Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/energy-conversion-and-management-x

An efficient analytical approach for forecasting the peak power of PV panels

working in outdoor conditions based on explicit model
Fatima Ezzahra Ait Salah a, Noureddine Maouhoub a, *, Kawtar Tifidat a, Yunyoung Nam b, *,
Mohamed Abouhawwash c, d
a
Laboratory of Materials, Signals, Systems and Physical Modeling, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco
b
Department of ICT Convergence, Soonchunhyang University, South Korea
c
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
d
Department of Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering (CMSE), College of Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

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

Keywords: In this paper, a new analytical approach based on an explicit model with one shape parameter has been proposed
PV module to forecast the peak power of the photovoltaic modules (PV) under varying operating conditions. A new
Explicit model analytical model of shape parameter has been developed according the relationship between the parameters of
Single diode model
the explicit model and those of the single diode model (SDM). Furthermore, a novel open circuit voltage model as
PV module temperature
Solar irradiance
a function of solar irradiation and PV module temperature has been proposed. Temporal variations of PV module
Real-time prediction temperature and solar irradiation during one reference day have been used to extract the explicit model pa­
I-V characteristics rameters and then to forecast the peak power for all other days. The proposed method is validated using
Maximum power point measured data of different PV module technologies operating outdoor recorded by National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL). The results have shown a good agreement between the experimental and the optimized data
of the I-V characteristics and the maximum power point for a reference day and the normalized error has not
exceed 2.9%. Moreover, the predicted values of maximum power point in two other arbitrary days have a good
agreement with experimental ones, and the normalized error has not exceeded 3.6%.

other electrical devices. The increasing adoption of photovoltaic (PV)

Introduction
Nowadays, the need for energy has become more and more impor­
tant. Energy generation comes from major polluting sources, especially
fossil fuels. Consumption of these sources causes severe problems related
to population growth and the environment, such as increased green­
house gas emissions. That is why; we are turning to natural resource
stocks to reduce the supply of contaminant energy that is dangerous for
future generations. Renewable energies contribute to safety, health, the
environment and the economy. These energies, such as wind, solar,
biomass and hydro are inexhaustible and cleaner than fossil fuels.
The photovoltaic (PV) power refers to the electrical power generated
by a photovoltaic system, which converts sunlight directly into elec­
tricity using semiconductor materials. PV power is produced when
sunlight, composed of photons, strikes the surface of the PV modules,
causing the electrons in the material to be excited and create a flow of
electric current [1]. This electrical energy can be harnessed and utilized
for various applications, including powering homes, businesses, and
technology has highlighted the need for comprehensive research on the
characterization and performance prediction of PV modules. The precise
forecasting of the electrical energy output from PV systems has emerged
as a crucial area of study, particularly due to the growing integration of
PV into the power grid. The performance of PV systems installed out­
doors is heavily influenced by weather conditions, specifically solar
irradiance and temperature. Therefore, it is essential to develop accurate
prediction methods for photovoltaic cells and modules that can analyze
how the electrical characteristics are dependent on solar irradiance and
temperature variations. These prediction methods play a vital role in
assessing the potential energy production and optimizing the operation
of PV systems under different environmental conditions.
Modelling of PV panels can be classified into two main categories:
physical models based on the equivalent electrical circuit [2], and
explicit analytical models [3]. Physical models typically rely on an
appropriate electrical equivalent circuit and employ the current–voltage
(I-V) equation with a set of parameters that represent the electrical
characteristics of PV modules. In the literature, the single-diode model

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: n.maouhoub@uiz.ac.ma (N. Maouhoub), ynam@sch.ac.kr (Y. Nam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100423
Received 11 March 2023; Received in revised form 24 June 2023; Accepted 8 July 2023
Available online 17 July 2023
2590-1745/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F.E.A. Salah et al.
Nomenclature
I Cell output Current (A)
Isc Short-circuit current (A)
Imp Maximum power current (A)
Iph Photo-generated current (A)
Is Reverse saturation current of the diode (A)
Rs Series resistance (Ω)
Rs,min Minimal Series resistance (Ω)
Rs,max Maximal Series resistance (Ω)
Rsh Parallel resistance (Ω)
n Ideality factor
nmin Minimal ideality factor
nmax Maximal ideality factor
V Cell output voltage (V)
Voc Open circuit voltage (V)
Vmp Maximum power voltage (V)
Vth Thermal voltage (V)
Pmax Output maximal power (W)
(SDM) [4,5,6,7,8] and the double-diode model [9,10,11,12] are the two
main circuit PV models used. The SDM is the most commonly utilized
due to its limited number of circuit parameters that need to be identified,
this model consists of five physical parameters that characterize the I-V
properties of PV modules: photocurrent (Iph), reverse saturation current
(I0), ideality factor (n), series resistance (Rs), and shunt resistance (Rsh).
The physical parameters in (SDM) model are significantly influenced by
different operating conditions, particularly solar irradiance and tem­
perature. The traditional method for predicting the performance of a PV
module under different operating conditions typically involves extract­
ing of these five parameters under reference conditions, relying on
manufacturer datasheets or measured data. Subsequently, the model
parameters and electrical carcteristics are calculated, taking into ac­
count the influence of environmental conditions on the parameters.
Several approaches have been proposed for extracting these parameters.
Among the methods proposed for parameter extraction, certain analyt­
ical methods employ simplified approximations and utilize key points of
the I-V curves, such as the short circuit current, open circuit voltage, and
maximum power point (MPP), to determine the parameters [13,7].
These methods provide efficient solutions but may introduce certain
assumptions that can affect their accuracy. Some of them are numerical
methods [14,15] employ minimizing the error between experimental
and simulated data. However, these numerical methods may encounter
several computational issues; including challenges with initialization,
potential convergence failures, calculation uncertainty, and an increase
in both computational cost and complexity. Evolutionary methods or
heuristic methods are based on nonlinear adjustments using various
algorithm [16,17,18,19]. These approaches involve optimizing the pa­
rameters by iteratively refining them to minimize the difference be­
tween the model predictions and the measured data. While evolutionary
methods can potentially provide accurate parameter estimation, they
come with computational complexity due to the iterative nature of the
optimization process. Due to the implicit nature of the current–voltage
(I-V) relationship in the (SDM), calculating the I-V performance in the
previous methods involves the use of Lambert-W functions or iterative
operations. This requirement introduces additional complexity and in­
creases the computing cost of the modeling process.
To address the inherent implicit nature of the electrical equivalent
circuit model, several explicit models have been developed to generate
the current–voltage (I-V) curves. These explicit models aim to provide a
more direct and straightforward representation of the relationship be­
tween current and voltage in photovoltaic (PV) panels. Pendando and
Cubas [23] have presented a novel explicit mathematical formulation to
2
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423
ki Short-circuit temperature coefficient (A.◦ C− 1)
kv Open circuit temperature coefficient (V.◦ C− 1)
Ns Number of PV cells connected in series
S Shape parameter
G Solar irradiance (W/m2)
T Module temperature (K)
kB Boltzmann’s constant (J/K)
q Electron charge (C)
Abbreviations
ref Reference conditions
STC Standard Test Conditions
AE Absolute Error
NE Normalized Error
NEmax Maximal Normalized Error
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PV Photovoltaic
MPP Maximal Power Point
depict the behavior of a photovoltaic cell or module in terms of its I-V
curve, which is typically provided in manufacturers’ datasheets. This
formulation comprises two straightforward equations: one for voltage
levels below the maximum power point, and another for voltage levels
exceeding this point. Salem and Karmalkar [24] have introduced a
model known as the Power Law Model (PLM), which relies on four pa­
rameters: short-circuit current (Isc), open-circuit voltage (Voc), and two
shape parameters. The literature highlights several recent approaches
based on this PLM model that have been introduced to forecast the
maximum power point and the current–voltage characteristics of PV
modules operating under diverse conditions. Hao Lu et al. [25] proposed
a simple output performance predicting method based on PLM model
and manufacturer datasheet information of PV modules. This method is
based on relationship between parameters in PLM and maximum power
point. Yunpeng et al [26] have proposed a method that combines the
physical SDM model with the explicit PLM model. The proposed
approach utilizes the measured I-V curve at the maximum power point,
along with temperature and solar irradiance data, as inputs to predict I-V
curves that encompass the maximum power point and fill-factor across
diverse operating conditions. Zhang et al. [27] have introduced novel
methodology utilizing the SDM and PLM models to forecast the two-
shape parameters m and γ across various temperature and solar irradi­
ation scenarios. In addition, some recent works proposed a prediction
approach by combining the PLM model and the artificial neural network
[28,29,30]. These approaches utilize solar irradiance and module tem­
perature as input variables, and the predicted output corresponds to the
shape parameters of the analytical model. However, it is worth noting
that these approaches suffer from certain limitations such as high costs,
complexity, and the necessity of a substantial dataset. To reduce the
number of shape parameters, Boutana et al. [31] introduce a novel
explicit model that integrates three parameters: short-circuit current
(Isc), open-circuit voltage (Voc), and a single shape parameter. This
model aims to simplify the modeling process while maintaining accu­
racy and efficiency. Nevertheless, in this explicit model, the investiga­
tion of the relationship between the shape parameter and temperature as
well as solar irradiation has not been conducted.
This paper introduces a novel approach for predicting the peak
power point of PV modules under various operating conditions. The
approach is based on Botana’s model [25], which requires only one
shape parameter. By considering the relationship between the series
resistance, ideality factor in the single-diode model (SDM), and the
open-circuit voltage (Voc), short-circuit current (Isc), and shape param­
eters in the explicit model, a new analytical model for the shape
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

model introduced by Botana et al [25] is employed in our research. This

model utilizes three parameters, namely the short-circuit current (Isc),
the open-circuit voltage (Voc), and the shape parameter (S). It can be
expressed as follows:
( ( )S )
V
I = Isc 1 − (3)
Voc

Analytical expression of the shape parameter

Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of the single diode model. The expression for the shape parameter S is derived through a
combination of mathematical operations involving both the SDM model
parameter under different PV module temperature and solar irradiation and the explicit model. Taking the derivative of Eqs. (1) and (3) with
conditions is proposed. Additionally, a new analytical model for Voc as a respect to voltage yields the following two expressions:
function of PV module temperature and solar irradiation is developed. ⎛ ⎞
( )
To optimize all the required coefficient models, experimental data from Is Rsh V+Rs I
1 ⎜ exp nN +1 ⎟
a reference day are utilized. The series resistance and ideality factor of dI
= − ⎜ nNs Vth
(
s Vth
) ⎟ (4)
the SDM model at reference conditions are calculated using a new dV Rsh ⎝ Is Rs V+Rs I
exp nN + RRshs + 1
⎠
nNs Vth s Vth
iterative method. The maximum power of arbitrary days can be pre­
dicted by utilizing optimized parameters obtained from a reference day, ( )S− 1
along with real-time monitoring data of PV module temperature and dI
= −
Isc S V
(5)
solar irradiation. The effectiveness and the accuracy of the proposed dV Voc Voc
method are validated for different PV module technologies under out­ At open-circuit condition: I = 0 and V = Voc, Eq. (4) and Eq. (5)
door and real conditions using the experimental data recorded by the become as:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at Florida (cocoa site).
⎛ ⎞
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: after an intro­ ⃒ Is Rsh
(
Voc
)
exp + 1
duction, section 2 introduces the SDM and the explicit models. Section 3 ⃒
dI ⃒ ⎜
1 ⎜ nNs Vth ⎟
(6)
nNs Vth
= − ( ) ⎟
derives the analytical model of the shape parameters according the dV ⃒ I = 0 Rsh ⎝ Is Rs exp Voc + Rs + 1 ⎠
V=V nNs Vth nNs Vth Rsh
relationship between the SDM model parameters and the explicit model oc

parameters. The dependence of the PV module temperature and the ⃒

solar irradiation on the various parameters is presented in section 4. dI ⃒⃒
= −
Isc S
(7)
Section 5 presents the predictive strategy used to predict the PV module dV ⃒ I = 0 Voc
V = Voc
performances at any operating conditions using the proposed approach
( )
method. Efficiency and accuracy criteria for the proposed approach are At open circuit, assuming that exp nNVsocVth ≫1 and Iph ≈ Isc , the equa­
defined in Section 6. The validation of the proposed method for three PV
tion of SDM illustrated in Eq. (1) becomes:
modules (xSi12922, mSi460A8, and HIT05667) under real and outdoor
( )
conditions installed in Florida (cocoa site) and the comparison of the Voc Voc
predicted and the experimental values of the maximum power point are Is exp ≈ Isc − (8)
nNs Vth Rsh
displayed in section 7. The conclusion is drawn in section 8.
By substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (6) and assuming that Voc
Rsh Isc
≪1, a
Single diode model and explicit model simplified expression is obtained, which is represented by Eq. (9).
⃒
dI ⃒⃒ I
Single diode model = − ( sc ) (9)
dV ⃒ I = 0 nN Rs Isc
s Vth 1 + nNs Vth
V = Voc
The behavior of the photovoltaic module is described using a single
The analytical expression for the shape parameter S can be derived
diode equivalent electrical circuit containing five physical parameters,
from Eqs. (7) and (9), resulting in the equation presented as follow:
as shown in Fig. 1. The output current of this model is expressed by the
implicit mathematical equation [7,22]: Voc
S= (10)
( ( ) ) nNs Vth + Isc Rs
V + Rs I V + Rs I
I = Iph − Is exp − 1 − (1)
nNs Vth Rsh
Impact of weather conditions irradiance on explicit model
Where, Iph is the photo-generated current, Is is the saturation current, n parameters
is the ideality factor, Rs is the series resistance, Rsh is the shunt resis­
tance, Ns is the number of cells connected in series, and Vth is the thermal In this section, the focus is on modeling the influence of PV module
voltage and given by: temperature and solar irradiation on the parameters of the explicit
model. Considering this impact, the explicit model represented by
Vth =
kB T
(2) Equation (2) can be modified in the following manner:
q ( ( )S(T,G) )
V(T, G)
Where, kB is Boltzmann’s constant equal to 1.38006⋅10− 23 J/K, q is the I(T, G) = Isc (T, G) 1 − (11)
Voc (T, G)
charge of a single electron equal to 1.60218⋅10− 19 C, and T represents
the temperature in Kelvin.
Short-circuit current
Explicit model
In order to model the influence of PV module temperature (T) and
To overcome the inherent implicitness of the SDM model, the explicit solar irradiation (G) on the short-circuit current (Isc), a preexisting

3
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

model from previous studies [32,33,6] has been utilized. However, an

adjustment parameter γ has been introduced to enhance the accuracy
and prediction of Isc. The resulting model is expressed in the following
Eq. [6]:
( )
( ( )) G γ
Isc (T, G) = Isc,ref 1 + ki T − Tref (12)
Gref

Where Isc,ref, Tref and Gref are the short-circuit current, the temperature
and the solar irradiation at reference conditions respectively. ki is the
temperature coefficient of the short-circuit current.

Open-circuit voltage

Based on previous studies, multiple models have been proposed to

describe the Voc voltage as a function of module temperature and solar
irradiation [34,35,36]. In many of these studies, it is assumed that the
Voc voltage exhibits a linear relationship with the PV module tempera­
ture. Furthermore, the relationship between Voc and solar irradiation is
captured using linear, quadratic, or logarithmic expressions, as
demonstrated in the following two models:
Model 1 [35]:
( ) ( ) ( )2
Voc (T, G) = Voc,ref + kV1 T − Tref + k1 G − Gref + k2 G − Gref (13)

Model 2 [20,21,36]:
( )
( ) nref Ns kB ( ) G
Voc (T, G) = Voc,ref + kV2 T − Tref + T − Tref ln (14)
q Gref

Voc,ref is the Voc voltage at standard test conditions (1000 W/m2 and
25 ◦ C). kv1 is the temperature coefficient of the Voc voltage. k1 and k2, are
the solar irradiation coefficients at Voc voltage. nref is the ideality factor
at reference conditions.
In the current study, a new mathematical model is suggested to
describe the open-circuit voltage by combination of linear and loga­
rithmic variation. The proposed model is presented as follows:
( )
( ) ( ) G
Voc (T, G) = Voc,ref + kV T − Tref + α G − Gref + βln (15)
Gref

kV is the temperature coefficient of the open-circuit voltage. α and β are

the solar irradiation coefficients at open-circuit voltage.

Shape parameter

To describe the relationship between the PV module temperature,

solar irradiance, and the shape parameter S, Eq. (10) is employed as
follows:
Voc (T, G)
S(T, G) = (16)
n(T, G)Ns Vth (T) + Isc (T, G)Rs (T, G)
Fig. 2. Flow chart to extract physical parameters n and Rs for a reference day.
The dependence of the physical parameters with respect to solar
irradiance and module temperature has been reported in the literature
[37,38]. In this research, the assumption is made that the series resis­ Voc,ref nref Ns Vth,ref
Rs,ref = − (19)
tance Rs and the ideality factor n remain independent of temperature Sref Isc,ref Isc,ref
and irradiation. This assumption is supported by the following
Sref is the shape parameter at reference conditions that can be
equations:
determined by using expressing the equation (3) at maximum point MPP
Rs (T, G) = Rs,ref (17) (Imp,Vmp) as follows:
( ( )S )
n(T, G) = nref (18) Imp,ref = Isc,ref 1 −
Vmp,ref ref
(20)
Voc,ref
Rs,ref and nref are the series resistance and the ideality factor
respectively at reference conditions. To extract these two under refer­ Under reference condition, the shape parameter S is extracted from
ence conditions we rewrite the equation (10) at reference conditions as Eq. (20) as follows:
follows:

4
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

Table 3
Special data of three PV modules under STC conditions.
xSi12922 mSi460A8 HIT05667

Isc (A) 4.9837 4.93793 5.3747

Voc (V) 21.941 21.3579 50.7105
Imp (A) 4.1698 4.5136 4.1207
Vmp (V) 15.6687 15.5352 38.5527
Sref 9.9099 11.1761 14.6575
Ns 36 36 72

0.01. This enables the calculation of the maximum normalized error of

maximum power (NEmax(Pmax)). Finally, Rs,ref and nref are selected based
on the minimization of NEmax(Pmax) values, following the flowchart
provided in Fig. 2.

Prediction strategy

To forecast the maximum power output of PV panels under arbitrary

Fig. 3. Flowchart to predict peak power under arbitrary conditions.
conditions, the explicit model is employed using the extracted param­
eters from a reference day. The temporal changes in temperature and
solar irradiance are then utilized to determine the values of open- circuit
voltage Voc voltage, short-circuit current Isc, and shape parameter S
using Eqs. (12), (15), and (16) respectively, under various operating
conditions. Subsequently, the electric current is calculated using Eq.
(11) and then the peak power point is determined. The flowchart pre­
sented in Fig. 3 outlines the prediction strategy. The proposed method
benefits from the simplicity and explicit expression of the explicit model,
allowing it to predict output power without relying on numerical pro­
cesses. This feature significantly reduces computational complexity and
associated costs. Moreover, by combining Eqs. (6) and (7) without any
approximations, we can derive an alternative enhanced model of the
shape parameters given in Eq. (16) with five parameters that require
estimation. This model can be utilized to further enhance the accuracy of
our prediction approach.

(
I
) Performance calculation
ln 1 − Imp,ref
(21)
sc,ref
Sref = ( )
V
ln Vmp,ref To analyze the accuracy of the proposed approach, the following
static indicators AE (Absolute Error), NE (Normalized Error) and RMSE
oc,ref

Where Vm,ref, Im,ref and Isc,ref are the voltage and the current of MPP and (Root Mean Square Error) are used [39,40,41]:
the short- circuit current for the reference condition. (
∑N
)
To extract the Rs,ref and n values under reference conditions, an AE = abs (yi − yi,exp ) (24)
iterative approach is employed. The objective is to minimize the i=1

normalized error of the maximum power for a reference day. This is ( ∑N ( ))

achieved by adjusting the ideality factor within the range of nmin = 1 to NE =
abs i=1 yi − yi,exp
( ) (25)
nmax = 2 [28], as well as varying the series resistance between Rs,ref,min max yi,exp
and Rs,ref,max. These two values are determined using Eq. (19) and √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
expressed as follows: √
√1 ∑ N
( )2
RMSE = √ yi − yi,exp (26)
Voc,ref 2Ns Vth,ref N i=1
Rs,ref ,min = − (22)
Sref Isc,ref Isc,ref
Where y and yexp are respectively calculated and measured values of
Rs,ref ,max =
Voc,ref
−
Ns Vth,ref
(23) open-circuit voltage, current or max power. N is a number of measured
Sref Isc,ref Isc,ref values.
The Rs,ref,min and Rsref,max values are calculated using the key points
at standard test conditions. Results and discussion
In the process of extracting the values of nref and Rsref, the experi­
mental current–voltage data from a reference day, spanning from To validate the proposed approach under real conditions, experi­
dawning to evening, is utilized. For each temperature and solar irradi­ mental data from three solar panels tested at the cocoa site in Florida,
ation value, the parameters Voc, Isc, and S are calculated using Eqs. (12), conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), was
(15), and (16) respectively. Theoretical I-V and P-V curves are generated utilized [42]. These panels have different silicon technologies, the first is
using Eq. (11), allowing for the extraction of maximum power values mono-crystalline (xSi12922), the second is multi-crystalline
and the normalized error of maximum power (NE(Pmax)). Subsequently, (mSi460A8), and the last is amorphous silicon/crystalline silicon
Rsref and nref are iteratively varied from Rs,ref,min to Rsref,max and from hetero-junction with intrinsic thin-layer (HIT05667). Table 3 summa­
nref,min to nref,max, respectively, with step sizes of ΔRs = 0.001 and Δn = rizes the different parameters of the three modules at standard test

5
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

Table 4 conditions STC (1000 W/m2, 25◦ C). The values of Sref are calculated
Optimized coefficients of Isc model and RMSE during June 21, 2011. using equation (21).
Optimized coefficient and RMSE xSi12922 mSi460A8 HIT05667

ki (γ ∕
= 1) 0.0007284 0.0007624 0.0005505
Results under outdoor and real conditions during reference day
γ 1.048 1.048 1.051
ki (γ = 1) 0.0002194 0.0002425 2.844e-005
RMSE (γ ∕ = 1) 0.02281 0.02582 0.02971 Extracted analytical model parameters
RMSE (γ = 1) 0.05173 0.05297 0.0613 To describe the variation of Isc current, Voc voltage and the shape
parameter S as a function of PV module temperature and solar irradia­
tion during the reference day, the three analytical expressions illustrated
Table 5 in Eqs. (13), (14) and (16) respectively presented in section 4 are used.
Optimized coefficients corresponding to new model of Voc during June 21, 2011. The coefficients of the Isc and Voc models are optimized by numerical
Optimized coefficient xSi12922 mSi460A8 HIT05667 adjustment of experimental values registered on clearly day June 21,
2011 of PV modules operating at Cocoa (Florida). Table 4 presents the
kv − 0.07337 − 0.06305 − 0.1229
α − 7.039e-05 − 0.0004758 − 0.0002637
optimized coefficients and the corresponding RMSE values for the Isc
β 1.054 1.323 2.141 model considering the influence of the coefficient γ across the three PV
modules during the reference day. It is observed that the models with γ
= 1 exhibit lower RMSE values compared to the model with γ = 1,
∕
indicating improved accuracy.
Table 5 provides the optimized coefficients associated with the new
Voc voltage model for the three PV modules during the reference day.
Fig. 4 depicts the experimental Voc voltage values for the three PV
modules throughout the reference day on June 21, 2011, spanning from

Fig. 4. Experimental and optimized values of Voc voltage and the AE error for three PV modules operating outside during 21 June, 2011 at Florida (cocoa).

6
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

Table 6 dawning to evening. Theoretical values obtained using our proposed

RMSE values of the Voc models. model, as well as model 1 and model 2 presented in section 4, are also
xSi12922 mSi460A8 HIT05667 plotted. Additionally, the absolute error is also shown. It is evident that
the proposed model exhibits a good agreement with the experimental
Proposed model 0.0346 0.0440 0.0760
Model 1 0.1615 0.2110 0.3255 data. To assess the accuracy of the new model, Table 6 presents the
Model 2 0.4840 0.2479 0.6124 RMSE values for the three models. Notably, the new model demonstrates
the smallest RMSE value across all three PV modules.
Table 7 displays the extracted values of series resistance (Rs) and the
Table 7 ideality factor (n) for the xSi12922, mSi460A8, and HIT05667 PV
Extraction results of the two physical parameters under STC conditions. modules during the reference day. These two parameters are extracted
according to the iterative method presented in sub-section 4.3.
PV module Boundary of Extracted Boundary of series Extracted
factor ideality n n resistance Rs (Ω) Rs(Ω) Furthermore, the calculating time of the proposed iterative method for
xSi12922, mSi460A8, and HIT05667 PV modules is fast, within 0.1202
xSi12922 1 2 1.5 0.0733 0.2589 0.1233
mSi460A8 1 2 1.18 0.0125 0.1998 0.1925
s, 0.2288 s, and 0.4245 s, respectively.
HIT05667 1 2 1.31 0 0.2997 0.2656

5 Ex perimental data 5 Ex perimental data

G=907.7 W/m 2;T=49.9 °C Predicted data
G=907.7 W/m 2;T=49.9 °C Predicted data
4.5 x Si12922 4.5
mSi460A8

4 4
G=722.7 W/m 2;T=51 °C G=722.7 W/m 2;T=51 °C
3.5 G=666.1 W/m 2;T=46.2 °C 3.5 G=666.1 W/m 2;T=46.2 °C

3 3
2
G=666.2 W/m ;T=43.5 °C G=666.2 W/m 2;T=43.5 °C
I(A)

2.5
I(A)

2.5
G=406.8 W/m 2;T=40.1 °C G=406.8 W/m 2;T=40.1 °C
2 2

1.5 1.5 G=275.4 W/m 2;T=32.8 °C

2
G=209,6 W/m ;T=30 °C
1 1

0.5 0.5
G=21.8 W/m 2;T=29.5 °C G=21.8 W/m 2;T=30.1 °C

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
V(V) V(V)
Ex perimental data

5 G=907.7 W/m 2;T=49.9 °C Predicted data

HIT05667
4.5
G=722.7 W/m 2;T=51 °C
4
G=666.1 W/m 2;T=46.2 °C
3.5

3
G=666.2 W/m 2;T=43.5 °C
I(A)

2.5
G=406.8 W/m 2;T=40.1 °C
2
G=276.4 W/m 2;T=32.6 °C
1.5

0.5
G=21.8 W/m 2;T=29.5 °C

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
V(V)

Fig. 5. Experimental and optimized I-V characteristics at different temperature and solar irradiation for three PV modules operating outside during 21 June, 2011 at
Florida (cocoa).

7
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

70 1.6
xSi12922 xSi12922
1.4
60
1.2
50
Max Po wer (W)

1
40

NE(%)
0.8
30
0.6

20
0.4

10 Experimental data
0.2
Predicted data
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 04 07 09 12 14 16 19
Real time (H)
Real time (H)
70 3
mSi460A8 mSi460A8

60 2.5

50
2
Max Po wer (W)

40

NE(%)
1.5
30
1
20

0.5
10 Experimental data
Predicted data
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 04 07 09 12 14 16 19
Real time (H) Real time (H)
180 2.5
HIT05667 HIT05667
160
2
140

120
Max Po wer (W)

1.5
100
NE(%)

80
1
60

40
0.5
Experimental data
20
Predicted data
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 04 07 09 12 14 16 19
Real time (H) Real time (H)

Fig. 6. Optimized and measured maximal power point and the NE error for three PV modules working outside during 21 June, 2011 at Florida (cocoa).

Optimized and measured current–voltage curves and temporal maximum
power variation
This sub-section is devoted to the validation of the proposed method
using the real experimental data recorded by NREL laboratory during
the reference day 21 June 2011 (cocoa) from dawning to evening for the
three PV modules.
Therefore, the measured current–voltage characteristics and the
temporal variation of maximum power point are compared to optimized
ones determined according the flowchart given in Fig. 3. Fig. 5 shows
the I-V characteristics measured and optimized at different PV module
temperature and solar irradiation for the reference day. According to
this figure, the theoretical curves, extracted using the proposed
approach have a good agreement with experimental ones.
Fig. 6 illustrates the comparison between the calculated and
measured peak power points, along with the corresponding normalized
error, for the three PV modules during the same reference day. It is
observed that the experimental and estimated values exhibit excellent
agreement in real-time for all PV modules. Furthermore, the normalized
error values remain below 1.6% for xSi12922, 2% for mSi460A8, and
2.9% for HIT05667 throughout June 21, 2011. In addition, the proposed
method effectively reduces computational loss and enhances accuracy.
The calculating time of the estimated values for xSi12922, mSi460A8,
and HIT05667 PV modules is remarkably fast, within 0.0093 s, 0.0099 s,
and 0.0123 s, respectively.
Prediction of maximal power variation under other arbitrary days
The predictive strategy outlined in Fig. 3 was employed to forecast

8
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

90 2.5
xSi12922 xSi12922
80
2
70

No r m alized Er r o r s (%)
60
Peak p o wer (W)

1.5
50

40
1
30

20 0.5
Experimental data
10
Predicted data
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Real time (H) Real time (H)
90 3
mSi460A8 mSi460A8
80
2.5
70

No r m alized Er r o r s (%)
60 2
Peak p o wer (W)

50
1.5
40

30 1

20
0.5
10 Experimental data
Predicted Pmp
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Real time (H) Real time (H)
250 3.5
HIT05667 HIT05667

3
200
2.5
No r m alized Er r o r s (%)
Peak p o wer (W)

150
2

1.5
100

50
Experimental data 0.5
Predicted Pmp
0 0
04 07 09 12 14 16 19 06 08 10 12 14 16 18
Real time (H) Real time (H)

Fig. 7. Predicted (blue lines) and measured (red circle) maximal power as well as the NE error during March 16, 2011 for three PV modules operating outside at
Florida (cocoa). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the maximum power output on any given day. This was accomplished by
utilizing the parameters extracted during the reference day, in combi­
nation with the real-time monitoring of PV module temperature and
plane of array irradiation.
Figs. 7 and 8 present the measured and forecasted peak power point
values on March 16 and November 9, 2011, for the three PV module
technologies. It is observed that the predicted peak power values
demonstrate excellent agreement with the experimental data
throughout the two-day period for all three solar panels. The normalized
error (NRMSE) of the maximum power point calculated for the two days
does not exceed 3.6% for the three PV modules. Indeed, on March 16,
2011 (On November 9, 2011), the normalized error does not exceed
2.2% (3%) for xSi12922, 2.5% (3.6%) for mSi460A8, and 3.5% (3.5%)
for HIT05667. The difference in error levels is due to the manufacturing
technology of the PV modules and the climate change. Moreover, the
calculating time of the predicted values on March 16 (November 9,
2011) for xSi12922, mSi460A8, and HIT05667 PV modules is within
0.0058 s (0.005 s), 0.0054 s (0.0068 s), and 0.0067 s (0.0078 s),
respectively.
Conclusion
In this article, a novel approach based on the explicit model has been
suggested to forecast the peak power point of PV panels working out­
door under different conditions. A novel model of the shape parameter
under various operating conditions of temperature and solar irradiation

9
F.E.A. Salah et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423

Fig. 8. Predicted (blue lines) and measured (red circle) maximal power as well as a normalized error for peak powers during March 16, 2011 for three PV modules
operating outside at Florida (cocoa). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

has been presented trough combination the (SDM) and the explicit been compared. It has been noted that the predicted values are close to
models. A novel analytical expression of the open-circuit voltage has experimental curves and the NRMSE values are lower than 3.6 % for the
been proposed and compared to two other models. Experimental data of three PV panels.
three PV modules recorded by NREL laboratory at Florida (Cocoa) has
been used to validate the proposed approach. The different parameters Institutional review board statement
of the proposed models have been optimized using the experimental
data of one reference day (21 June 2011). Optimized and experimental The study did not involve humans or animals.
values of I-V curves and maximum power point on a reference day have
been compared. It has been demonstrated that the calculated values are Informed consent statement
close to measured characteristics and the NRMSE values of the
maximum power point have not exceed 3.6 % for the three PV modules. The study did not involve humans.
Furthermore, forecasted and measured values of peak power point for
two arbitrary days (16 March 2011 and 9 November 2011) have also

10
F.E.A. Salah et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fatima Ezzahra Ait Salah: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing – original draft.
Noureddine Maouhoub: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Validation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Kawtar Tifidat: Investigation, Visualiza­
tion. Yunyoung Nam: Validation, Visualization, Funding acquisition.
Mohamed Abouhawwash: Validation, Visualization, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments.
This work was supported by the Korea Technology and Information
Promotion Agency(TIPA) for SMEs grant funded by the Korea govern­
ment(Ministry of SMEs and Startups) (No.S3271954) and the National
Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea gov­
ernment(MSIT) (No. 2022H1D8A3038040), and the Soonchunhyang
University Research Fund.
We would like to acknowledge NREL and in particular Mr. Bill
Marion for sending the experimental data by email.
References
[1] Crabtree GW, Lewis NS. Solar energy conversion. Phys Today 2007;60(3):37–42.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2718755.
[2] Smets AHM, Jäger K, Isabella O, van Swaaij RA, Zeman M. Solar cell parameters
and equivalent circuit [Online].Available: Sol energy Phys Eng Photovolt
conversion, Technol Syst 2016:113–21. https://ocw.tudelft.nl/wp-content/uploads
/solar_energy_section_9_1_9_3.pdf.
[3] Álvarez JM, Alfonso-Corcuera D, Roibás-Millán E, Cubas J, Cubero-Estalrrich J,
Gonzalez-Estrada A, et al. Analytical modeling of current-voltage photovoltaic
performance: an easy approach to solar panel behavior. Appl Sci 2021;11(9):4250.
[4] Senthilkumar S, Mohan V, Mangaiyarkarasi SP, Karthikeyan M. Analysis of single-
diode PV model and optimized MPPT model for different environmental
conditions. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 2022;2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/
2022/4980843.
[5] Chaibi Y, Allouhi A, Salhi M. A simple iterative method to determine the electrical
parameters of photovoltaic cell. J Clean Prod 2020;269:122363. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122363.
[6] Cubas J, Pindado S, Victoria M. On the analytical approach for modeling
photovoltaic systems behavior. J Power Sources 2014;247:467–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.09.008.
[7] H. Ibrahim and N. Anani, “Evaluation of Analytical Methods for Parameter
Extraction of PV modules,” Energy Procedia, vol. 134, no. November 2017, pp.
69–78, 2017, 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.601.
[8] Batzelis EI, Papathanassiou SA. A method for the analytical extraction of the single-
diode PV model parameters. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2016;7(2):504–12. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2015.2503435.
[9] A. Abbassi, R. Ben Mehrez, B. Touaiti, L. Abualigah, and E. Touti,
“Parameterization of photovoltaic solar cell double-diode model based on
improved arithmetic optimization algorithm,” Optik (Stuttg)., vol. 253, no.
September 2021, p. 168600, 2022, 10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.168600.
[10] K. Tifidat, N. Maouhoub, A. Benahmida, and F. Ezzahra Ait Salah, “An accurate
approach for modeling I-V characteristics of photovoltaic generators based on the
two-diode model,” Energy Convers. Manag. X, vol. 14, no. December 2021, p.
100205, 2022, 10.1016/j.ecmx.2022.100205.
[11] Abbassi A, Ben Mehrez R, Touaiti B, Abualigah L, Touti E. Parameterization of
photovoltaic solar cell double-diode model based on improved arithmetic
optimization algorithm. Optik (Stuttg) 2022;253(January). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijleo.2022.168600.
[12] Prakash SB, Singh G, Singh S. Modeling and performance analysis of simplified
two-diode model of photovoltaic cells. Front Phys 2021;9(October):1–9. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2021.690588.
11
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423
[13] Franco RAP, Vieira FHT. Analytical method for extraction of the single-diode
model parameters for photovoltaic panels from datasheet data. Electron Lett 2018;
54(8):519–21.
[14] Zaimi M, El Achouby H, Zegoudi O, Ibral A, Assaid EM. Numerical method and new
analytical models for determining temporal changes of model-parameters to
predict maximum power and efficiency of PV module operating outdoor under
arbitrary conditions. Energy Convers Manag 2020;220:113071. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113071.
[15] K. Tifidat, N. Maouhoub, and A. Benahmida, “A New Reduced Form for Real-Time
Identification of PV Panels Operating Under Arbitrary Conditions,” Int. J. Energy
Optim. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2022, 10.4018/ijeoe.309415.
[16] Fathi M, Parian JA. Intelligent MPPT for photovoltaic panels using a novel fuzzy
logic and artificial neural networks based on evolutionary algorithms. Energy Rep
2021;7:1338–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.02.051.
[17] Zagrouba M, Sellami A, Bouaïcha M, Ksouri M. Identification of PV solar cells and
modules parameters using the genetic algorithms: application to maximum power
extraction. Sol Energy 2010;84(5):860–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2010.02.012.
[18] Khatib T, Ghareeb A, Tamimi M, Jaber M, Jaradat S. A new offline method for
extracting I-V characteristic curve for photovoltaic modules using artificial neural
networks. Sol Energy 2018;173(June):462–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.07.092.
[19] Li S, Gong W, Gu Q. A comprehensive survey on meta-heuristic algorithms for
parameter extraction of photovoltaic models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;141
(March). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110828.
[20] Anani N, Ibrahim H. Adjusting the single-diode model parameters of a photovoltaic
module with irradiance and temperature. Energies 2020;13(12):1–17. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en13123226.
[21] Nassar-Eddine I, Obbadi A, Errami Y, El Fajri A, Agunaou M. Parameter estimation
of photovoltaic modules using iterative method and the Lambert W function: A
comparative study. Energy Convers Manag 2016;119:37–48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2016.04.030.
[22] Maouhoub N. Photovoltaic module parameter estimation using an analytical
approach and least squares method. J Comput Electron 2018;17(2):784–90.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10825-017-1121-5.
[23] Pindado S, Cubas J. Simple mathematical approach to solar cell/panel behavior
based on datasheet information. Renew Energy 2017;103:729e738. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.007.
[24] Saleem H, Karmalkar S. An analytical method to extract the physical parameters of
a solar cell from four points on the illuminated. Electron Device Lett IEEE 2009;30
(4):349–52.
[25] Lu H, Zhang Y, Hao P, Ma J, Zhong H, Gu T, et al. Output performance prediction
of PV modules based on power-law model from manufacturer datasheet. J. Renew.
Sustain Energy 2022;14(3):033501. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0088190.
[26] Zhang Y, Gao S, Tingkun Gu. Prediction of I-V characteristics for a PV panel by
combining single diode model and explicit analytical model. Sol Energy 2017;144:
349–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.043.
[27] Zhang C, Zhang Y, Su J, Gu T, Yang M. Modeling and prediction of PV module
performance under different operating conditions based on power-law I-V Model.
IEEE J Photovoltaics 2020;10(6):1816–27.
[28] C. Zhang, Y. Zhang, J. Su, T. Gu, and M. Yang, “Performance prediction of PV
modules based on artificial neural network and explicit analytical model,” J.
Renew. Sustain. Energy, vol. 12, no. 1, 2020, 10.1063/1.5131432.
[29] Siyi Wang, Yunpeng Zhang, Peng Hao, et al.“ An improved method for PV output
prediction using artificial neural network with overlap training range” J.
Renewable Sustainable Energy 13, 063502 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/
5.0061408.
[30] Zhanga Y, Wang S. Improved ANN method based on explicit model for
characterization and power prediction of photovoltaic module. IEEJ Trans Elec
Electron Eng 2023;18:341–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/tee.23748.
[31] Boutana N, Mellit A, Haddad S, Rabhi A, Pavan AM. An explicit I-V model for
photovoltaic module technologies. Energy Convers Manag 2017;138:400–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.016.
[32] Babescu M, Sorandaru C, Musuroi S, Svoboda M, Olarescu NV. “An approach on
mathematical modeling of photovoltaic solar panels. SACI 2013–8th IEEE Int Symp
Appl Comput Intell Informatics, Proc 2013;6(8):239–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/
SACI.2013.6608975.
[33] Lo Brano V, Orioli A, Ciulla G, Di Gangi A. An improved five-parameter model for
photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2010;94(8):1358–70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.04.003.
[34] Tifidat K, Maouhoub N, Benahmida A. An efficient numerical method and new
analytical model for the prediction of the five parameters of photovoltaic
generators under non-STC conditions. E3S Web Conf 2021;297:01034. https://doi.
org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129701034.
[35] El Achouby H, Zaimi M, Ibral A, Assaid EM. New analytical approach for modelling
effects of temperature and irradiance on physical parameters of photovoltaic solar
module. Energy Convers Manage Dec. 2018;177:258–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2018.09.054.
[36] A. Benahmida, N. Maouhoub, and H. Sahsah, “Numerical approach for extraction
of photovoltaic generator single-diode model parameters,” Comput. Sci. Inf.
Technol., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 58–66, 2021, 10.11591/csit.v2i2.p58-66.
[37] De Soto W, Klein SA, Beckman WA. Improvement and validation of a model for
photovoltaic array performance. Sol Energy 2006;80(1):78–88. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2005.06.010.
F.E.A. Salah et al.
[38] Humada AM, Darweesh SY, Mohammed KG, Kamil M, Mohammed SF, Kasim NK,
et al. Modeling of PV system and parameter extraction based on experimental data:
Review and investigation. Sol Energy 2020;199:742–60.
[39] Ishaque K, Salam Z. An improved modeling method to determine the model
parameters of photovoltaic (PV) modules using differential evolution (DE). Sol
Energy 2011;85(9):2349–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.025.
[40] Ćalasan M, Abdel Aleem SHE, Zobaa AF. On the root mean square error (RMSE)
calculation for parameter estimation of photovoltaic models: A novel exact
12
Energy Conversion and Management: X 20 (2023) 100423
analytical solution based on Lambert W function. Energy Convers Manag 2020;
210:112716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112716.
[41] Tossa AK, Soro YM, Azoumah Y, Yamegueu D. A new approach to estimate the
performance and energy productivity of photovoltaic modules in real operating
conditions. Sol Energy 2014;110:543–60.
[42] Marion W, Anderberg A, Deline C, et al. User’s manual for data for validating
models for PV module performance [Online]. Available: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory 2014:41. http://www.osti.gov/scitech.