Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Photovoltaic panel parameters determination using two numerical

methods
Aissa Hali ⇑, Yamina Khlifi
Laboratory of Renewable Energy, Embedded Systems and Data Processing, National School of Applied Sciences, Mohammed First University, Oujda, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper proposes new simple mathematical approach based on the Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm
Available online 19 February 2021 (TRDLA) in order to accurately determine the electrical parameters from the experimental current–volt-
age characteristics of photovoltaic (PV) panels.
Keywords: The simple model for the photovoltaic panel is developed based on the single-diode PV model known as
Photovoltaic panel five parameters model incorporating the shunt resistance, the series resistance, the photocurrent, the sat-
PV parameters uration current and the ideality factor.
Single-diode model
The parameters extraction method based on the Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm includes a new simple
Standard test condition (STC)
Matlab/MathWorks
analytical equation obtained at the maximum power point. This new established equation does not
TRDLA method involve any complex calculation. Furthermore, it makes possible to reduce the number of non-linear
LSQM equations to be solved in order to determine the parameters of the PV panel.
Newthon Raphson method A typical MSX60 polycrystalline silicon solar panel is chosen for simulation in MATLAB/MathWorks
PSO environment under standard test conditions (STC).
GA The main results of simulation show a good agreement between the experimental current–voltage
characteristics and the theoretical one which is reproduced by considering the five parameters values
extracted by using the TRDLA based method or the Least Square Method (LSQM) for the purpose of com-
parison. This good agreement is identified also by a lowest root mean squared error (RMSE) of 4.5 10
3
obtained for TRDLA method compared to 1.4 10
2 obtained for LSQM, and lowest mean absolute error
(MAE) of about 3.5 10
3 for TRDLA method and 1.01 10
2 for LSQM. Thus, the obtained results prove
the effectiveness and accuracy of the TRDLA based method. Its accuracy has been proven also by a lower
statistical error of root mean square error compared to recent methods reported in the literature.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Fourth edition of the
International Conference on Materials & Environmental Science.

1. Introduction
Photovoltaic energy reveals a great interest in recent years both
in scientific, environmental and economic plans. This interest is
due to the growing energy request by human, industries, but also
to environmental requirements [1].
Photovoltaic cells are the elementary components of a photo-
voltaic generator and their current–voltage characteristics are
shown to be of nonlinear behavior. This behavior is interpreted
by several models [2-9]. The commonly used models are the
Shockley diode equation, well-known as the ideal model or the
three parameters model [2], the single-diode model identified as
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hali.aissa@ump.ac.ma (A. Hali).
the five parameters model [3-6], the two-diode model or the seven
parameters model [7,8] and the multi-diode [9].
The five parameters single diode model is the most widely used
[3-6]. It has been reported in reference [10] that this simple model
offers a good compromise between the accuracy and the simplicity
of the PV modeling. So, the single-diode five parameters model
including the shunt resistance, the series resistance, the photocur-
rent, the saturation current and the ideality factor is retained in
this work.
The simulation and design calculations of photovoltaic systems
involve an accurate knowledge of the parameters which define the
nonlinear electrical model of solar cells or panels. Over the years,
many works, dealing with the problem of parameters extraction
of PV cells or panels, have been published in the literature [12-
18]. Their main objective consists to propose accurate techniques

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.313
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Fourth edition of the International Conference on Materials & Environmental Science.
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi
in order to identify the exact values of the electrical parameters
that can describe the behavior of the current–voltage characteris-
tics I(V). In fact, an accurate model can improve the efficiency in
terms of the power generated by the PV system. This is interesting
because an imprecise diode ideality factor as low as 1% can lead to
a power loss of around 10% at the maximum power point (MPP)
[11].
The most proposed techniques of parameters extraction can be
classified into graphical methods [12], numerical methods [13-15],
analytical methods [16-18], and metaheuristic methods or
stochastic methods inspired by various natural phenomena
[19,20]. Other authors [21-24] suggested methods basing on
experimental data involving both illuminated and dark I(V) charac-
teristics [21], while others use dynamic measurements [22,23] or
integration procedures [24] based on the computation of the area
under the current–voltage curves.
Among numerical methods, Easwearakhantan et al. [25] have
proposed a nonlinear least-squares optimization algorithm [26].
This algorithm is based on the Newton model modified with Leven-
berg parameter for the extraction of the five illuminated solar cell
parameters from the experimental data. This nonlinear least-
squares algorithm technique [26] is applied by taking account of
the data over the entire range of the I(V) characteristic in order
to minimize the sum of squared errors.
Also, in [27], numerical approach based on the Newton-
Raphson method has been proposed. This method, using of the
function values and their derivative, was formulated around an
iterative calculation to solve a multivariable system of nonlinear
equations. Moreover, this iterative approach is executed in height
for smooth unimodal problems, but when there is a certain discon-
tinuity in the objective function, the method is not precise.
In other work [28], D. Gromov et al. have proposed a linear
least-squares method to determine the Schottky-diode parame-
ters from forward I(V) characteristics. Its method includes the
presentation of voltage as function of current. This method has
been adequately modified in recent work by Bouzidi et al. [6]
and extended to be applied in the case of solar cells in order to
extract the five parameters which are the shunt conductance,
the series resistance, the photocurrent, the saturation current
and the ideality factor.
Among the numerical techniques which interest us here for
comparison, a linear least squares algorithm basing on the devel-
oped by Bouzidi et al. technique [6] and Gromov et al. method
[28] is performed.
This work presents a new numerical method in order to extract
the five parameters that characterize the PV panel. These parame-
ters are determined from a few selected points known as remark-
able points on the solar panel I(V) characteristic, namely, the open-
circuit voltage Voc , the short circuit current Isc , the current Im and
voltage Vm at the maximum power point MPP. Their values are
provided by the manufacturer’s datasheet at standard test condi-
tions where an average solar spectrum at AM 1.5 is used, the irra-
diance is normalized to 1000 W/m2, and the cell temperature is
equal to 25 °C.
The proposed method of parameters determination is based on
Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm method for solving a nonlinear
equations system by applying the single diode model equation suc-
cessively to the three remarkable points. It should be noted that a
new simple equation is included in the system to be solved. More-
over, this equation, expressed as a function of one unknown
parameter, does not require any initialization of this parameter.
Also, it can be solved analytically and separately of other nonlinear
equations.
For comparison purposes, a second technique has been per-
formed using the least square method (LSQM) based on the Bouzidi
technique [6].
7378
Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382
The two methods TRDLA and LSQM are tested, in MATLAB/
MathWorks environment, on the experimental current–voltage
characteristic I(V) of a typical MSX60 polycrystalline silicon solar
panel in standard test conditions. The results are discussed in
terms of accuracy of the TRDLA based method in evaluating the
five parameters. This accuracy has been proven by a lower statisti-
cal error compared to LSQM and recent published methods such as
evaporation rate water cycle algorithm (ER-WCA), [29] Particle
Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA)
[30].
2. Five parameters cell model
A photovoltaic cell, as shown in Fig. 1, can be modeled by a con-
stant current source generating the photo-current (Iph), a diode
with the ideality factor (n). This factor has typically a value
between 1 and 2 [31,32]. This model includes also parasitic resis-
tances so-called series resistance (Rs) and shunt resistance (Rsh).
Source of series resistances include the metal contacts and inter-
connections between cells and modules will the shunt resistance
models the losses due to the leakage currents across the junction
and within the cell due to crystal imperfections and impurities.
The current generated by the photovoltaic cell is given by the
following relation:

VþRsI  VþR I
q s
I ¼ Iph
Is e nK B T
1
ð1Þ
Rsh
where: I: the output current (A), V: the output voltage (V),Iph: the
photo-current (A),Is : the diode reverse saturation current (mA), Rs:
the series resistance (O), Rsh: the shunt resistance (O), q: Electron
charge [q = 1.602  10–19 C], n : the ideality factor. KB: Boltzmann’s
constant [1.38  10–23 J/K], T: Temperature (°K).
3. Proposed methods
The problem to be solved in this work is the calculation of a set
of five parameters (Iph, Is, n, Rs and Rsh) in order to fit a given exper-
imental current–voltage characteristics using an analytical model
described by equation (1).
For this purpose, various methods can be used. In this work,
these parameters are determined first by solving the sets of non-
linear equations, using the Trust-Region-Dogleg algorithm and
for comparison, we have developed a second approach of parame-
ters extraction based on the least square method as in [6]. Both
developed methods are validated using Matlab software and com-
parisons between the two methods are made. Finally, in order to
confirm their accuracy, the TRDLA based method is compared to
recent researches reporting metaheuristic optimization algorithms
such as as evaporation rate water cycle algorithm (ER-WCA), [29]
Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO) and Genetic Algo-
rithm (GA) [30].
Fig. 1. Electrical circuit model of photovoltaic cell.
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382

3.1. Trust-Region-Dogleg algorithm based method The photocurrent Iph can be estimated by the short-current Isc
[33]. While the shunt and series resistances (Rsh,Rs) can be initial-
The current–voltage I(V) characteristic of PV module is of non- ized using the following equations:
linear behavior representing three remarkable points which are the 
short current (ISC), the open-circuit voltage (VOC) and the maxi- 1 @I
¼
ð7Þ
mum power point (MPP) (Pm) where the current and voltage are Rsh0 @V Isc
represented by Im and Vm. Based on the coordinates of these
remarkable points, one can generate a nonlinear system of equa- 
1 @I
tions as a function of the unknown five PV parameters (Is, Iph, ¼
ð8Þ
Rs0 @V V oc
Rsh, Rs and n).
The solution of this system by appropriate methods can led to and the initial value of saturation current Is can be deduced
the determination of the five parameters. A first suggested tech- using the following equation:
nique is based on Trust Region Dogleg algorithm (TRDLA), and
whose principle is described as follow: ðIsc
Voc =Rsh0 Þ
Is0 ¼ ð9Þ
By taking account of Ns cells in series in equation (1) and apply- expðVoc =ðnVt ÞÞ
1
ing it successively to the three remarkable points, provided gener- The obtained five parameters values are presented in Table 2.
ally by the manufacture at standard test conditions, one can
generate a nonlinear equations system expressing the unknown
electrical parameters of PV module: 3.2. Linear least squares method
At Short-circuit Current point, applying equation (1) leads to:

Rs Isc  RI For comparison purpose, a second method for parameters
s sc extraction is performed using the least squares algorithm (LSQM)
Isc
Iph þ Is e nV t
1 þ ¼0 ð2Þ
Rsh based on the developed Bouzidi et al. method [6] and the modified
where V t ¼ Ns KqB T Gromov algorithm [28]. The main objective is to fit a given exper-
imental current–voltage characteristic.
At the open-circuit voltage point:
This method consists in expressing the voltage as function of

V oc  V the current. So, at a given illumination, the current–voltage rela-
oc
Iph
Is enV t
1
¼0 ð3Þ
Rsh tion for a solar cell given by equation (1) can be reformulated as
follow [6]:
At the maximum power operating point where V = Vm and I = Im.

V m þIm Rs  V þI R
VþRsI 
q
Im
Iph þ Is e nV t
1 þ
m m s
¼0 ð4Þ I ¼ IPA
IO e nKB T
1
GA V ð10Þ
Rsh
By considering the assumption that the derivative of the power where: Gsh ¼ Rsh
1
is the shunt conductance, GA ¼ 1þGshRs
Gsh
, IO ¼ 1þGshRs
Is

Iph
versus voltage at the MPP is null, one can deduce the fourth non- and IPA ¼ 1þGshRs
linear equation: This method requires the calculation of GA parameter. In fact,
V m
Im Rs V mnV
þIm Rs V m
I m Rs for low bias voltages, the linear part dominates and equation
Im
Is e t
¼0 ð5Þ (10) can be written as:
nV t Rsh
By eliminating the shunt resistance and reformulating (2), (3), I ¼ IPA
GA V ð11Þ
Rs I sc
(4), and (5) and using the following approximations Iph  Is e nV t
where GA, IPA are evaluated from equation (11) by LSQM as follow:
[18] and IscI
I
m
¼ IscI
I
sc
a fifth equation can be evaluated at the max-
m m
P6
1 ðV i
VÞðIi

imum power point: IÞ
   GA ¼ P6 2
ð12Þ
Isc Isc
Im 1 ðV i
VÞ
nV t þ ln
2V m þ V oc ¼ 0 ð6Þ
Isc
Im Isc
one can mention that the last approximation is highly accept- IpA ¼ I
GA V ð13Þ
able and introduces no significant errors in calculations. It should be noted that the uncertainties dominant in graphi-
It is worth mentioning that equation (6) has not been used in cally determining the GA by fit in the linear part at low voltages
previous published works concerning parameters extraction. This range impede an inaccurate solution for the parameters. Moreover,
last equation can be solved analytically without any complex cal- a fit thus constructed may not accurately represent the I(V) curve
culation or iterative process or initialization. So, a first parameter, over its entire range.
which is the ideality factor (n), can be determined easily as func- Under forward bias, equation (10) can be written as [6]:
tion of the known remarkable points values provided by the man-
    
ufacturer’s data sheet. The four other parameters (Iph, Is, Rs, Rsh) are n IPA Ic
determined by solving the system including the nonlinear equa- V¼ Ln þ Ln 1

Rs I ð14Þ
Vt IO IPA
tions (2–5). Therefore, in order to achieve this goal, a Trust-
Region-Dogleg Algorithm is used. where:
In all iterative methods, often initialization is required. In our
VþRsI 
q
case, only four unknowns’ (Iph, Is, Rs, Rsh) are to be initialized. Inap- Ic ¼ IPA
IO e nKB T ð15Þ
propriate choice of the initial values will result in divergence from
the exact solutions. Choosing reasonably good starting values for using the experimental current–voltage data in equation (14),
these parameters which differ mainly in magnitude between them, one can obtain a linear system of equations that can be solved
is relatively a difficult task. Thus, reasonably good initial approxi- using a least squares method or a Kramer’s method. Thus, the five
mations can lead to the suitable initial values for the four parameters are evaluated. The obtained results are presented in
parameters. Table 2.
7379
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382

4. Results and discussions
Simulations for testing the proposed methods of parameters
extraction were carried out using a typical MSX60 polycrystalline
silicon solar panel under standard test conditions. This panel con-
tains 36 polycrystalline silicon solar cells electrically arranged as
two series strings of 18 cells each. The corresponding key specifica-
tions provided from the datasheet are shown in Table 1 [34].
Table 2 presents the extracted parameters values using both the
TRDLA and LSQM and the recent methods reported in the literature
such as evaporation rate water cycle algorithm (ER-WCA), [29] Par-
ticle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm
(GA) [30]. It can be shown that the obtained photocurrent value
is identical to the short-current one and the ideality factor is in
the predictable range between 1 and 2. Moreover, a small series
resistance and high shunt resistance values are extracted.
Fig. 2 represents the comparison between the experimental
data and calculated current–voltage I(V) and power-voltage P(V)
characteristics for the MSX60 solar panel under standard test con-
ditions. The calculated current–voltage curve was reproduced by
taking account of the parameters extracted, using both the TRDLA
or LSQM, in equation (1). The solution of this non-linear equation
was performed by the iterative Newton-Raphson method [34].
Table 1
Key specifications of the MSX60 PV panel at standard test conditions.
Maximum power [Pm] (W)
Voltage at Maximum Power [Vm] (V)
Current at Maximum Power [Im] (A)
Short-circuit current [Isc] (A)
Open-circuit voltage [Voc] (V)
Number of series cells (Ns)
2
Table 2
Extracted parameters using the TRDLA and LSQM and recent methods reported in the
literature ER-WCA [29], PSO and GA [30], for MSX60 polycrystalline silicon solar
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the calculated I(V) characteristics are in
good agreement with the experimental data particularly for
TRDLA.
In order to confirm the accuracy of the parameters values
extracted by TRDLA based method and LSQM, the individual abso-
lute error (IAE) between the experimental current Iexp and calcu-
lated current (Ical(V, P)), taking account of the P set of five PV
parameters, is represented in Fig. 3 as function of voltage. This
error is given by:
 
IAE ¼ Iexp
Ical ðV; PÞ ð16Þ
The main results show that the IAE values, obtained for TRDLA
based method, are almost null for the entire range of data and par-
ticularly at the environs of the remarkable points compared to
those obtained for LSQM. So, these results confirm the accuracy
of the proposed Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm based method.
This accuracy can be attributed to the application of the two
suggested approximations in determining the ideality factor value.
This obtained value of n is injected in the nonlinear system of four
equations (equation (2) to (5)) in order to determine the four PV
parameters Rsh, Rs, Iph and Is. Thus, one can deduce that the two
used approximations has an implicit effect on the all five PV
parameters values and therefore it has an impact on the calculated
current (Ical). Consequently, it has an impact on the individual
absolute error IAE.
Furthermore, in order to test the fit quality to the experimental
data, statistical analysis of the results was performed. So, different
60 W statistical indexes were used to estimate the errors between the
17.1 V experimental current–voltage (Ii,Vi) characteristic and the repro-
3.5 A
duced Ical,i(Vi) curves. The main indexes are the root mean squared
3.8 A
21.1 V error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the sum of
36 squared errors (SSE). These indexes are given by the following
relations:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP
um
u I
Ical;i ðV i ; PÞ
t1 i
RMSE ¼ ð17Þ
m

1 X
panel. m  
MAE ¼ Ii
Ical;i ðV i ; PÞ ð18Þ
Iph (A) Is (A) n Rsh (O) Rs (O) m 1
TRDLA 3.8011 3.1012 10-7 1.3972 615.60 0.172
1.0182 10-8 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LSQM 3.8184 1.158 221.173 0.2901 u
ER-WCA [29] 3.8121 1.399 10-7 1.3325 914.689 0.2235 u1 X m

PSO [30] 3.7999 4.6121 10
10 1 2000 0.4821 SSE ¼ t ðIi
Ical;i ðV i ; PÞÞ2 ð19Þ
m i¼1
GA [30] 3.7999 4.6314 10
10 1.0001 20,001 0.4843

Fig. 2. Experimental current–voltage I(V) and power-voltage P(V) characteristics of polycrystalline MSX60 silicon PV panel at STC compared to the calculated data taking
account of the five parameters obtained by TRDLA and LSQM.

7380
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382

Fig. 3. Individual absolute error (IAE) between experimental and the simulated current using the five parameters extracted by TRDLA or LSQM.

Table 3 analytically without any complex calculation or iterative process

Estimated errors using the TRDLA and LSQM and LSQM and recent methods reported or initialization. Furthermore, it makes possible to reduce the num-
in the literature ER-WCA [29], PSO and GA [30], for MSX60 polycristalline silicon solar
ber of non-linear equations to be solved in order to determine the
panel.
five parameters of the Photovoltaic module.
RMSE [A] MAE [A] SSE [A] The simulation results show a good agreement between the
TRDLA 4.5 10
3 3.5 10
3 3.7862 10
4 experimental data and the calculated curves mainly for the
LSQM 1.40 10
2 1.01 10
2 3.7 10
3 Trust-Region-Dogleg Algorithm based method compared to the
—— ——
ER-WCA [30] 0.01697330882512 Least Square method. These results are validated by the small val-
—— ——
GA [29] 0.0723
PSO [29] 0.0707 —— —— ues statistical errors obtained for TRDLA based method. Further-
more, the proposed method has a lowest individual absolute
error (IAE) as compared to LSQM. Also, its accuracy has been pro-
ven by a lower root mean square error compared to recent meth-
ods reported in the literature such as metaheuristic optimization
where:
algorithms: evaporation rate water cycle algorithm (ER-WCA), Par-
Ii is the measured current for each voltage Vi at the ith point
ticle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm
among m measured data points (Ii,Vi). Ical;i ðVi ; PÞ is the calculated
(GA).
current determined for each Vi, by solving the nonlinear equation
Thus, the presented results confirm the validity, and prove the
(1) with the optimized set of five parameters P (n,Iph, Is, Rs, Rsh).
effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed Trust-Region-Dogleg
The obtained values of the different errors for both TRDLA based
Algorithm based method in extracting the five parameters of the
method and LSQM are summarized in Table 3. The main results
photovoltaic solar module.
show that TRDLA method performs better than the LSQM. It pro-
vides the lowest values of statistical errors compared to the LSQM.
Therefore, the parameters identified by the proposed TRDLA are CRediT authorship contribution statement
more accurate than those obtained by LSQM. Also its accuracy is
proven by a lower statistical error of root mean square error com- Aissa Hali: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Valida-
pared to the recent methods reported in the literature such as tion. Yamina Khlifi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing-
evaporation rate water cycle algorithm (ER-WCA), [29] Particle Review & Editing, Formal analysis.
Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA)
[30]. Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

5. Conclusion
This work presents a new simple and effective Trust-Region-
Dogleg based method for the accurate estimation of the five elec-
trical parameters of a polycrystalline silicon module. This method
is based on the knowledge of the three remarkable points of cur-
rent–voltage characteristic. It introduces new equations formula-
tions to extract the one single diode model parameters. Mainly, it
incorporates a new equation obtained at the maximum power
point using a new approximation. This last equation can be solved
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] A. Malaoui, E.M. Barrah, J. Antari, Int. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 15 (2016) 329.
[2] W. Shockley, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 28 (1949) 435–489.
[3] M. Chegaar, Z. Ouennoughi, A. Hoffmann, Solid State Electron. 45 (2001) 293–
296.
[4] S.M. Sze, K.K. Ng, Physics of Semiconductor Devices, third ed., Wiley, New York,
2006.

7381
A. Hali and Y. Khlifi Materials Today: Proceedings 45 (2021) 7377–7382

[5] M.A. Hasan, S.K. Parida, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 75–83. [20] A. Harrag, S. Messalti, Energy Procedia 119 (2017) 767–774.
[6] K. Bouzidi, M.A.B.A. Chegaar, A. Bouhemadou, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91 [21] E. Radziemska, Energy Convers. Manag. 46 (2005) 1485–1494.
(2007) 1647–1651. [22] J.P. Charles, M. Abdelkrim, Y.H. Muoy, P. Mialhe, Solar Cells 4 (1981) 169–178.
[7] A. Kaminski, J.J. Marchand, A. Laugier, Solid State Electron. 43 (1999) 741–745. [23] K.C. Fong, K.R. McIntosh, A.W. Blakers, Prog. Photovolt. 21 (2013) 490–499.
[8] M. Wolf, G.T. Noel, R.J. Stirn, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 24 (1977) 419–428. [24] G.L. Araujo, E. Sanchez, IEEE Trans. Electron. 29 (1982) 1511–1513.
[9] M. Louzazni, A. Khouya, K. Amechnoue, M. Mussetta, R. Herbazi, International [25] T. Easwarakhanthan, J. Bottin, I. Bouhouch, C. Boutrit, Int. J. Sol. Energy 4
Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development, (1986) 1–12.
Springer, Cham, 2018, pp. 21–29. [26] M.L.A. Lourakis, A.A Argyros, Tenth International Conference on Computer
[10] A. Goetzberger, V.U. Hoffmann, Photovoltaic Solar Energy Generation, Springer Vision (ICCV’05), IEEE, 2005. pp. 1526-1531.
Science, 2005. [27] T.T Yetayew, T.R. Jyothsna, 2015 IEEE Power, Communication and Information
[11] C. Bouali, H. Schulte, A. Mami, Energies 12 (2019) 2246. Technology Conference (PCITC). IEEE, 2015.
[12] D.T. Cotfas, P.A. Cotfas, S. Kaplanis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28 (2013) 588– [28] D. Gromov, V. Pugachevich, Appl. Phys. A 59 (1994) 331–333.
596. [29] M. Ćalasan, S.H.A. Aleem, A.F. Zobaa, Energy Convers. Manag. 210 (2020)
[13] T.R. Ayodele, A.S.O. Ogunjuyigbe, E.E. Ekoh, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess 13 112716.
(2016) 51–59. [30] M. Rezki, S. Bensaid, I. Griche, H. Houassine, International Conference in
[14] M.G. Villalva, J.R. Gazoli, E. Ruppert Filho, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24 Artificial Intelligence in Renewable Energetic Systems, Springer, Cham, 2019.
(2009) 1198–1208. [31] C. Carrero, D. Ramírez, J. Rodríguez, C.A. Platero, Renew. Energy 36 (2011)
[15] S.X. Lun, T.T. Guo, C.J. Du, Sol. Energy 119 (2015) 179–194. 2972–2977.
[16] M. Louzazni, Appl. Sol. Energy 51 (2015) 165–171. [32] G. Walker, J. Electr. Eng. 21 (2001) 49–56.
[17] Y. Zhang, S. Gao, T. Gu, Sol Energy 144 (2017) 349–355. [33] W. De Soto, S.A. Klein, W.A. Beckman, Sol Energy 80 (2006) 78–88.
[18] H. Ibrahim, N. Anani, Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 69–78. [34] Y. Khlifi, IJSER 5 (2014) 448–454.
[19] M. Ye, X. Wang, Y. Xu, J. Appl. Phys. 105 (2009) 094502.

7382