994000 × 10−3 2.147700 × 10−3 4.346400 × 10−4 / /
[54] FLIDE 9.824850 × 10−4 9.884790 × 10−4 1.021620 × 10−3 1.055370 × 10−5 / /
[54] RLDE 9.824850 × 10−4 9.858400 × 10−4 1.007730 × 10−3 4.400270 × 10−6 / /
[54] LaPSO 9.862120 × 10−4 9.824850 × 10−4 9.842650 × 10−4 1.680880 × 10−6 / /
BBO 1.13032 × 10−3 2.45570 × 10−3 3.72398 × 10−3 7.68496 × 10−4 >2000 >20.2376
TLBO 1.00428 × 10−3 1.12907 × 10−3 1.38165 × 10−3 1.11267 × 10−4 >2000 >22.34672
proposed BB-TLBO 9.824848 × 10−4 9.824899 × 10−4 9.826319 × 10−4 2.683117 × 10−8 117 10.75355
3DM
[58] CS 9.87857 × 10−4 3.51602 × 10−3 8.49868 × 10−1 2.28842 × 10−3 / /
[48] TLO 9.86125 × 10−4 2.92145 × 10−3 4.41563 × 10−1 2.19458 × 10−3 / /
[48] RAO 9.84569 × 10−4 2.01125 × 10−3 2.12589 × 10−1 9.62140 × 10−4 / /
[48] ABC 9.84522 × 10−4 3.51369 × 10−3 8.52365 × 10−1 2.28412 × 10−3 / /
BBO 1.22456 × 10−3 2.36534 × 10−3 3.68666 × 10−3 6.53851 × 10−4 >2000 >8.7465
TLBO 9.85769 × 10−4 1.04152 × 10−3 1.16712 × 10−3 5.44385 × 10−5 >2000 >9.2232857
proposed BB-TLBO 9.807670 × 10−4 9.807670 × 10−4 9.807670 × 10−4 3.034764 × 10−8 143 11.1490
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 22 of 30
Table 5. Statistical results obtained during the identification of 1DM, 2DM and 3DM of the STM6-40/36 solar module.
Ref. Alg RMSEmin RMSEmean RMSEmax STD It(s) CPU(s)

1DM
[59] MLBSA 1.743415 × 10−3 4.297333 × 10−3 3.329609 × 10−2 5.677849 × 10−3 / /
[45] GWOCS 1.733700 × 10−3 1.745700 × 10−3 1.752800 × 10−3 1.044700 × 10−5 / /
[55] ELPSO 2.180300 × 10−3 2.250300 × 10−3 3.716000 × 10−3 2.921100 × 10−4 / /
[57] SDO 1.729800 × 10−3 1.770300 × 10−3 1.950000 × 10−3 4.510800 × 10−5 / /
[49] IMFOL 1.887000 × 10−3 3.033500 × 10−3 4.674900 × 10−3 8.545400 × 10−4 / /
[49] MFO 3.107600 × 10−1 3.107600 × 10−1 3.107600 × 10−1 1.693800 × 10−16 / /
[52] IQSODE 1.729814 × 10−3 1.729814 × 10−3 1.729814 × 10−3 4.336809 × 10−19 / /
BBO 2.301350 × 10−3 6.243230 × 10−3 1.071160 × 10−2 1.543310 × 10−3 >2000 >5.85746
TLBO 2.141840 × 10−3 2.610550 × 10−3 3.329680 × 10−3 3.125230 × 10−4 >2000 >5.836608
proposed BB-TLBO 1.729814 × 10−3 1.729814 × 10−3 1.729814 × 10−3 6.616421 × 10−19 134 0.169081
2DM
[57] SDO 1.729800 × 10−3 1.811800 × 10−3 2.028800 × 10−3 7.242100 × 10−5 / /
[55] ELPSO 1.830700 × 10−3 2.035100 × 10−3 2.117800 × 10−3 8.427100 × 10−5 / /
BBO 3.292930 × 10−3 5.573130 × 10−3 9.093230 × 10−3 1.479270 × 10−3 >2000 >8.0379308
TLBO 1.891110 × 10−3 3.490130 × 10−3 5.263350 × 10−3 8.689140 × 10−4 >2000 >6.3345426
proposed BB-TLBO 1.693885 × 10−3 1.694230 × 10−3 1.697676 × 10−3 8.587814 × 10−7 117 5.415939
3DM
BBO 3.366020 × 10−3 4.878470 × 10−3 5.759890 × 10−3 5.820820 × 10−4 >2000 >8.4645975
TLBO 1.805210 × 10−3 3.299990 × 10−3 5.131280 × 10−3 1.097240 × 10−3 >2000 >6.3790644
proposed BB-TLBO 1.689064 × 10−3 1.689064 × 10−3 1.707124 × 10−3 1.294738 × 10−5 110 6.066541
4.1.1. RTC France Silicon Solar Cell Identification 16 of 33
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 For the RTC France silicon solar cell, Table 2 presents the results of the identification 23 of 30
obtained by the proposed algorithm BB-TLBO and other metaheuristic algorithms.
▪ It can
For thebe 1DMseen that BB-TLBO
identification andachieved
accordingthe to best resultsRMSE
the lowest after value
134 iterations
(9.860219and × 10117
−4),
4.1.1. RTC France Silicon Solar Cell Identification
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEWBB-TLBO, iterations for 1DM andIMFOL
DOLADE, 2DM respectively.
and IQSODE It features
have the the lowest CPU time
best results (0.169081
compared 16 of to33s
For
(1DM)the RTC
and France
5.415939 silicon
s (2DM)) solar withcell, Table
the 2
lowest presents
STD the
value results
(STD = of
1.64 the × −15 (1DM)
identification
10
GWOCS, OLBGWO, PSO, MFO, LNMHGS, HSOA, RLDE, FLIDE, LAPSO, BBO and
of five, andseven
TLBO. STDand = 9.00nine 10−6 (2DM))
×parameters asand
wellthe as smallest
the RMSE values
RMSE of the
value 1DM,
(1.73 × 10 −3 (1DM)
2DM and 3DM and
obtained 1.69 by
× the
10 − 3proposed
(2-MD)). algorithm BB-TLBO and other metaheuristic algorithms.
▪ Accuracy
4.1. For the 2DM, Analysis BB-TLBO is able to reach the minimum RMSE value of 9.824848 × 10−4,
▪ From the
For themeans results
1DM identificationshown in
and theaccording
table, both
to theBB-TLBO
lowest and IQSODE
RMSE give the× same
value (9.860219 10−4),
4.1.1.which
RTC France Silicon that they allow
Solar CellusIdentification
to obtain the best results.
▪ RMSE
For the values
BB-TLBO, 3DM, in best
DOLADE,
the terms of (RMSE
IMFOL
parameters and RMSEwere
min ,IQSODE
identified meanhaveand RMSE
the
obtained best
bymax ). However,
results
BB-TLBO compared
(RMSE in termsto
value
For
of
GWOCS,the RTC
STD the France
BB-TLBO
OLBGWO, silicon
PSO, solar cell,
algorithm
MFO, Table 2HSOA,
obtained
LNMHGS, presents
the the results
second-best
RLDE, ofLAPSO,
result
FLIDE, the
withidentification
a value
BBO andof
of 9.80767 × 10 ). −4
of five, seven
6.616421 and
× 10 −19 parameters
nine following as
thewell as
IQSODE the RMSE values
algorithm of
that the 1DM,
obtained 2DM a and
value3DM of
TLBO.
obtained by
4.336809 the
× 10 −19 .
proposed algorithm BB-TLBO and other metaheuristic algorithms.
▪4.1.2.For the 2DM, BB-TLBO
Monocrystalline is able toSTM6-40/36
Solar Module reach the minimum
Identification RMSE value of 9.824848 × 10 , −4
Forthe3DM, the besttheySTD (STD =to1.294738 ×the −5 ) is obtained by BB-TLBO which

10lowest
▪ For
which 1DM
means identification
that allow and us according
obtain
Table 3 reports the results of the identification of five, seven, to
the best results.RMSEand value
nine (9.860219
parameters × 10for
−4),
reaches theDOLADE,
minimum RMSE value of 1.689064 − 3
× 10the after only 110compared
iterations in
Mathematics 2023,▪11, x FOR
BB-TLBO, IMFOL and
the 1DM,For the
PEER
2DM 3DM,
REVIEW
and the3DMbest respectively
parameters of IQSODE
identified were
the STM6-40/36 haveobtained
solar best
by results
BB-TLBO
module (RMSE
obtained
26 of 33
by to
value
BB-
6.066541s
GWOCS,
of 9.80767 Thus,
OLBGWO,
× 10 −4).the proposed
PSO, MFO, BB-TLBO
LNMHGS, algorithm
HSOA, is RLDE,
stable and FLIDE,reliable
LAPSO,to identify
BBO the
and
TLBO and other algorithms (BBO, DE, ABC, TLBO, DE/BBO, BLPSO ...).
parameters of RTC France silicon solar cell and STM6-40/36 solar module.
TLBO.
▪▪ As
For shown
the4.3.
2DM,in Table
BB-TLBO 3, foristhe able1DM identification,
toSTM6-40/36
reach the minimum BB-TLBO RMSEreaches value of the9.824848
lowest RMSE× 10−4,
4.1.2. MonocrystallineConvergence Solar
Analysis Module Identification
value of
4.3. Convergence
which3means 1.729814
Analysis
that × 10
they
−3 followed by IMFOL with an RMSE value of 1.729815 × 10−3.
allow us to obtain thealgorithms
best results.
Table
The reports
TLBO-ABC the
The convergenceresults of of
curves
identification the identification
BB-TLBO
results
and other
indicate of five,
that seven,
such andTLBO,
as BBO,
metaheuristic nineSCE,
hybrid parameters
optimization for
Thethe
▪the 1DM,
For convergence
3DM,
SFLA, DEthe curves
andbest
ABC ofidentifying
parameters
(when BB-TLBO and
identified
RTC other
France were algorithms
silicon obtained
solar cell andbysuch as BBO,
BB-TLBO
STM6-40/36 TLBO,value
solar(RMSE SCE,
2DM
algorithms and 3DM respectively
demonstrate better of the 3DM))
performance STM6-40/36 solar module obtained by BB-
SFLA, DE
ofand module
and
9.80767 ABC for−4(when
the three identifying
× algorithms
10 models
). to these (1DM, 2DM
RTCand Francethan are algorithms
shown
silicon solar cellwithout
in Figures 10and
and 11. hybridization.
STM6-40/36 solar
TLBO
▪module
BB-TLBO other According
obtained the (BBO,
figures,
lowest DE,
the
value ABC,
BB-TLBO
of TLBO,
algorithm
RMSE DE/BBO,
(best has the
RMSE) bestBLPSO ...).
convergence
which is speed
equal to 1.693885
for compared
the three models (1DM, 2DM and 3DM)) are shown in Figures 10 and 11.
to the other algorithms in all cases.
▪ As10shown in Table 3, for the ×1DM identification, BB-TLBO reaches the lowest RMSE
4.1.2.×Monocrystalline
−3 for 2DM andSolar
1.689064 10STM6-40/36
−3 for 3DM compared to other algorithms mentioned
Module Identification
value
in the of 1.729814
same table. ×▪ 10−3 followed by IMFOL with an RMSE value of 1.729815 × 10−3.
Table 3 reports the results of the identification of five, seven, andhybrid nine parameters for
▪ The TLBO-ABC
MCSWOA provides identification results
the second-best indicate
RMSE that metaheuristic
value (1.706100 × 10−3) for optimization
2DM and
the 1DM, 2DM
algorithms and 3DM
demonstrate respectively
better RMSE of the
performance STM6-40/36
than solar
algorithms module obtained by BB-
SDO provides the second-best value of 1.701880 × 10−3 without
for 3DM.hybridization.
TLBO
▪ BB-TLBO obtained the lowest value of RMSE (best RMSE) which...).
and other algorithms (BBO, DE, ABC, TLBO, DE/BBO, BLPSO is equal to 1.693885
▪ As
× 10shown
−3 for 2DMin Table 3, for the ×1DM
and 1.689064 10−3 foridentification,
3DM compared BB-TLBO to other reaches the lowest
algorithms RMSE
mentioned
value
in the of 1.729814
same table. ×▪ 10−3 followed by IMFOL with an RMSE value of 1.729815 × 10−3.
▪ The TLBO-ABC
MCSWOA provides identification results indicate
the second-best RMSE thatvalue
metaheuristic
(1.706100 hybrid× 10−3) for optimization
2DM and
algorithms demonstrate better performance
SDO provides the second-best RMSE value of 1.701880 × 10 for 3DM. than algorithms −3 without hybridization.
▪ BB-TLBO obtained the lowest value of RMSE (best RMSE) which is equal to 1.693885
× 10−3 for 2DM and 1.689064 × 10−3 for 3DM compared to other algorithms mentioned
in the same table. ▪
▪ The MCSWOA provides the second-best RMSE value (1.706100 × 10−3) for 2DM and
SDO provides the second-best RMSE value of 1.701880 × 10−3 for 3DM.
Figure 10. Cont.

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 24 of 30
Figure 10. Convergence curves for three models of RTC France silicon solar cell.
Figure 10.
Figure Convergence
10. Convergence curves for
curves for three
three models
models of of RTC
RTC France
France silicon
silicon solar
solar cell.
cell.
Figure 11. Cont.

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861
27 of 32
25 of 30
2DM
101
SCE BBO DE TLBO ABC SFLA BBTLBO
100
Best Cost
10-1
10-2
10-3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Iteration
3DM
1
10
SFLA SCE BBO DE TLBO ABC BBTLBO
0
10
10-1
10-2
10-3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Iteration
Figure
Figure11.
11.Convergence
Convergencecurves
curves for
for three models
models of
of STM6-40/36
STM6-40/36 module.
module.
According to these figures, the BB-TLBO algorithm has the best convergence speed
5. Conclusions
compared to the other algorithms in all cases.
This article deals with the problem of identifying unknown parameters related to
several models of solar cells and modules. Biogeography-based teaching learning-based
optimization (BB-TLBO) is suggested as a new optimization algorithm to solve this
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 26 of 30
5. Conclusions
This article deals with the problem of identifying unknown parameters related to
several models of solar cells and modules. Biogeography-based teaching learning-based
optimization (BB-TLBO) is suggested as a new optimization algorithm to solve this problem.
This algorithm combines two metaheuristic algorithms called: biogeography-based opti-
mization (BBO) and teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO). The root mean square
error (RMSE) is used as an objective function. To check the efficiency of BB-TLBO, it is
applied to one-diode model (1DM), two-diode model (2DM) and three-diode model (3DM)
of silicon solar cell RTC France and commercial PV solar modules, the monocrystalline
STM6-40/36.
The following points can be drawn from the results discussed above:
(i) BB-TLBO performs better in terms of robustness and reliability according to compari-
son Tables 4 and 5. It revealed the smallest RMSE value in all models of France RTC
cell and STM6-40/36 module
(ii) BB-TLBO has a very high accuracy in terms of the identification of parameters accord-
ing to IAE, I-V and P-V characteristics.
(iii) According to the statistical results (RMSE, STD, CPU and It(s) values), BB-TLBO
outperforms its own single algorithms (BBO and TLBO) as well as other newly
techniques such as DOLADE, IQSODE, IMFOL, . . . etc. For example, BB-TLBO
records the best statistical results (RMSE = 1.729814 × 10−3 , STD = 6.616421 × 10−19 ,
CPU = 0.17 s, It(s) = 134) when identifying parameters of STM6-40/36 presented on
1DM, and it records the smallest RMSE in less than 6 s, RMSE = 1.693885 × 10−3 for
2DM and RMSE = 1.689064 × 10−3 for 3DM representations.
(iv) Convergence curves demonstrated that BB-TLBO has a very fast convergence speed.
(v) From the results mentioned above, it is clear that the three-diode model (3DM) is the
more accurate model to model the RTC France silicon solar cell and the STM6-40/36
solar module.
Overall, The BB-TLBO algorithm is proven to be superior to other recently introduced
parameter extraction strategies in terms of precision, stability, and speed through exper-
iments. Consequently, the proposed BB-TLBO can be applied as an effective alternative
solution to the issue of PV model parameter extraction.
Author Contributions: Methodology, N.R.; Software, N.R.; Validation, N.R. and K.Y.; Formal anal-
ysis, N.R.; Investigation, N.R., A.A., F.H., N.D., B.A.S. and K.Y.; Writing—original draft, N.R.;
Writing—review & editing, N.R., A.A., F.H., N.D., B.A.S. and K.Y.; Visualization, N.R., A.A., F.H. and
N.D.; Supervision, A.A., F.H. and K.Y.; Funding acquisition, B.A.S. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the General Directorate for Scientific Research and
Technological Development (DGRSDT), Algeria.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interest or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 27 of 30
Appendix A
• For RTC France solar cell
Imesured ( A) Vmesured (V )
0.764 −0.2057
0.762 −0.1291
0.7605 −0.0588
0.7605 0.0057
0.76 0.0646
0.759 0.1185
0.757 0.1678
0.757 0.2132
0.7555 0.2545
0.754 0.2924
0.7505 0.3269
0.7465 0.3585
0.7385 0.3873
0.728 0.4137
0.7065 0.4373
0.6755 0.459
0.632 0.4784
0.573 0.496
0.499 0.5119
0.413 0.5265
0.3165 0.5398
0.212 0.5521
0.1035 0.5633
−0.01 0.5736
−0.123 0.5833
−0.21 0.59
• For STM6-40/36 module

Imesured ( A) Vmesured (V )
1.663 0
1.663 0.118
1.661 2.237
1.653 5.434
1.65 7.26
1.645 9.68
1.64 11.59
1.636 12.6
1.629 13.37
1.619 14.09
1.597 14.88
1.581 15.59
1.542 16.4
1.524 16.71
1.5 16.98
1.485 17.13
1.465 17.32
1.388 17.91
1.118 19.08
0 21.02
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 28 of 30
References
1. Jordehi, A.R. Parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 354–371.
[CrossRef]
2. Li, S.; Gong, W.; Wang, L.; Yan, X.; Hu, C. A hybrid adaptive teaching–learning-based optimization and differential evolution for
parameter identification of photovoltaic models. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 225, 113474. [CrossRef]
3. 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. [CrossRef]
4. Ogliari, E.; Dolara, A.; Manzolini, G.; Leva, S. Physical and hybrid methods comparison for the day ahead PV output power
forecast. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 11–21. [CrossRef]
5. Orioli, A.; Di Gangi, A. A procedure to calculate the five-parameter model of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules on the basis
of the tabular performance data. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1160–1177. [CrossRef]
6. Yang, B.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Yu, T.; Yao, W.; Shu, H.; Zeng, F.; Sun, L. Comprehensive overview of meta-heuristic algorithm
applications on PV cell parameter identification. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 208, 112595. [CrossRef]
7. Li, G.; Li, G.; Zhou, M. Model and application of renewable energy accommodation capacity calculation considering utilization
level of inter-provincial tie-line. Prot. Control. Mod. Power Syst. 2019, 4, 1–12. [CrossRef]
8. Humada, A.M.; Hojabri, M.; Mekhilef, S.; Hamada, H.M. Solar cell parameters extraction based on single and double-diode
models: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 494–509. [CrossRef]
9. Abbassi, A.; Gammoudi, R.; Ali Dami, M.; Hasnaoui, O.; Jemli, M. An improved single-diode model parameters extraction at
different operating conditions with a view to modeling a photovoltaic generator: A comparative study. Sol. Energy 2017, 155,
478–489. [CrossRef]
10. Abbassi, R.; Abbassi, A.; Jemli, M.; Chebbi, S. Identification of unknown parameters of solar cell models: A comprehensive
overview of available approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 453–474. [CrossRef]
11. Khanna, V.; Das, B.K.; Bisht, D.; Singh, P.K. A three diode model for industrial solar cells and estimation of solar cell parameters
using PSO algorithm. Renew. Energy 2015, 78, 105–113. [CrossRef]
12. Allam, D.; Yousri, D.A.; Eteiba, M.B. Parameters extraction of the three diode model for the multi-crystalline solar cell/module
using Moth-Flame Optimization Algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 123, 535–548. [CrossRef]
13. Muci, J.; Conde, A.O.; Sánchez, F.G. New method to extract the model parameters of solar cells from the explicit analytic solutions
of their illuminated I–V characteristics. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2006, 90, 352–361. [CrossRef]
14. Gao, X.; Cui, Y.; Hu, J.; Xu, G.; Wang, Z.; Qu, J.; Wang, H. Parameter extraction of solar cell models using improved shu ffl ed
complex evolution algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 157, 460–479. [CrossRef]
15. Laudani, A.; Fulginei, F.R.; Salvini, A. High performing extraction procedure for the one-diode model of a photovoltaic panel
from experimental I–V curves by using reduced forms. Sol. Energy 2014, 103, 316–326. [CrossRef]
16. Hejri, M.; Mokhtari, H.; Azizian, M.R.; Ghandhari, M.; Söder, L. On the Parameter Extraction of a Five-Parameter Double-Diode
Model of Photovoltaic Cells and Modules. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2014, 4, 915–923. [CrossRef]
17. Bendib, T.; Djeffal, F. Fuzzy-Logic Based Computation for Parameters Identification of Solar Cell Models BT—Transactions on Engineering
Technologies; Yang, G.-C., Ao, S.-I., Gelman, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 327–338.
18. Almonacid, F.; Rus, C.; Hontoria, L.; Fuentes, M.; Nofuentes, G. Characterisation of Si-crystalline PV modules by artificial neural
networks. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 941–949. [CrossRef]
19. Almonacid, F.; Rus, C.; Hontoria, L.; Muñoz, F.J. Characterisation of PV CIS module by artificial neural networks. A comparative
study with other methods. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 973–980. [CrossRef]
20. Pitalúa-Díaz, N.; Arellano-Valmaña, F.; Ruz-Hernandez, J.A.; Matsumoto, Y.; Alazki, H.; Herrera-López, E.J.; Hinojosa-Palafox, J.F.;
García-Juárez, A.; Pérez-Enciso, R.A.; Velázquez-Contreras, E.F. An ANFIS-based modeling comparison study for photovoltaic
power at different geographical places in Mexico. Energies 2019, 12, 2662. [CrossRef]
21. Yousri, D.; Thanikanti, S.B.; Allam, D.; Ramachandaramurthy, V.K.; Eteiba, M.B. Fractional chaotic ensemble particle swarm
optimizer for identifying the single, double, and three diode photovoltaic models’ parameters. Energy 2020, 195, 116979.
[CrossRef]
22. Jordehi, A.R. Time varying acceleration coefficients particle swarm optimisation (TVACPSO): A new optimisation algorithm for
estimating parameters of PV cells and modules. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 129, 262–274. [CrossRef]
23. Pillai, D.S.; Rajasekar, N. Metaheuristic algorithms for PV parameter identification: A comprehensive review with an application
to threshold setting for fault detection in PV systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3503–3525. [CrossRef]
24. Ismail, M.S.; Moghavvemi, M.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Characterization of PV panel and global optimization of its model parameters
using genetic algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 73, 10–25. [CrossRef]
25. Dizqah, A.M.; Maheri, A.; Busawon, K. An accurate method for the PV model identification based on a genetic algorithm and the
interior-point method. Renew. Energy 2014, 72, 212–222. [CrossRef]
26. Hamid, N.; Abounacer, R.; Idali Oumhand, M.; Feddaoui, M.; Agliz, D. Parameters identification of photovoltaic solar cells and
module using the genetic algorithm with convex combination crossover. Int. J. Ambient. Energy 2019, 40, 517–524. [CrossRef]
27. Liao, Z.; Gu, Q.; Li, S.; Hu, Z.; Ning, B.I.N. An improved differential evolution to extract photovoltaic cell parameters. IEEE Access
2020, 8, 177838–177850. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 29 of 30
28. Chellaswamy, C.; Ramesh, R. Parameter extraction of solar cell models based on adaptive differential evolution algorithm. Renew.
Energy 2016, 97, 823–837. [CrossRef]
29. Zhou, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shang, W.; Yang, Z. Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using a differential evolution
algorithm based on elite and obsolete dynamic learning. Appl. Energy 2022, 314, 118877. [CrossRef]
30. Simon, D. Biogeography-Based Optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2008, 12, 702–713. [CrossRef]
31. Niu, Q.; Zhang, L.; Li, K. A biogeography-based optimization algorithm with mutation strategies for model parameter estimation
of solar and fuel cells. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 86, 1173–1185. [CrossRef]
32. Chen, X.; Yu, K. Hybridizing cuckoo search algorithm with biogeography-based optimization for estimating photovoltaic model
parameters. Sol. Energy 2019, 180, 192–206. [CrossRef]
33. Niccolai, A.; Dolara, A.; Ogliari, E. Hybrid PV Power Forecasting Methods: A Comparison of Different Approaches. Energies
2021, 14, 451. [CrossRef]
34. Louzazni, M.; Craciunescu, A.; Aroudam, E.H.; Dumitrache, A. Identification of Solar Cell Parameters with Firefly Algorithm. In
Proceedings of the 2015 Second International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and in Industry (MCSI),
Sliema, Malta, 17 August 2015; pp. 7–12. [CrossRef]
35. Sudhakar Babu, T.; Prasanth Ram, J.; Sangeetha, K.; Laudani, A.; Rajasekar, N. Parameter extraction of two diode solar PV model
using Fireworks algorithm. Sol. Energy 2016, 140, 265–276. [CrossRef]
36. Olabi, A.G.; Rezk, H.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Awotwe, T.; Maghrabie, H.M.; Selim, F.F.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Shah, S.K.; Zaky, A.A.
Optimal Parameter Identification of Perovskite Solar Cells Using Modified Bald Eagle Search Optimization Algorithm. Energies
2023, 16, 471. [CrossRef]
37. Shaheen, A.M.; El-Seheimy, R.A.; Xiong, G.; Elattar, E.; Ginidi, A.R. Parameter identification of solar photovoltaic cell and module
models via supply demand optimizer. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101705. [CrossRef]
38. El-Dabah, M.A.; El-Sehiemy, R.A.; Hasanien, H.M.; Saad, B. Photovoltaic model parameters identification using Northern
Goshawk Optimization algorithm. Energy 2023, 262, 125522. [CrossRef]
39. Gao, X.; Cui, Y.; Hu, J.; Xu, G.; Yu, Y. Lambert W-function based exact representation for double diode model of solar cells:
Comparison on fitness and parameter extraction. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 127, 443–460. [CrossRef]
40. Ginidi, A.R.; Shaheen, A.M.; El-sehiemy, R.A.; Elattar, E. Supply demand optimization algorithm for parameter extraction of
various solar cell models. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 5772–5794. [CrossRef]
41. Yu, K.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z. Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using self-adaptive teaching-learning-based
optimization. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 145, 233–246. [CrossRef]
42. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D.P. Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization: An optimization method for continuous non-linear
large scale problems. Inf. Sci. 2012, 183, 1–15. [CrossRef]
43. Chen, X.; Xu, B.; Mei, C.; Ding, Y.; Li, K. Teaching–learning–based artificial bee colony for solar photovoltaic parameter estimation.
Appl. Energy 2018, 212, 1578–1588. [CrossRef]
44. Li, S.; Gong, W.; Yan, X.; Hu, C.; Bai, D.; Wang, L.; Gao, L. Parameter extraction of photovoltaic models using an improved
teaching-learning-based optimization. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 186, 293–305. [CrossRef]
45. Long, W.; Cai, S.; Jiao, J.; Xu, M.; Wu, T. A new hybrid algorithm based on grey wolf optimizer and cuckoo search for parameter
extraction of solar photovoltaic models. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 203, 112243. [CrossRef]
46. Naeijian, M.; Rahimnejad, A.; Ebrahimi, S.M. Parameter estimation of PV solar cells and modules using Whippy Harris Hawks
Optimization Algorithm. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 4047–4063. [CrossRef]
47. Xavier, F.J.; Pradeep, A.; Premkumar, M.; Kumar, C. Orthogonal learning-based Gray Wolf Optimizer for identifying the uncertain
parameters of various photovoltaic models. Optik 2021, 247, 167973. [CrossRef]
48. Kumar, C.; Raj, T.D.; Premkumar, M.; Raj, T.D. A new stochastic slime mould optimization algorithm for the estimation of solar
photovoltaic cell parameters. Optik 2020, 223, 165277. [CrossRef]
49. Qaraad, M.; Amjad, S.; Hussein, N.K.; Badawy, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Elhosseini, M.A. Photovoltaic parameter estimation using
improved moth flame algorithms with local escape operators. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2023, 106, 108603. [CrossRef]
50. Yu, S.; Heidari, A.A.; He, C.; Cai, Z.; Althobaiti, M.M.; Mansour, R.F.; Liang, G.; Chen, H. Parameter estimation of static solar
photovoltaic models using Laplacian Nelder-Mead hunger games search. Sol. Energy 2022, 242, 79–104. [CrossRef]
51. Long, W.; Jiao, J.; Liang, X.; Xu, M.; Tang, M.; Cai, S. Parameters estimation of photovoltaic models using a novel hybrid seagull
optimization algorithm. Energy 2022, 249, 123760. [CrossRef]
52. El-mageed, A.A.A.; Abohany, A.A.; Saad, H.M.H.; Sallam, K.M. Parameter extraction of solar photovoltaic models using queuing
search optimization and differential evolution. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 134, 110032. [CrossRef]
53. Shaban, H.; Houssein, E.H.; Pérez-cisneros, M.; Oliva, D.; Hassan, A.Y.; Ismaeel, A.A.K.; Abdelminaam, D.S.; Deb, S.; Said, M.
Identification of Parameters in Photovoltaic Models through a Runge Kutta Optimizer. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2313. [CrossRef]
54. Li, Y.; Yu, K.; Liang, J.; Yue, C.; Qiao, K. A landscape-aware particle swarm optimization for parameter identification of
photovoltaic models. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 131, 109793. [CrossRef]
55. Jordehi, A.R. Enhanced leader particle swarm optimisation (ELPSO): An efficient algorithm for parameter estimation of photo-
voltaic (PV) cells and modules. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 78–87. [CrossRef]
56. Xiong, G.; Zhang, J.; Shi, D.; Zhu, L.; Yuan, X.; Yao, G. Modified Search Strategies Assisted Crossover Whale Optimization
Algorithm with Selection Operator for Parameter Extraction of Solar Photovoltaic Models. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2795. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 30 of 30
57. Xiong, G.; Zhang, J.; Shi, D.; Yuan, X. Application of Supply-Demand-Based Optimization for Parameter Extraction of Solar
Photovoltaic Models. Complexity 2019, 2019, 3923691. [CrossRef]
58. Premkumar, M.; Babu, T.S.; Umashankar, S.; Sowmya, R. A new metaphor-less algorithms for the photovoltaic cell parameter
estimation. Optik 2020, 208, 164559. [CrossRef]
59. Yu, K.; Liang, J.J.; Qu, B.Y.; Cheng, Z.; Wang, H. Multiple learning backtracking search algorithm for estimating parameters of
photovoltaic models. Appl. Energy 2018, 226, 408–422. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Mathematics 11 01861

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics 11 01861

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics 11 01861

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

mathematics

MSC: 68T20; 90C26

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11081861 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

The teaching learning-based optimization (TLBO) technique was introduced by RV

The novelty and main contribution of this paper are as follows:

2. Equivalent Circuit for PV Cell/Module Models and Problem Formulation

2.1. PV Cell Models

IL = I ph − Id1 − Ish (1)

where: the photo-generated-current, the diode-current and the shunt-resistance-current are

Figure 1. Equivalent circuit of 1DM solar cell.

2.1.3. Three-Diode Model (3DM)

Figure 4. Equivalent circuit of the PV module.

2.3.2. For 2DM of PV Cell

𝑞(𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑆 𝐼𝐿 ) 𝑞(𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑆 𝐼𝐿 ) (𝑉𝐿 + 𝑅𝑠 𝐼𝐿 )

2.3.3. For 3DM of PV Cell

2.3.4. For 1DM of PV Module

2.3.5. For 2DM of PV Module

2.3.6. For 3DM of PV Module

3. The Proposed Hybrid BB-TLBO Algorithm

3.1. Biogeography-Based Optimization

3.2. Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization

3.2.1. Teacher Phase

Xi = { xi1 , xi2 , . . . , xin } (22)

The teaching process is formulated as follows:

Xnew,i = Xold,i + rand() ∗ ( XTeacher − TF ∗ Xmean ) (23)

3.2.2. Learner Phase

3.3. Proposed BB-TLBO Algorithm

3.3.2. Migration Process

3.3.3. Teaching Phase

3.3.4. Learning Phase

3.3.5. Elitism Phase

3.4. Pseudocode of the BB-TLBO Algorithm

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1861 13 of 30

Define problem aspects, set algorithm parameters

Generate a random set of habitats (learners)

Calculate the mean level of knowledge using Eq.24

Sort the new population from the best to the worst

Perform the elitism process using Eq. 26.

4. Results and Discussion

RTC France Solar Cell STM6-40/36

4.1. Accuracy Analysis

4.1.1. 4.1.2.TLBO. Monocrystalline

▪the RTC As France

Individual Absolute Error

Figure 6. IAE of the 6.

Individual Absolute Error Individual Absolute Error

13.37 13.37 13.37 0.3

15.59 15.59 0.4

▪▪▪ For For

Ref. Alg RMSEmin RMSEmean RMSEmax STD It(s) CPU(s)

Ref. Alg RMSEmin RMSEmean RMSEmax STD It(s) CPU(s)

Forthe3DM, the besttheySTD (STD =to1.294738 ×the −5 ) is obtained by BB-TLBO which

Figure 10. Cont.

Figure 11. Cont.

• For STM6-40/36 module

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.