250
1, JANUARY 2017
On the Comprehensive Parametrization of the
Photovoltaic (PV) Cells and Modules
Mohammad Hejri and Hossein Mokhtari, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—In the classical parametrization of the single-diode
model of photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules based on the
datasheet values, first, the values of the five unknown parameters
of the PV model are extracted via the values of the open-circuit
voltage Vo c , the short-circuit current Isc , and the voltage and
current at the maximum power point Vm , Im at standard test
conditions (STC). Next, using some translational formulas, the
STC values of the unknown parameters are projected to the new
climatic conditions other than STC. A major problem of this
approach is to determine the translational formulas of the five
unknown parameters of the single-diode model as a function of
both temperature and irradiation levels with a high degree of
accuracy beforehand. This paper presents a new method to extract
the parameters of the PV model that operates with a reverse
identification process, as compared with the classical methods, in
the sense that it starts with the translational formulas of the key
parameters of Vo c , Isc , Vm , and Im and yields the variation of
the all PV model unknown parameters as a function of both tem-
perature and irradiation levels. The satisfactory operation of the
proposed parametrization technique is evaluated by simulations,
experiments, and comparative studies with the classical methods.
Index Terms—Parameters identification, photovoltaic (PV) cell
and module, PV diagnosis, single-diode model, translational
formula, variable temperature and irradiation levels.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE precise determination of the photovoltaic (PV) model
T parameters is a challenge for researchers to obtain a model
that simulates as close as possible the characteristics of the PV
panels under a wide range of irradiance and temperature condi-
tions. This is because the task of PV model parameter extraction
is represented by an implicit nonlinear problem whose solution
can be obtained by the rather complex numerical and analyti-
cal techniques. In this regard, there are a number of parameter
determination methods that differ mainly in the simplifying as-
sumptions to make the problem to be both analytically and
numerically tractable. With a wide interest on the parameter de-
termination of PV model cells and modules, the literature in this
area is very rich. Some publications containing a comprehensive
literature review are [1]–[5].
The existing methods for the parameter extraction of the
PV cells and modules classic models such as the single-diode
and the double-diode models can be categorized into two large
Manuscript received June 18, 2016; revised August 21, 2016; accepted Oc-
tober 7, 2016. Date of publication November 4, 2016; date of current version
December 20, 2016.
M. Hejri is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University
of Technology, Sahand New Town, Tabriz, 51335-1996, Iran (e-mail: hejri@
sut.ac.ir).
H. Mokhtari is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif Univer-
sity of Technology, Tehran, Iran (e-mail: mokhtari@sharif.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2016.2617038
2156-3381 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 7, NO.
groups [6]. The first type is the curve-fitting method, which
yields more precise parameter values since it utilizes all of the
data of the current-voltage (I–V) curves, but it requires all the
experimental points of the I–V curves and, therefore is expen-
sive. The second type uses only the coordinates of the limited
points on the PV I–V curves, such as the short circuit, the open
circuit, and the maximum power point (MPP), which are usually
provided by the PV manufacturers. This approach is attractive
in practical applications because of its speed and need to a few
data from I–V curves.
In this regard, the fundamental approach of the existing works
in the parameter determination of the PV model parameters is
that, first, all the parameters are extracted in standard test con-
ditions (STC). Next, some of the parameters are assumed to
be invariant under environmental conditions, whereas the val-
ues of some of the equivalent circuit parameters are considered
to change with respect to irradiation and temperature changes.
Therefore, invariant or independent parameters are estimated us-
ing STC values and used with no modifications in the arbitrary
conditions, whereas dependent or variable parameters are first
obtained using the STC data and then modified using some trans-
lational formula in the climatic conditions other than the STC.
In these works, the main objective of the PV parametrization is
to predict the maximum power under different temperature and
irradiation levels as accurately as possible.
There are several shortcomings for this type of characteriza-
tion method. First, according to the experimental observations, it
has been shown that the values of all the parameters of the equiv-
alent circuit model of PV panels change at different temperature
and irradiation levels. Thus, the assumption that some of the
parameters are constant during arbitrary climatic conditions is
physically unrealistic [7]–[11]. The second issue is that develop-
ing precise translational equations for the unknown parameters
of the PV model may need expensive experimental observations.
Moreover, for a better prediction, new parameters may need to
be considered in the translational formula, and their determi-
nation will need new information other than the STC, which
in turn increase the complexity of the computations [12]. The
third problem is that although several attempts have been made
on the analysis of PV model parameters, significant differences
still exist among previously published articles. For instance, in
[3] and [12]–[17], the shunt resistance of the PV module model
is assumed to be inversely proportional to the absorbed solar
irradiance. However, in [18] and [19], the parallel resistance is
assumed to reduce exponentially with the insolation level. On
the other hand, in [20]–[28], the value of parallel resistance is
assumed to be independent of the irradiation level. A similar
situation exists for other unknown parameters of a single-diode
HEJRI AND MOKHTARI: COMPREHENSIVE PARAMETRIZATION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) CELLS AND MODULES 251

built-in-field, a diode in parallel with the current source that

shows the diffusion of the minority carriers in the depletion
region, series resistance Rs which stands for structural resis-
tances in the PV panel, and, finally, a parallel resistance Rsh
which denotes the leakage current in the p-n junction.
According to the equivalent circuit given in Fig. 1, the PV
panel voltage–current relationship at a specified illumination
Fig. 1. Single-diode equivalent circuit of a PV module. and temperature is given as
   
V + Rs I V + Rs I
model, such as diode ideality factor, series resistance, and I = Iph − Is exp −1 − (1)
Ns nVt Rsh
saturation current. As long as good estimations of the maxi-
mum power and fitness of the reconstructed I–V curves against where I and V are the terminal current and voltage of the PV
the experimental ones are intended, such simplified models and panel, Is is diode reverse saturation current, Ns is the number of
assumptions are valid [29]. However, it is evident that in the PV the series connected PV cells in the PV module, n is the diode
diagnosis applications these simplifying assumptions are not ideality factor, and Vt is the cell thermal voltage defined as
applicable [30]–[33].
kT
According to the preceding discussion, the objective of this Vt = (2)
paper is to present a simple and fast parameter determination q
method that not only (similar to the existing works) predicts the where k is Boltzmann’s constant (1.38 × 10−23 J/K), q is the
MPP coordinates with a high degree of accuracy but estimates electron charge (1.6 × 10−19 C), and T is the p-n junction tem-
the PV model parameters with an acceptable precision under perature in kelvin (K).
variable climatic conditions using the limited data given in the The main goal is to determine the five parameters
manufacturer catalogs as well. Unlike the existing works that re- Rs , Rsh , n, Iph , and Is at different temperature and irradiance
quire the translational formulas of the PV model, five unknown levels using the only available data in the PV panel datasheets as-
parameters, such as photogenerated current Iph (G, T ), diode suming that neither graphical data nor translational formula for
saturation current Is (G, T ), diode ideality factor n(G, T ), se- these parameters is available. The datasheet information are Vo c
ries resistance Rs (G, T ), and shunt resistance Rsh (G, T ), the is the open-circuit voltage, Isc is the short-circuit current, Vm is
proposed method needs the translational formulas of the four the voltage at the MPP, Im is the current at MPP, and the temper-
key quantities of the open-circuit voltage Vo c (G, T ), the short- ature coefficients for the short-circuit current and open-circuit
circuit current Isc (G, T ), and the voltage and current at the voltage are ki , kv . These data are given at the STC in which the
MPP Vm (G, T ), Im (G, T ), where G is the irradiation level and radiation level is 1 kW/m2 with an air mass AM1.5 and a module
T stands for the temperature. While the number of assumed temperature 25 ◦ C [34]. For the sake of simplicity in the formu-
translational formulas is reduced in the proposed technique, the lations, a shape factor γ is defined as
other advantage is that since the parameters Vo c , Isc , Vm , and
Im are inherently related to the PV I–V curves, it is expected γ = Ns n. (3)
that more accurate translational formula could be developed
for these parameters, and as a result, better performances are Provided that the values of Vm , Im , Vo c , and Isc are available; in
achieved. [35], an analytical–numerical technique is presented in which
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In based on some reasonable assumptions, all the five unknown
Section II, nonlinear mathematical equations of a single-diode parameters of (1) can be extracted. First, (1) is evaluated at
PV panel is given. Section III describes the proposed approach three points of the I–V curve of the PV panel, i.e., open circuit
to extract the parameters of the single model of a PV panel (0, Vo c ), short circuit (Isc , 0), and MPP (Im , Vm ). Then, the
over a wide range of temperature and irradiation levels. Sec- fourth equation is derived on the basis of that the derivative
tion IV presents the application of the proposed technique in of the power with respect to the voltage at the MPP is zero.
extracting the I–V curves and parameter profiles of the PV The fifth equation is derived based on the assumption that the
module at different temperature and irradiation levels based slope of the I–V curve at the short-circuit point is equal to the
on the values available in the manufacturer catalogs. The results negative inverse of the shunt resistance, i.e., Rsh ≈ Rsho . After
are compared with the experimental curves and the theoretical some mathematical manipulations, the set of five equations with
curves extracted by the curve-fitting-based techniques. Finally, five unknown variables are reduced to the set of three equations
concluding remarks are made in Section V. with three unknown variables as
  
Im 1 Im −Vo c + (Rs + Rsh )Isc
II. DERIVATION OF NONLINEAR EQUATIONS FOR − 1 − Rs
Vm γVt Vm Rsh
SINGLE-DIODE MODEL    
Vm − Vo c + Rs Im 1 Im
Fig. 1 shows the single-diode equivalent circuit of a PV × exp − 1 − Rs =0
module. In this figure, the current source Iph models the γVt Rsh Vm
photon-generated electron hole pairs due to the influence of the (4)
252 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY 2017

 
Rs −Vo c + (Rs + Rsh )Isc G
− Im (1 + )+ + Vt γ(GSTC ) ln (11)
Rsh Rsh GSTC
  
Vm − Vo c + Rs Im Vo c − Vm Vm (G, T ) = kv (T − TSTC ) + Vm (GSTC )
× 1 − exp + =0
γVt Rsh G
+ Vt γ(GSTC ) ln (12)
(5) GSTC
 
Rs (Rsh − Rs ) −Vo c + (Rs + Rsh )Isc where kv is the temperature coefficient of the open-circuit volt-
− + × age in terms of V /◦ C.
Rsh γVt Rsh
  In the derivation of these equations, it is assumed that the
Rs Isc − Vo c saturation current and the ideality factor have constant values
× exp = 0. (6)
γVt independent of the irradiation level. Moreover, the effect of the
After calculating Rs , Rsh , and γ using (4)–(6), the values of Is shunt resistance is neglected [27]. As a result of these simplify-
and Iph are obtained as ing assumptions, it has been observed in the literature that these
    expressions are rather imprecise, especially at low irradiation
−Vo c + (Rs + Rsh )Isc Vo c levels [16], [19]. Moreover, it is evident that these equations re-
Is = exp − (7)
Rsh γVt sult in unrealistic very large negative values for the open circuit
    and MPP voltages when the irradiance is close to zero.
Vo c Vo c
Iph = + Is exp −1 . (8) In [39], the values of the open-circuit voltage and the MPP
Rsh γVt
power at any irradiation level are given as
To numerically solve the set of implicit equations of (4)–(6)
with three unknown variables Rs , Rsh , and γ, a good estimation Vo c (GSTC )
Vo c (G) = (13)
of the initial point is required. In [35], based on some reason- 1 + δ ln G SGT C
able assumptions and approximations, first the nonlinear set of
equations of (4)–(6) are simplified and then solved analytically Pm ax (GSTC ) G SGT C
Pm ax (G) = (14)
to obtain a set of approximated analytical solutions as the initial 1 + δ ln G SGT C
values.
where Vo c (G) and Vo c (GSTC ) are the open-circuit voltage of the
III. EXTRACTION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC CHARACTERISTICS PV module under the normal solar irradiance G and the standard
UNDER VARIABLE LIGHT AND TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS solar irradiance GSTC . Similarly, Pm ax (G) and Pm ax (GSTC )
are the values of the maximum point power corresponding to
Our discussion in Section II deals with the parameter determi- the irradiation levels G and GSTC , respectively. The δ is the PV
nation of solar panels in case that the values of Vm , Im , Isc , and module technology specific related dimensionless coefficient.
Vo c are available, but these quantities are provided by the PV Considering that Pm ax (G) = Vm (G)Im (G) and substituting
manufacturers only at the STC. Therefore, to extract the varia- (14) and (10) into this equation, one can obtain
tion of all the parameters of the single-diode model with respect
to the change in light and temperature, it is necessary that the Vm (GSTC )
Vm (G) = (15)
variation of the proposed three main points of the I–V curves in 1 + δ ln G SGT C
terms of the irradiation and temperature levels is found.
It is well known that both photo- and short-circuit currents where Vm (G) and Vm (GSTC ) are the MPP voltage at the normal
have a linear relation with the irradiation and temperature as irradiation level G and the STC irradiance, respectively.
[36]–[38] After calculating Vo c (G) using (13) and Vm (G) from (15),
one can obtain an expression for the open-circuit voltage as a
G
Isc (G, T ) = (Isc S T C + ki (T − TSTC )) (9) function of the actual temperature and irradiation levels on the
GSTC basis of the STC values as
G Vo c (GSTC )
Im (G, T ) = (Im S T C + ki (T − TSTC )) (10) Vo c (G, T ) = + kv (T − TSTC ) (16)
GSTC
1 + δ ln G SGT C
where Isc S T C and Iph S T C are the short-circuit and photo currents
at the STC, GSTC = 1000 W/m2 shows the irradiation level, and Vm (GSTC )
Vm (G, T ) = + kv (T − TSTC ). (17)
TSTC = 25 ◦ C in STC. ki is the temperature coefficient of the 1 + δ ln G SGT C
short-circuit current in terms of A/◦ C.
Now using (9), (10), (16), and (17), the flowchart of the proposed
The evaluation of the open circuit and the MPP voltages is
parameter determination method is summarized and illustrated
of particular importance, because these parameters have more
in Fig. 2. It is noted that in (11) and (12) and (16) and (17),
impacts on the closeness of the estimated and experimental
the following simplifying assumptions are considered: 1) The
data. In this regard, one of the most widely used set of equations
Isc thermal coefficient ki is equal to Im one; 2) the Vo c thermal
for the estimation of these parameters in the literature are as
coefficient kv is equal to the Vm one; and 3) the thermal coeffi-
[36]–[38]
cient of Vo c , Vm , Isc , and Im are assumed to be independent of
Vo c (G, T ) = kv (T − TSTC ) + Vo c (GSTC ) the solar irradiance level.
HEJRI AND MOKHTARI: COMPREHENSIVE PARAMETRIZATION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) CELLS AND MODULES 253

percentage and is computed by

|eV − tV |
E% = × 100 (20)
eV

where eV and tV are the experimental and theoretical values

of the respective parameters. As can be seen from The table,
(13) and (14) present a desirable statistical performance in the
prediction of the open-circuit voltage and the MPP in a wide
range of irradiation levels.
Table IV gives the identified parameters for the PV module
KC200GT, as a detailed case study, via the proposed algorithm
illustrated in Fig. 2 at different temperature and irradiation lev-
els. As a comparative study, this table also gives the values of the
parameters extracted by a curve-fitting method on the basis of
the Levenberg–Marquardt optimization technique used to iden-
tify single-diode [40]–[42] and double-diode models [43], [44]
of PV panels. To start the Levenberg–Marquardt method, one
needs to determine an appropriate initial point. In this paper, the
proposed numerical solutions by the given algorithm in Fig. 2
are used as an initial point for the curve-fitting method. The
advantage of the curve-fitting method is that all the points in the
curve are used, and therefore, a higher level of confidence can
be obtained. As a result, the parameter values obtained from the
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the proposed parametrization algorithm. curve-fitting methods can be treated as the true and reference
values to check the validity of the other parameter determination
techniques especially those on the basis of the coordinates of
A. Evaluation of the δ Parameter the key points on the I–V curves.
In this paper, to identify the parameter δ in (13), a least square The proposed method is also compared with the classical
problem is used. Indeed, given a set of N experimental data parameter extraction method presented in the [20] and [21] in
Vo c (G)n , with n = 1, . . . , N at the irradiation level G for N dif- which, first, the single-diode model parameters are extracted
ferent PV modules, it is intended to find the parameter δ, which using the numerical solutions of (4)–(6), and next, their cor-
minimizes the squared error (SE) between the values Vo c (δ, G), responding values in the climatic conditions other than STC
calculated by means of (13), and the measured voltages Vo c (G)n are derived by the translational formulas. This selection is per-
formed on the basis of a comprehensive comparative study in
 2
N
Vo c (GSTC )n [5] among different methods, in which it has been concluded
SE = Vo c (G)n − (18) that the iterative methods (called method A in [5]), like the ones
1 + δ ln G SGT C
n =1 proposed in [20] and [21], produce more accurate results.
where Vo c (GSTC )n is the open-circuit voltage of nth PV module Figs. 3 and 4 show the theoretical I–V curves of the PV
at STC. By taking the derivative of the functional SE in (18) module KC200GT derived by the approach in this study, the
with respect to the parameter δ, an analytical expression for δ is method in [20] and [21], and the curve-fitting method in con-
obtained as junction with the experimental data. The experimental data used

 to validate the proposed parameter extraction method are derived
N
1 V o c (GSTC )n from the experimental I–V curves available in the PV manufac-
δ=
n =1
−1 . (19)
ln( G SGT C ) N
n =1 Vo c (G)n
turer datasheets. These curves are digitized using a digitizer
software available in [45] and transferred to the data vectors.
Using the Vo c values at STC and the low irradiation level of Fig. 3 illustrates the I–V curves for different irradiation levels,
G = 200 W/m2 given in Tables I and II, the value of δ = 0.05 and Fig. 4 demonstrates the I–V curves at various temperature
is calculated by (19). The values of Table II are provided using levels.
the experimental I–Vcurves in the PV manufacturer datasheet. Table V gives the corresponding normalized root mean square
error percentage [nRMSE(%)] for the proposed parametrization
IV. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS method in this study, the method in [20] and [21], and the curve-
The datasheet parameters of the eight multicrystalline PV fitting method calculated by [46]
modules at the STC are given in Table I. The validation of the 
N
relations (13) and (14) has been investigated for all PV modules 1
N i=1 (Ei − Mi )2
listed in Table I and the statistical results are summarized in nRMSE(%) = 
N × 100 (21)
1
Table III. In this table, the E% is the absolute relative error N i=1 Mi2
254 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY 2017

TABLE I
CATALOG VALUES OF THE EIGHT MULTICRYSTALLINE PV MODULES

Catalogue values KC200GT STP245 TSM250 VBMS260 DAQO250 KC120-1 ND-R240A5 CNPV-245P

V o c (V ) 32.9 37.3 37.8 37.8 37.2 21.5 37.2 37.5

I s c (A ) 8.21 8.52 8.9 9.01 8.72 7.45 8.57 8.50
V m (V ) 26.3 30.5 30.5 30.7 30.5 16.9 30.4 31.0
I m (A ) 7.61 8.04 8.2 8.5 8.20 7.10 7.90 7.90
P m (W ) 200 245 250 260 250 120 240 245
Ns 54 60 60 60 60 36 60 60
k i (m A / ◦ C ) 3.18 5.7 4.7 3.5 5.23 6.08 3.3 4.25
k v (V / ◦ C ) −0.123 −0.123 −0.121 −0.129 −0.123 −0.0824 −0.1224 −0.1125

TABLE II
MEASURED VALUES OF THE OPEN-CIRCUIT VOLTAGE AT G = 200 W/M2 AND T = 25 ◦ C OF THE PV MODULES

Measured parameter KC200GT STP245 TSM250 VBMS260 DAQO250 KC120-1 ND-R240A5 CNPV-245P

V o c (V) at G = 200 W/m2 30.8 35.0 34.5 35.0 33.3 20.0 34.0 35.8

TABLE III
STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE OF (13) AND (14) USING δ = 0.05

W
G, Max E % for V o c (G ) via (13) Max E % for P m a x (G ) via (14) Average E % for V o c (G ) via (13) Average E % for P m a x (G ) via (14)
m2

1000 1.26 (STP245) 2.44 (DAQO250) 0.56 1.07

800 1.59 (TSM250) 2.79 (KC200GT) 0.53 1.34
600 1.30 (TSM250) 3.93 (TSM250) 0.64 2.21
400 1.68 (ND-R240A5) 4.66 (TSM250) 0.90 1.63
200 3.29 (DAQO250) 7.01(CNPV245) 1.55 3.06

TABLE IV
IDENTIFIED PARAMETERS FOR PV PANEL KC200GT

Temperature and irradiation levels The proposed technique The curve fitting method

W ◦
G, T, C R s, Ω R s h, Ω n I s, A I p h, A R s, Ω R s h, Ω n I s, A I p h, A
m2

1000 25 0.22 951.93 1.34 1.71E-7 8.21 0.18 951.93 1.34 1.50E-7 8.16
800 25 0.27 1176.78 1.32 1.37E-7 6.57 0.22 1176.78 1.34 1.42E-7 6.53
600 25 0.35 1547.04 1.31 1.03E-7 4.93 0.31 1547.04 1.31 8.46E-8 4.91
400 25 0.52 2275.57 1.28 6.84E-8 3.28 0.33 2275.57 1.30 7.82E-8 3.23
200 25 1.00 4405.17 1.24 3.42E-8 1.64 0.72 4405.17 1.29 5.02E-8 1.59
1000 50 0.31 1343.19 1.05 5.32E-8 8.29 0.22 854.68 1.15 2.64E-7 8.27
1000 75 0.41 2102.37 0.79 8.44E-9 8.37 0.31 759.28 0.96 3.07E-7 8.33

where N is the number of measurements, Ei is the estimated
value, and Mi represents the measured data. From this table, it
can be concluded that the curve-fitting method results in lower
values of nRMSE(%), and, therefore, the better fitting quality
as compared with the proposed approach in this study. This
observation is expected because curve-fitting methods utilize
the whole data of the I–V curves, whereas in our method only
three key points of the I–V curve at STC are used for parame-
ter extraction over a wide range of temperature and irradiation
levels. Nevertheless, the accuracy of the proposed method is
comparable with that of the curve-fitting technique. Moreover,
comparing the results obtained by the proposed technique and
the method in [20] and [21], it can be concluded that the de-
viation from the experimental data at low irradiation levels is
improved by the proposed method. This is while both the pro-
posed technique and the method of [20], and [21] are nearly
identical from the ease of the implementation and execution
time point of views. Table VI gives the value of nRMSE(%) for
the various PV modules under study by applying the proposed
method and the scheme in [20] and [21] at low irradiation level
of G = 200 W/m2 and T = 25 ◦ C. As it can be seen from this
table, the proposed method yields statistically better results as
compared with the method in [20] and [21] at lower irradiation
levels.
The execution time taken by the three methods is given in
Table VII. The computational time is calculated several times
and the average value is recorded. As expected, the common
methods, like those presented in [20] and [21], take the shortest
HEJRI AND MOKHTARI: COMPREHENSIVE PARAMETRIZATION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) CELLS AND MODULES 255

TABLE V
EVALUATION OF NRMSE(%) FOR THE PV MODULE KC200GT VIA
THE PROPOSED METHOD AND THE CURVE FITTING METHOD

G, W
T , ◦C This work Method in [20] Curve-fitting method
m2
nRMSE(%) nRMSE(%) nRMSE(%)

1000 25 7.00 7.00 0.86

800 25 5.68 5.43 1.59
600 25 8.58 9.80 1.51
400 25 5.56 9.59 0.68
200 25 7.34 24.5 1.23
1000 50 4.63 3.74 2.17
1000 75 3.86 2.09 2.41

TABLE VI
VALUES OF NRMSE(%) FOR THE VARIOUS
MULTICRYSTALLINE PV MODULES AT G = 200 W/m2 AND T = 25 ◦ C

PV module This work nRMSE(%) The method in [20] nRMSE(%)

Fig. 3. I–V characteristics in different irradiation levels for the PV module
KC200GT.
KC200GT 7.34 24.45
STP245 5.28 13.75
TSM250 4.78 12.79
VBMS260 5.04 12.71
DAQO250 12.78 15.90
KC120-1 9.11 20.47
NDR240A5 4.44 14.01
CNPV-245P 27.62 53.30

TABLE VII
COMPUTATIONAL TIME COMPARISON FOR PROPOSED AND
AVAILABLE METHODS

Used method Computation time (ms)

Method in [20] 4.73

Proposed method 102.87
Curve-fitting method 249.65

Fig. 4. I–V characteristics in various temperature levels for the PV module
KC200GT.
amount of time in terms of the computational complexity. This
is because in these methods, the STC values are calculated it-
eratively only once, and their values in the new conditions are
obtained using explicit translational equations with a low com-
putational burden. On the contrary, the proposed method must
solve iteratively a system of implicit and nonlinear equations
for every condition. The proposed method is in the second part
of Table VII, where its computational time is approximately
half that of the curve fitting method. Fig. 5(a)–(f) presents the
derived parameters for the PV module KC200GT plotted ver-
sus irradiation using the given data in Table V. As can be seen
from these figures, the style of the theoretical and experimental
profiles are identical. While the plots of Rs and Rsh are de-
creasing with the irradiation level, the plots of n, Is , Iph , and
Vo c are increasing with G. Moreover, there is a good match-
ing between the extracted parameters with the proposed method
and the corresponding reference and true values extracted by
the curve fitting method.
Using the extracted data in Table IV, the temperature de-
pendence of the parameters of the PV module KC200GT is
illustrated in Fig. 6(a)–(f). As can be seen from these figures,
the plots of Rs , Rsh , and Iph are increasing with temperature,
whereas n and Is are decreasing with T .
It must be noted that the general style of the parameter vari-
ations with respect to the temperature and irradiation changes
in the other multicrystalline PV modules is similar to the ones
shown in Figs. 5 and 6 for the PV module KC200GT.
One advantage of the curves in Figs. 5 and 6 is that they can
be utilized to develop more reliable translational formulas used
in the common parameter extraction method in which the PV
model parameters are extracted at STC and then adapted to the
new conditions using these translational formulas. In this regard,
the style of the variation of an specific PV model parameter with
respect to the temperature and irradiation level (e.g., increasing
or decreasing and the degree of the nonlinearity) could be very
helpful in developing more reasonable and reliable translational
formulas.
To compare the quality of predictions made by the tra-
ditional formula in (11) and (12) and the proposed ones in
256 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY 2017

Fig. 5. Interpolated curves of the single-diode model parameters under variable irradiation levels for the PV module KC200GT.

Fig. 6. Interpolated curves of the single-diode model parameters under variable temperature conditions for the PV module KC200GT.
HEJRI AND MOKHTARI: COMPREHENSIVE PARAMETRIZATION OF THE PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) CELLS AND MODULES 257

TABLE VIII
EVALUATION OF NRMSE(%) FOR THE MULTICRYSTALLINE PV MODULES UNDER DIFFERENT IRRADIATION LEVELS, (A) STANDS FOR USING OF (11) AND (12), (B)
STANDS FOR USING OF (16) AND (17)

W
G, KC200GT STP245 TSM250 VBMS260 DAQO250 KC120-1 ND-R240A5
m2

(A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) (B) (A) ave. (B) ave.

1000 7.00 7.00 8.75 8.75 7.08 7.08 7.11 7.11 2.35 2.35 10.35 10.35 2.26 2.26 6.41 6.41
800 7.63 5.68 3.43 3.73 5.94 7.86 5.83 6.04 3.94 3.36 9.55 10.52 1.75 2.75 5.44 5.56
600 13.30 8.58 3.68 3.22 4.32 5.69 5.84 6.60 2.29 3.51 9.12 11.36 3.87 5.11 6.06 6.29
400 14.00 5.56 1.56 2.05 7.63 4.78 3.95 5.55 4.61 5.36 7.71 11.07 6.18 8.18 6.52 6.08
200 22.21 7.34 14.33 5.28 16.25 4.78 1.93 5.04 7.27 12.87 6.34 9.11 13.72 4.44 11.72 6.98

(16) and (17), the nRMSE% of the PV modules of Table I un-
der different irradiation levels are presented in Table VIII. In
this table, the columns named (A) stand for using of traditional
translational formula in (11) and (12), and the columns called
(B) stand for using the proposed translational expressions in
(16) and (17). As it can be seen from this table, there are excep-
tion PV modules such as VBMS260, DAQO250, and KC120-1
in which acceptable predictions have been made at low irradia-
tion levels by the traditional translational formula. However, it
is worth noting that the value of nRMSE% has been distributed
in a rather wide range of 1.93% for the PV module VBMS260
up to 22.21% for the PV module KC200GT at a low irradia-
tion level of 200 W/m2 . This is while this interval is reduced to
4.44% for the PV module NDR240A5 up to 12.87% in the case
of the PV module DAQO250 via a new translational formula in
(16) and (17). This justifies the better statistical performance of
the proposed translational formula from the range of the max-
imum and minimum error values point of views. The last two
columns on the right of Table VIII are related to the averaged
values of nRMSE% corresponding to each irradiation level. It
is worth noting that at the lowest irradiation level of 200 W/m2 ,
the average value of nRMSE% for the seven PV modules in this
study is 11.72% using traditional formula in (11) and (12) and
6.98% using the proposed translational expressions in (16) and
(17). According to these observations, it can be concluded that
statistically the proposed translational formula in (16) and (17)
offer better prediction performances at lower irradiation levels
as compared with the traditional ones in (11) and (12).
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a comprehensive approach for pa-
rameter extraction of multicrystalline PV cells and modules un-
der variable climatic conditions. The parametrization technique
is based on the given information of the manufacturer catalogs
in the STC with no need for the graphical data and the trans-
lational formula to the unknown parameters of the PV model.
This is achieved by the extension of the STC parameter extrac-
tion method in [35] using two sets of the translational equations
for the open-circuit and the MPP voltages, namely (11) and
(12) and (16) and (17). It has been shown that the statistical
performance of the translational formulas in (16) and (17) for
the characterization of the PV multicrystalline modules is im-
proved, as compared with the ones in (11) and (12), which are
commonly used in the literature. The method has been applied
to several multicrystalline PV modules. It is demonstrated that
there is a good matching for both experimental and theoretical
I–V curves and model parameters over a wide range of temper-
ature and irradiation levels. Since the electrical parameters of
the PV models are extracted completely in terms of tempera-
ture and irradiation levels, the proposed technique allows one to
perform some evaluations regarding the efficiency status of the
PV generators. Hence, the proposed method is effective for the
monitoring, diagnosis, and control functions of the PV plants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for
their helpful and constructive comments.
REFERENCES
[1] M. C. D. Piazza and G. Vitale, Photovoltaic Sources: Modeling and Em-
ulation. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 2013.
[2] V. J. Chin, Z. Salam, and K. Ishaque, “Cell modelling and model pa-
rameters estimation techniques for photovoltaic simulator application:
A review,” Appl. Energy, vol. 154, pp. 500–519, 2015.
[3] T. Ma, H. Yang, and L. Lu, “Solar photovoltaic system modeling
and performance prediction,” Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 36,
pp. 304–315, 2014.
[4] D. Jena and V. V. Ramana, “Modeling of photovoltaic system for uniform
and non-uniform irradiance: A critical review,” Renewable Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 52, pp. 400–417, 2015.
[5] S. Shongwe and M. Hanif, “Comparative analysis of different single-diode
PV modeling methods,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 938–946,
May 2015.
[6] M. Hejri, H. Mokhtari, M. R. Azizian, M. Ghandhari, and L. Soder,
“On the parameter extraction of a five-parameter double-diode model of
photovoltaic cells and modules,” IEEE J. Photovolt., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 915–
923, May 2014.
[7] E. Cuce, P. M. Cuce, and T. Bali, “An experimental analysis of illumination
intensity and temperature dependency of photovoltaic cell parameters,”
Appl. Energy, vol. 111, pp. 374–382, 2013.
[8] F. Ghani, G. Rosengarten, M. Duke, and J. Carson, “On the influence of
temperature on crystalline silicon solar cell characterisation parameters,”
Solar Energy, vol. 112, pp. 437–445, 2015.
[9] F. Khan, S. Singh, and M. Husain, “Effect of illumination intensity on
cell parameters of a silicon solar cell,” Solar Energy Mater. Solar Cells,
vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1473–1476, 2010.
[10] M. Chegaar et al., “Effect of illumination intensity on solar cells param-
eters,” Energy Procedia, vol. 36, pp. 722–729, 2013.
[11] G. Tina, “A coupled electrical and thermal model for photovoltaic mod-
ules,” ASME J. Solar Energy Eng., vol. 132, no. 2, 2010, Art. no. 024501.
[12] W. D. Soto, S. A. Klein, and W. A. Beckman, “Improvement and validation
of a model for photovoltaic array performance,” Solar Energy, vol. 80,
no. 1, pp. 78–88, 2006.
[13] E. Batzelis, G. Kampitsis, S. Papathanassiou, and S. Manias, “Direct MPP
calculation in terms of the single-diode PV model parameters,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 226–236, Mar. 2015.
258
[14] J. Bai, et al., “Development of a new compound method to extract the five
parameters of PV modules,” Energy Convers. Manage., vol. 79, pp. 294–
303, 2014.
[15] A. Chouder, S. Silvestre, N. Sadaoui, and L. Rahmani, “Modeling and
simulation of a grid connected PV system based on the evaluation of main
PV module parameters,” Simul. Model. Practice Theory, vol. 20, no. 1,
pp. 46–58, 2012.
[16] V. L. Brano, A. Orioli, G. Ciulla, and A. D. Gangi, “An improved five-
parameter model for photovoltaic modules,” Solar Energy Mater. Solar
Cells, vol. 94, no. 8, pp. 1358–1370, 2010.
[17] Lun et al., “An explicit approximate IV characteristic model of a solar cell
based on pad approximants,” Solar Energy, vol. 92, pp. 147–159, 2013.
[18] K. Sauer, T. Roessler, and C. Hansen, “Modeling the irradiance and tem-
perature dependence of photovoltaic modules in PVsyst,” IEEE J. Photo-
volt., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 152–158, Jan. 2015.
[19] A. Orioli and A. D. Gangi, “A procedure to calculate the five-parameter
model of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules on the basis of the
tabular performance data,” Appl. Energy, vol. 102, pp. 1160–1177, 2013.
[20] D. Sera, R. Teodorescu, and P. Rodriguez, “PV panel model based
on datasheet values,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron., 2007,
pp. 2392–2396.
[21] A. Chatterjee, A. Keyhani, and D. Kapoor, “Identification of photovoltaic
source models,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 883–889,
Sep. 2011.
[22] K. Ding, J. Zhang, X. Bian, and J. Xu, “A simplified model for photovoltaic
modules based on improved translation equations,” Solar Energy, vol. 101,
pp. 40–52, 2014.
[23] A. Mohapatra, B. Nayak, and K. Mohanty, “Comparative study on single
diode photovoltaic module parameter extraction methods,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Power, Energy Control, Feb. 2013, pp. 30–34.
[24] S. Rahman, R. Varma, and T. Vanderheide, “Generalised model of a
photovoltaic panel,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 217–229, Apr. 2014.
[25] G. Farivar and B. Asaei, “A new approach for solar module temperature
estimation using the simple diode model,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1118–1126, Dec. 2011.
[26] H. Sahu, S. Roy, and S. Nayak, “Estimation of maximum power point of
PV array using datasheet values for microgrid integration,” in Proc. IEEE
Innovative Smart Grid Technol.-Asia Conf., May 2014, pp. 754–759.
[27] H. Siddique, P. Xu, and R. D. Doncker, “Parameter extraction algorithm
for one-diode model of PV panels based on datasheet values,” in Proc. Int.
Conf. Clean Elect. Power, Jun. 2013, pp. 7–13.
[28] K. Kim, C. Xu, L. Jin, and P. Krein, “A dynamic photovoltaic model incor-
porating capacitive and reverse-bias characteristics,” IEEE J. Photovolt.,
vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1334–1341, Oct. 2013.
[29] S. Cannizzaro, M. D. Piazza, M. Luna, and G. Vitale, “Generalized classi-
fication of PV modules by simplified single-diode models,” in Proc. IEEE
23rd Int. Symp. Ind. Electron., Jun. 2014, pp. 2266–2273.
[30] B. Ando, S. Baglio, A. Pistorio, G. Tina, and C. Ventura, “Sentinella:
Smart monitoring of photovoltaic systems at panel level,” IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2188–2199, Aug. 2015.
[31] J. Bastidas-Rodriguez, G. Petrone, C. Ramos-Paja, and G. Spagnuolo,
“Photovoltaic modules diagnostic: An overview,” in Proc. 39th Annu.
Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc., Nov. 2013, pp. 96–101.
[32] Y. Chen, X. Wang, D. Li, R. Hong, and H. Shen, “Parameters extraction
from commercial solar cells IV characteristics and shunt analysis,” Appl.
Energy, vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 2239–2244, 2011.
[33] J. Bastidas-Rodriguez, G. Petrone, C. Ramos-Paja, and G. Spagnuolo,
“Model-based degradation analysis of photovoltaic modules through se-
ries resistance estimation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 11,
pp. 7256–7265, Nov. 2015.
[34] M. G. Villalva, J. R. Gazoli, and E. R. Filho, “Comprehensive approach
to modeling and simulation of photovoltaic arrays,” IEEE Trans. Power
Electron., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1198–1208, May 2009.
[35] M. Hejri, H. Mokhtari, M. R. Azizian, and L. Söder, “An analytical-
numerical approach for parameter determination of a five-parameter
single-diode model of photovoltaic cells and modules,” Int. J. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 396–410, 2016.
[36] T. T. Yetayew and T. R. Jyothsna, “Improved single-diode modeling ap-
proach for photovoltaic modules using data sheet,” in Proc. Annu. IEEE
India Conf., Dec. 2013, pp. 1–6.
[37] S. Vergura, “Scalable model of pv cell in variable environment condition
based on the manufacturer datasheet for circuit simulation,” in Proc. IEEE
15th Int. Conf.Environ. Elect. Eng., Jun. 2015, pp. 1481–1485.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 7, NO. 1, JANUARY 2017
[38] R. Khezzar, M. Zereg, and A. Khezzar, “Modeling improvement of the
four parameter model for photovoltaic modules,” Solar Energy, vol. 110,
pp. 452–462, 2014.
[39] A. J. Anderson, “Photovoltaic translation equations: A new approach,”
Sunset Technol. Highlands Ranch, CO, USA, NREL Final Subcontract
Report, Tech. Rep. No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, Jan. 1996.
[40] M. A. de Blas, J. L. Torres, E. Prieto, and A. Garcia, “Selecting a suit-
able model for characterizing photovoltaic devices,” Renewable Energy,
vol. 25, pp. 371–380, 2002.
[41] K. Bouzidi, M. Chegaar, and A. Bouhemadou, “Solar cells parameters
evaluation considering the series and shunt resistance,” Solar Energy
Mater. Solar Cells, vol. 91, pp. 1647–1651, May 2007.
[42] A. K. Tossa, Y. Soro, Y. Azoumah, and D. Yamegueu, “A new approach to
estimate the performance and energy productivity of photovoltaic modules
in real operating conditions,” Solar Energy, vol. 110, pp. 543–560, 2014.
[43] J. A. Gow and C. D. Manning, “Development of a photovoltaic array
model for use in power electronics simulation studies,” Proc. Inst. Electr.
Eng. Electr. Power Appl., vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 193–200, Mar. 1999.
[44] R. Gottschalg, M. Rommel, D. G. Infield, and M. J. Kearney, “The influ-
ence of the measurement environment on the accuracy of the extraction of
the physical parameters of solar cells,” Meas. Sci. Technol., vol. 10, no. 9,
p. 796, 1999.
[45] “Engauge digitizer,” (2002). [Online]. Available: http://markummitchell.
github.io/engauge-digitizer/
[46] G. Tina and C. Ventura, “Evaluation and validation of an electrical model
of photovoltaic module based on manufacturer measurement,” in Sustain-
ability in Energy and Buildings, vol. 22, A. Hakansson, M. Höjer, R. J.
Howlett, and L. C. Jain, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2013, pp. 15–24.
Mohammad Hejri was born in Tabriz, Iran, in
1977. He received the B.Sc. degree from Tabriz
University in 2000 and the M.Sc. degree from Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2002, both
in electrical engineering. He received the Ph.D. de-
gree in electrical engineering from Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, and the University of Cagliari,
Cagliari, Italy, in 2010 as a cotutorship program.
He has been with several industries and research
centers such as Iran Tractor Foundry Company, Azer-
baijan Regional Electric Company, Tabriz Oil and
Refining Company, and Iran’s Niroo (energy) Research Institute. From 2010 to
2012, he was a Postdoctoral Research Associate with the Department of Electric
Power and Energy Systems, School of Electrical Engineering, Royal Institute
of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Since 2012, he has been an Assistant Pro-
fessor with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Sahand University of
Technology, Tabriz. His research interests include control theory with applica-
tions in power electronics, renewable energy, and power systems.
Hossein Mokhtari (M’03–SM’14) was born in
Tehran, Iran, on August 19, 1966. He received the
B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from Tehran
University, in 1989. He received the M.Sc. degree
in power electronics from the University of New
Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, in 1994 and
the Ph.D. degree in power electronics/power quality
from the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada,
in 1999.
From 1989 to 1992, he was with the Consulting
Division of Power Systems Dispatching Projects with
the Electric Power Research Center Institute. Since 2000, he has been with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran,
where he is currently a Professor. He is also a Senior Consultant to several
utilities and industries.