Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Solar irradiance and temperature influence on the photovoltaic cell T

equivalent-circuit models
Y. Chaibia, , A. Allouhib, M. Malvonic, M. Salhia, R. Saadanid
⁎

a
2EMI Team, ENSAM, Moulay Ismail University, B.P 15290 El Mansour, Meknes 50500, Morocco
b
Ecole Supérieure de Technologie de Fès, U.S.M.B.A, Route d’Imouzzer, BP 2427, Fez, Morocco
c
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece
d
FS – EST Meknès, Université Moulay Ismail, Avenue Zitoune, BP 11201, Meknès, Morocco

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Various works investigated different photovoltaic (PV) cell equivalent-circuit models and several techniques
Modelling of photovoltaic module were proposed to extract their unknown parameters. The present paper analyzes the current/voltage (I-V)
PV cell equivalent-circuit model characteristics for Si-crystalline PV modules under non-standard conditions of irradiance and temperature, by
Single-diode using single-diode and double-diode models. The Chaibi and Ishaque methods are employed to determine the
Double-diode
parameters for each equivalent-circuit model. Then, the I-V curves provided by the manufacturers and the
Parameters extraction
calculated I-V characteristics are compared at different levels of irradiance and temperature. The comparison
suggests prioritizing one of the two equivalent-circuit models according to the prevailing meteorological inputs.
As such, a hybrid approach is proposed in order to select the most appropriate model depending on the relevant
climatic conditions. The presented approach accuracy is evaluated using real weather data of two PV plants
located in two different climatic zones (Mediterranean and Semi-Continental). Results show that the double-
diode model is more reliable for low-irradiance levels; however, the single-diode model performs well with low-
temperature fluctuations. An error reduction of 53.93% and 21.04% can be reached for the cloudy weather and
for the sunny days, respectively. Accordingly, this approach can be easily implemented as a computing tool to
achieve more accurate prediction in the PV systems simulations.

1. Introduction
Grid-connected and standalone systems represent the two principal
categories of solar PV applications (Allouhi et al., 2016; Malvoni et al.,
2017, 2016). It is well established that the economic viability and social
acceptance of both applications rely strongly on the overall perfor-
mance of energy conversion of PV modules (Allouhi et al., 2019). In
fact, the presently commercialized PV technologies have low effi-
ciencies and their performances are affected due to the nonlinearity of
the PV cell and the external parameters variation (Abbassi et al., 2018).
For these reasons, accurate modeling of PV modules constitutes an
important topic that attracts a lot of researchers. This modeling task is
divided into two parts; first, the choice of equivalent-circuit model, then
the parameters extraction of the chosen model (Chaibi and Salhi, 2019).
The PV cell equivalent-circuit model is an electrical scheme which
allows analyzing the electrical performance of the PV module. This
model gives the corresponding current–voltage (I-V) and power-voltage
(P-V) characteristics for different external changes such as irradiance
and temperature (Chaibi et al., 2018). The history of the PV cell
equivalent-circuit models knows continuous progress. The first in-
troduced formulation is the ideal single-diode model which is composed
of a diode in parallel with a current source (Ebrahimi et al., 2019).
However, the use of this model does not reflect the real behavior of the
PV cell (Siddiqui and Abido, 2013; Suthar et al., 2013; Villalva et al.,
2009). Thereby, for a more realistic PV cell design, the assessment of
losses should be taken into account by adding a block of resistances to
the ideal model (Ishaque and Salam, 2011). To design contacts between
the silicon and electrodes surface, a resistance is added in series
(Jordehi, 2016); this model is named as the simplified single-diode
model (SSDM) and the number of the unknown parameters is increased
to four by adding the series resistance Rs (Chtita et al., 2019). The
mathematical solution requires four equations to find the unknown
parameters. The derivative of power with respect to voltage
( P / V = 0) (Ding et al., 2012; Ulapane et al., 2011; Xiao et al., 2004)
and the relative expressions of the temperature coefficients Ki and/or
Kv (Chenni et al., 2007; Kou et al., 1998) are commonly used as the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: y.chaibi@edu.umi.ac.ma (Y. Chaibi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.07.005
Received 11 January 2019; Received in revised form 24 May 2019; Accepted 1 July 2019
Available online 09 July 2019
0038-092X/ © 2019 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Chaibi, et al.
fourth equation. The SSDM has been used widely to study the perfor-
mance of the PV cell (Chenni et al., 2007; Ding et al., 2012; Ismail et al.,
2013; Ulapane et al., 2011; Walker, 2001), showing modest results,
which implied its improvement by adding another parameter noted as
the shunt resistance. Consequently, the number of parameters increases
to five and the extraction process becomes complicated. This model is
named as the detailed single-diode model (SDM) and is considered as
the most used due to its better compromise between efficiency and
simplicity (Gao et al., 2018a). Additionally, this model represents the
main structure of the most PV systems modelling software such as
PVsyst, SAM and HOMER (Blair et al., 2014; Suite and Co, 2016; Uni-
versidade De Genebra, 2012).
In the literature, another version of the SDM was introduced, termed
as the double-diode model (DDM) that presents the same structure as
the SDM but in which a second diode is added to the circuit model of
the PV cell. Thanks to its high performance, this model has been
adopted lately by several authors (Alam et al., 2015; Attivissimo et al.,
2013; Et-torabi et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018b; Ishaque et al., 2011). The
DDM assumes seven unknown parameters {IL, Ios1, Ios2, Rs ,Rsh , 1, 2 },
leading to more complicated extraction process since it needs a set of
seven equations to be solved. To overcome the complexity of para-
meters’ determination process, various techniques can be employed.
Analytical and metaheuristics methods are the most common ap-
proaches to solve the “PV cell model parameter estimation problem”
(Haouari-Merbah et al., 2005; Stutenbaeumer and Mesfin, 1999). The
curve fitting method of I-V curves is the earliest analytical method used
to extract the parameters (Chan et al., 1986; Stutenbaeumer and
Mesfin, 1999). Hadj et al. and De blas et al. used the initial equations
given by the manufacturer and confirmed that the initial values of Rs0
and Rsh0 are respectively the slope of the open-circuit point Voc / I and
the slope of the short circuit point ISC / V (De Blas et al., 2002; Hadj
Arab et al., 2004). This approach resulted in a set of five equations
whose accuracy depends totally on the choice of the initial conditions.
Researchers used different approximations to simplify the calculation.
Chaibi et al. employed experimental measurements to reduce the
number of parameters (Chaibi et al., 2018). The parameters are ex-
tracted by using a measurement under a special condition with initial
equations from the manufacturer datasheet. Applying this method to
silicon PV cell technologies indicates higher performance for mono-
crystalline and low relative errors for polycrystalline (Chaibi et al.,
2018). On the other hand, Villalva et al. estimated an arbitrary value of
the ideality factor and used an iterative method of the series and the
shunt resistances until the datasheet peak power (Pmax , e ) coincides with
the mathematical peak power(Pmax , m) . At this condition (Pmax , m =Pmax , e ) ,
the corresponding resistances are displayed and the other parameters
are calculated using explicit equations (Villalva et al., 2009). In the case
of seven parameters determination, Ishaque et al. assumed that the sa-
turation currents were equal and gave an arbitrary value to both ide-
ality factors, hence the number of unknown parameters has been re-
duced. It was reported that this technique presents a good performance
at low irradiance changes (Ishaque et al., 2011).
PV cell model parameter estimation can be seen as an optimization
problem that can be solved using metaheuristic algorithms (Saha et al.,
2018). These algorithms include genetic algorithm (GA) (Jervase et al.,
2001), particle swarm optimization (PSO) (Mughal et al., 2017), arti-
ficial bee colony (ABC) (Oliva et al., 2014; Chaibi et al., 2019), and
shuffled complex evolution (SCE) etc (Gao et al., 2018b). The literature
review shows that different PV cell equivalent-circuit configurations
can be adopted to analyze the electrical performance in accordance
with the model complexity. The various ways to figure out the unknown
parameters, whatever the model is chosen, differ from a technique to
another; whether it is an iterative, analytical, graphical, numerical
method or metaheuristic approaches, implying the complexity of the
parameters determination.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the performance of the
most popular PV cell equivalent-circuit models, using two accurate
1103
Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110
methods from the literature to extract the parameters. Thus, SDM and
DDM are adopted and the methods proposed by Chaibi et al. (2018) and
by Ishaque et al. (2011) are employed to determine the SDM and DDM
parameters, respectively. The investigation aim is to analyze PV cell
equivalent-circuit models for different Si-crystalline technologies under
non-standard conditions, namely under variations of irradiation and
temperature. Through this analysis, it is possible to prioritize the use of
one model instead of the others according to the actual prevailing
meteorological inputs; an approach that could enhance significantly the
accuracy. Therefore, the novelty of this work is to assess the effec-
tiveness of a hybrid approach, obtained by switching from the two
equivalent-circuit configurations (the single and the double diode
model) according to different levels of solar irradiance and tempera-
ture, in order to ensure high accuracy in the photovoltaic cell model-
ling. In addition, experimental validation of the proposed hybrid ap-
proach is carried out using real PV power generations of two PV plants
located in different climate zones (Semi-Continental and Mediterranean
climate zone). The reason is to investigate the performances of the
outlined models under various climatic fluctuations for more re-
presentative results.
The current paper is organized as follows: First, in Section 2, the
description of different PV cell equivalent-circuit models is given. The
PV cell parameters extraction methods are demonstrated in Section 3.
The performance indices, together with climate conditions of the PV
sites under examination are presented in Section 4. Results and dis-
cussions are presented in Section 5. Finally, the main conclusions are
drawn based on the current analysis in Section 6.
2. PV cell models
In order to evaluate the electrical performance of the PV cell, di-
verse equivalent-circuit models are simulated with the main objective is
to plot the corresponding I-V and P-V characteristics for different values
of irradiance and temperature. The output current of the simplified
single-diode model is expressed by the following equation
(Rauschenbach, 1980):
I = IL Ios {exp [A (V + IRs ) 1]} (1)
where I and V are respectively the output current and voltage of the PV
panel, IL is the photo-generated current, Ios is the saturation current, Rs
is the series resistance and A is the thermal voltage.
The detailed single-diode model (Fig. 1) adds the shunt resistance
Rsh and the output current of the PV cell is given by (Rauschenbach,
1980):
V + Rs I
I = IL Ios {exp [A (V + IRs ) 1]}
Rsh (2)
For the double-diode model, shown in Fig. 2, both the circulated
currents in the diodes are expressed separately; hence the output cur-
rent is given by the following equation (Ishaque et al., 2011):
V + Rs I
I = IL Ios1 {exp [A1 (V + IR s ) 1]} Ios2 {exp [A2 (V + IR s ) 1]}
Rsh (3)
q
with Ai =
i kTNcell
Fig. 1. Single-diode equivalent circuit.
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Voc Rs Isc
Isc Rsh
Ior =
exp (AVoc ) exp (AIsc Rs ) (7)

where, Vm and Im are the maximum voltage and current of the PV

module, Voc is the open circuit voltage. By replacing the reverse sa-
turation current of the diode in Eq. (8), the value of the diode saturation
current Ios varies with each value of temperature (Lineykin et al., 2014).
3
T qEG0 1 1
Ios = Ior exp
Fig. 2. Double-diode equivalent circuit model. 298.15 k 298.15 T (8)

EG0 is the band gap (1.22 eV).

where i is associated to the ideality factor ( ) of each diode, Ncell is
the number of series cell that constitutes the PV module, q
(=1.6·10−19C) and k (=1.4· 10−23 JK−1) are respectively the electron
• Method of Ishaque et al. (2011)
charge and the constant of Boltzmann. For the various levels of irra- The double-diode configuration depicted in Fig. 2 is another
diance G (W/m2) and temperature T (K), the simulation of I-V and P-V equivalent-circuit model used to evaluate the electrical performance of
curves requires the knowledge of the PV cell equivalent-circuit para- the PV panel. For this reason, several researchers have adopted some
meters. approximations to simplify the calculation process. As reported in
Ishaque et al. (2011), Ishaque et al. assumed that the saturation currents
were equal and used a modification on the equation given by (Villalva
3. PV cell parameters extraction methods
et al., 2009). The modified equation of the saturation current is re-
presented as follows:
As can be seen in Eqs. (1)–(3), the output current equations are
comprised of the electrical parameters and the outputs voltage of the PV Isc + Ki (T 298.15)
Ios1 = Ios2 =
module. These parameters are unknown which implies the use of an exp [(Voc + Kv (T 298.15))/{ 1 +
kTNcell
2 / p} q
] (9)
extraction technique with accurate performance. For this reason, the
method proposed by Chaibi et al. (2018) is used to extract the para- where, the values of the ideality factors 1 and 2 are taken respectively 1
meters of the SDM, while the method suggested by Ishaque et al. (2011) and 1.2, p is a value that could be chosen ≥ 2.2 (Ishaque et al.,
is employed to determine the DDM parameters. In both methods, the 2011).Kv is the temperature coefficient of the PV module open circuit
current-generated value depends on the variation of irradiance and voltage. For Rs and Rsh estimation, the resistances are evaluated using
temperature. This current is calculated by using the following equation an iteration process of the series resistance until achieving the peak
(Motahhir et al., 2018; Walker, 2001): power (Pm) of the datasheet, and this shunt resistance is represented by
Eq. (10).
G
IL = Isc + Ki (T 298.15) Vm + Im RS
1000 (4) Rsh =
where, Ki is the temperature coefficient of the short circuit current Isc . I Ios exp
Vm + Im Rs
kTNcell + exp
Vm + Im Rs
kTNcell +2
Pm
(p 1) Vm
(10)
• Method of Chaibi et al. (2018)
q q

This method consists of one measurement and the determination of 4. Methodology

the other parameters is effectuated by solving the mathematical equa-
tions extracted from datasheet characteristic points. This method is The present work aims to analyze the performances of the SDM and
selected to extract the single-diode parameters. The methodology fol- the DDM under non-standard conditions in order to classify which
lowed by this extraction technique is explained as follows: model is the most appropriate model to adopt for different levels of
For the detailed single-diode model in Fig. 1, the number of un- solar irradiance and temperature.
known parameters is limited to four, i.e. the ideality factor , saturation For achieving the aim, it is first essential to analyze each electrical
current Ios , shunt resistance Rsh and series resistance Rs . As reported by circuit separately. Hence, the selected methods to extract the para-
Chaibi et al. (2018), when the PV panel is exposed to dark condition meters, Chaibi et al. (2018); and Ishaque et al. (2011) are implemented
(IL = 0), the overall resistance of the PV module is extracted using the in MATLAB environment and applied to two silicon PV modules of
ohm relation between the measured output current and voltage of the different technologies. These PV modules are the monocrystalline SM55
PV panel. This resistance represents the sum of the shunt and the series and the polycrystalline MSX60, respectively. The technical specifica-
resistances. Because of its very low value, the series resistance is con- tions of both models as given by the manufacturer are presented in
sidered negligible which means that the measured resistance is ap- Table 1 (BP MSX60, 2002; Shell SM55, 2002). It is interesting to note
proximately the shunt resistance. Thereafter, the other parameters are that the choice of the PV panels is based on their wide availability in the
extracted by using the characteristic equations from the datasheet. For market as they account for a share of 80% (Sudhakar Babu et al., 2016).
this reason, the set of equations given by Eqs. (5) and (6) are solved to The obtained I-V curves are compared to the data delivered by manu-
obtainRs and γ. Then, the determined values are replaced in Eq. (7) to facturers for different levels of irradiance and temperature by using the
find the reverse saturation current Ior (Chaibi et al., 2018). root mean square error (RMSE) and relative error Erel . These parameters
can be calculated as follows:
Voc Rs Isc Voc Vm Rs Im
Isc Rsh
Im Rsh
= Base case(i) Calculated(i)
exp (AVoc ) exp (AIsc Rs ) exp (AVoc ) exp [A (Vm + Rs Im) (5) Erel (%) = *100
Calculated(i) (11)
Voc Vm Rs Im Im 1
Im R sh Vm Rs Im Rsh 1
N
= RMSE(%) = (Base case(i) Calculated(i))2 *100
exp (AVoc ) exp [A (Vm + Rs Im) Aexp [A (Vm + Rs Im)] (6) N i=1 (12)

1104
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Table 1 normalized mean absolute error (NMAE), defined as the average of

Datasheet parameters of SM55 and MSX60 PV panels at STC (Standard Test error between the exact value for the base case and the calculated va-
Conditions). lues. This error can be represented as follows:
Parameters Mono-Si SM55 Poly-Si MSX60 N
1 Base case(i) Calculated(i)
NMAE(%) = *100
Pm [W] 55 60 N 1
Max1N (Base case(i)) (13)
Vm [V] 17.4 17.1
Im [A] 3.15 3.5 where, N is the total number of samples. It measures the performance
Voc [V] 21.7 21.1
improvements achievable by using the hybrid approach with respect to
Isc [A] 3.45 3.8
KI [%/K] 0.04 0.06 the equivalent-circuit models SDM and DDM.
Kv [%/K] −0.35 −0.37
Ncell 36 36 5. Results and discussion

The results discussion is divided into two parts:

where, the base case represents the value extracted from PV module
manufacturer datasheet and the calculated one is determined using the
equivalent-circuit models. These errors are expressed for each i-th
sample.
A classification is introduced in order to identify which model to
adopt for a given climate condition getting the best fit. So, a hybrid
approach that combines the single and the double-diode models is
suggested. It performs according to the climate variation and selects
instantly one of the two models with the lowest error. This approach is
explained in Fig. 3.
Thereafter, an experimental validation is carried out by using real
hourly values of titled irradiance G , cell temperature T and DC output
powers (PDC ), recorded from 01/12/2017 to 23/12/2017 for a total of
529 samples, of two PV plants located in different climatic zones
Mediterranean (Brindisi, Italy) and Semi-continental (Meknes,
Morocco) with a nominal power of 2.2 kWp and 2 kWp, respectively.
The reason behind using these two PV plants is to investigate the per-
formances of the outlined models under various climate fluctuations.
Fig. 4 shows the monthly averages of the horizontal plane irradiance
and the ambient temperature over one year for each climate zone by
using PVGIS website (“PVGIS,” n.d.). As observed in this figure, Semi-
continental climate (SCC) presents higher irradiance and temperature
than Mediterranean climate.
The performances of the hybrid approach are assessed by the
Fig. 3. Diagram of the proposed hybrid approach.
- Comparison I-V curves, where the I-V characteristics for both Mono-
Si and Poly-Si PV panel given by the manufacturer datasheets and by
both SDM and DDM are analyzed by a performance evaluation
under different conditions of solar irradiance and temperature;
- Implementation of the hybrid approach and its validation against
real recorded data from two PV plants experiencing differences in
hourly climatic variations, where the best combination of SDM and
DDM is used.
5.1. Comparison of I-V curves
The parameters of the single-diode models are determined using the
method proposed by Chaibi et al. (2018) as given in Table. 2. The
double-diode model parameters according to the method suggested by
Ishaque et al. (2011) are displayed in Table 3. The photo-generated
current is calculated using Eq. (4) and the extracted parameters are
inserted in the PV output current equations {Eqs. (2) and (3)}.The
corresponding I-V and P-V curves of the tested PV models are plotted to
analyze the behavior of single-diode and double diode models. It is
necessary to stress that the computed curves should agree well with
those given by the manufacturer datasheets. Figs. 5–7 display the cal-
culated and provided I-V characteristics from manufacturer datasheet
of the Mono-Si and Poly-Si PV modules at various levels of irradiance
and temperature. In addition, the corresponding RMSE calculated using
Eq. (12) to investigate the fitting error between the estimated I-V curves
and manufacturer is illustrated in Fig. 5. Low RMSE values demonstrate
a good matching between the computed I-V curves for different levels of
irradiance and fixed temperature (T = 25 °C) with the datasheet ones.
Moreover, Chaibi et al. method seems to fit better for irradiance values
above 600 W/m2. Otherwise, Ishaque et al. method gives better fitting
for 200 W/m2 and 400 W/m2.
In Fig. 6, I-V characteristics of the Mono-Si PV module are plotted
for temperature in the range from 20 °C to 60 °C and a fixed irradiance
at 1000 W/m2. It is observed that the provided I-V curves using both
chosen methods fit well with manufacturer ones. However, a little
difference is observed between Chaibi et al. method and manufacturer
curves at the temperature value of 20 °C with a RMSE that exceeds 2%.
In the same way, the plotted I-V curves of the Poly-Si PV module
using Ishaque et al. and Chaibi et al. methods are evaluated. As displayed
in Fig. 7, the obtained I-V curves using the examined methods and the
manufacturer graphs are presented for various levels of temperature
and a constant value of solar irradiance (G = 1000 W/m2). As can be
seen, the Ishaque et al. I-V curves agrees well with the manufacturer for
all temperature levels, except for 25 °C, Chaibi et al. method gives better
results with a RMSE value less than 1%.
Based on this, it seems that the single-diode model is more suitable
to model the Mono-Si PV panels while the double-diode model is more
appropriate for Poly-Si PV panels. Note that the I-V curves of the Poly-Si
module for different irradiance levels are not provided due to the lack
of information on the irradiance variation from the manufacturer.
In order to compare the results achieved by two equivalent-circuit

1105
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

300 35
Mediterranean Mediterranean
Semi-Continental Semi-Continental
30
250

25
200

Temperature [°C]
GHI [kWh/m2 ]

20
150
15

100
10

50
5

0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 4. The monthly average values of the horizontal plane irradiance and the ambient temperature for the Mediterranean and the semi-continental climate zone.

Table 2 where the base case represents the extracted value from manufacturer
Extracted parameters using Chaibi et al. method for the single-diode model. curves and the calculated one corresponds to the computed values using
Rsh [Ω] Rs [Ω] Io [μA] γ
the SDM and the DDM. The results are displayed in Fig. 8. Based on this
categorization, Fig. 8(a) gives the relative errors of the PV panel output
Mono-Si 6500 0.1124 4.8244 1.7409 power for each class of irradiance and temperature. As noticed in
Poly-Si 7000 0.1880 1.1174 1.5079 Fig. 8(a), the SDM is more reliable to model the PV panel for low-
temperature ranges. However, the double-diode model shows good
results in medium and high-temperature ranges. Furthermore, it can be
Table 3
seen that the double-diode model performs well with low and medium
Extracted parameters using Ishaque et al. method for the double-diode model.
irradiances whereas the single-diode model is more convenient with
Rsh [Ω] Rs [Ω] γ1 γ2 Io1 = Io2 [A] high irradiance variations. Besides, the open-circuit voltage relative
errors associated with the equivalent-circuit models of both PV panel
Mono-Si 144.24 0.34 1 1.2 4.7039 0.10−10
Poly-Si 166.58 0.47 1 1.2 2.2324 0.10−10 technologies are presented for different levels of temperature and ir-
radiance (see Fig. 8(b)). As can be observed, the single-diode model
seems to be very appropriate to model the Mono-Si modules because of
models and the electrical parameters of the PV panel {Isc, Voc, Pm} ex- its lower error compared to the double-diode model. On the opposite
tracted from manufacturer datasheet for different weather conditions, side, the double-diode model presents a key solution to model the Poly-
three intervals (Low, Medium and High) of irradiance and temperature Si PV panel especially for medium and high levels of temperature.
were identified for classification. For the irradiance, the low values Moreover, the SDM presents good results for low irradiance, while the
class is below 400 W/m2, the medium one is between 400 W/m2 and DDM is more suitable for medium and high ranges of irradiance. For the
800 W/m2 and the high values class is above 800 W/m2. For the tem- short-circuit current, the chosen equivalent-circuit models are com-
perature changes, the low variations are below 25 °C, the medium one is pared under the same variation of climate conditions and this is per-
between 25 °C and 40 °C and the last class is for temperatures above formed for both PV panel technologies. As can be seen in Fig. 8(c), the
40 °C. relative errors demonstrate that the single-diode model is more ap-
As a first step, the manufacturer I-V curves are used to calculate the propriate to model the PV panel under the variation of irradiance. Also,
corresponding power for each variation of the climatic variable. Based this model is more suitable for temperature variation except for the
on the climate variations, the relative error is computed using Eq. (11), Poly-Si technology in high temperature changes. Briefly, these curves

Mono-Si SM55 Mono-Si SM55

4 2
Manufacturer data Chaibi et al.
2
1000 W/m Chaibi et al.
3.5 Ishaque et al.
Ishaque et al.

3 800 W/m
2 1.5

2.5
RMSE [%]
Current [A]

2
600 W/m
2 1

2
1.5 400 W/m

1 0.5
2
200 W/m
0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 200 400 600 800 1000
Voltage [V] Irradiance [W/m 2]

Fig. 5. Comparison between the I-V characteristics using Chaibi et al., Ishaque et al. methods and manufacturer data related to the Mono-Si SM55 PV panel for
different irradiances, T = 25 °C.

1106
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Mono-Si SM55 Mono-Si SM55

4 2.5
Manufacturer Chaibi et al.
Chaibi et al.
3.5 Ishaque et al.
Ishaque et al.
2
3

2.5 60 °C 1.5

RMSE [%]
Current [A]

50 °C
2 40 °C
30 °C 1
1.5 20 °C

1
0.5
0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 20 30 40 50 60
Voltage [V] Temperature [°C]

Fig. 6. Comparison of the I-V characteristics using Chaibi et al., Ishaque et al. methods and manufacturer data related to the Mono-Si SM55 PV panel for different
temperatures, G = 1000 W/m2.

show that the low-irradiance levels engender high errors in the PV
output power with a value of 8.40%. The lowest error closed to 0.10%.
is presented at the short circuit currents.
Such analysis enables the clustering of the performance for both
single-diode and double-diode model in different range of irradiance
and temperature according to the flowchart in Fig. 3. So, the classifi-
cation tabulated in Table 4 proposes guidelines in selecting the model
to be used in the simulation process with respect to the actual climate
condition to achieve the lowest error.
5.2. Implementations of the hybrid approach and validation
A comparison of predicted DC outputs and actual experimental data
on an hourly basis is carried out. In order to investigate the impact of
the climatic condition on the performance of both SDM and DDM, the
experimental titled irradiance and modules temperature of two PV
plants are utilized to compute the corresponding SDM and DDM
powers. Thereafter, the obtained output data series is used to calculate
the error between the real generated powers (base case) and the com-
puted ones (SDM and DDM power) using the error formula given in Eq.
(11). These errors are presented in Fig. 9. As can be observed in this
figure, the mean error results support the findings of the previous
subsection about the relationship between climate conditions and ac-
curacy of single and double diode model which was summarized in
Table 4.
The previously classification introduced in Table 4 is used to build a
hybrid approach which selects the most suitable model for computing
of DC power based on the actual atmospheric condition of the two
climate zones (Mediterranean and the Semi-continental climate). These
powers are utilized to calculate the normalized absolute mean errors
(see Eq. (13)) between experimental and calculated DC power using the
hybrid approach for each one of the PV plants. These errors are dis-
played in Fig. 10. Fig. 10(a) shows the NMAE between the hybrid ap-
proach and the individual SDM and DDM. It is significantly high be-
cause of the fluctuated cloudy weather of the Mediterranean climate.
Furthermore, a decreasing of the error up to 53.93% for irradiance
variations and 49.52% for temperature variations can be achieved by
the proposed approach. Fig. 10(b) shows that the NMAE related to the
Semi-Continental PV plant, seems to be lower compared to Mediterra-
nean PV plant, due to the sunny behavior of Meknes city. Moreover, in
Continental climatic conditions the proposed approach can reduce the
error by 21.04% and 14.66% due to irradiance and temperature var-
iations, respectively.
6. Conclusion
The paper evaluates the accuracy of the single-diode and the
double-diode models as the most popular PV cell equivalent-circuit
models under changes of solar irradiance and temperature. Two com-
mercialized silicon PV module technologies, Monocrystalline SM55 and
Polycrystalline MSX60, are considered to investigate the performance
of two equivalent-circuit models with respect to the manufacturer data.
The comparison demonstrates that the single-diode model seems to be
more suitable for high fluctuations of irradiance. In turn, the double-

Poly-Si MSX60 Poly-Si MSX60

5 2
Manufacturer data Chaibi et al.
Chaibi et al.
Ishaque et al. Ishaque et al.
4
1.5

3 T = 0°C
Current [A]

RMSE [%]

T = 25°C
1
T = 50°C
2 T = 75°C

0.5
1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 25 50 75
Voltage [V] Temperature [°C]

Fig. 7. Comparison of the I-V characteristics using Chaibi et al., Ishaque et al. methods and manufacturer data related to the Poly-Si MSX60 PV panel for different
temperatures, G = 1000 W/m2.

1107
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Output PV power
9
Low Temperature
Medium Temperature
8
High Temperature
Low Irradiance
7
Medium Irradiance
High Irradiance
6

E rel [%]
5

0
Mono-Si (SDM) Mono-Si (DDM) Poly-Si (SDM) Poly-Si (DDM)
Technology (ECM)
(a)
Open-circuit voltage Short-circuit current
9 9
Low Temperature Low Temperature
Medium Temperature Medium Temperature
8 8
High Temperature High Temperature
Low Irradiance Low Irradiance
7 7
Medium Irradiance Medium Irradiance
High Irradiance High Irradiance
6 6
E rel [%]

5
E rel [%]

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
Mono-Si (SDM) Mono-Si (DDM) Poly-Si (SDM) Poly-Si (DDM) Mono-Si (SDM) Mono-Si (DDM) Poly-Si (SDM) Poly-Si (DDM)

Technology (ECM) Technology (ECM)

(b) (c)
Fig. 8. Relative error of (a) PV output power, (b) open-circuit voltage, (c) short circuit current using the SDM and the DDM for different classes of solar irradiance and
temperature. Base case: extracted values from Datasheet.

7
Table 4 Low Temperature
Performance classification of the equivalent-circuit models for different levels Medium Temperature
of irradiance and temperature. 6 Low Irradiance
Medium Irradiance
Irradiance Temperature High Irradiance
5
Low Medium High Low Medium High
4
[%]

Power DDM DDM SDM SDM DDM DDM

Voltage DDM SDM SDM SDM SDM DDM
rel

Current SDM SDM SDM SDM SDM DDM 3

E

2
diode model is more reliable to predict the electrical parameters under
the medium and low irradiance variations. Furthermore, the SDM 1
performs well with low fluctuations of temperature and the DDM is
more appropriate for medium and high variations. The results prove 0
that the performance of the Photovoltaic Cell Equivalent-Circuit Models SDM (MC) DDM (MC) SDM (SCC) DDM (SCC)

is influenced by solar irradiance and temperature. This suggests a new
approach to enhance the accuracy of PV output prediction. The paper
presents a more appropriate approach able to switch between the SDM
and DDM according to the instantaneous variation of solar irradiance
and temperature. The performance of the hybrid approach was assessed
considering real data of two PV systems implemented in two sites of
different climatic zones. An error analysis was performed between the
proposed hybrid approach and the conventional SDM and DDM models.
ECM (Climate zone)
Fig. 9. Normalized mean error of the SDM and the DDM under different classes
of solar irradiance and temperature in Mediterranean climate (MC) and Semi-
Continental Climate (SCC) conditions.
The proposed approach can diminish the computing errors by up to
53.93% in the case of the cloudy weather conditions and up to 21.04%
for sunny climatic conditions.

1108
Y. Chaibi, et al. Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110

Mediterranean Climate Mediterranean Climate

60 60
SDM SDM
DDM DDM
50 50

40 40
NMAE [%]

NMAE [%]
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
Low Medium High Low Medium
Irradiance Level Temperature Level
(a)
Semi-Continental Climate Semi-Continental Climate
60 60
SDM SDM
DDM DDM
50 50

40 40
NMAE [%]

NMAE [%]

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
Low Medium High Low Medium
Irradiance Level Temperature Level

(b)
Fig. 10. Relative error between the hybrid approach and the SDM and DDM of Mediterranean (a) and Semi-continental climate conditions (b) PV plant for different
level of solar irradiance and temperature. Base case: Hybrid approach.

Acknowledgment
Authors would like to thank S. GHYATI for her help and support to
improve this work. The contribution of the School of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens was
funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No
799835.
References
Abbassi, R., Abbassi, A., Jemli, M., Chebbi, S., 2018. Identification of unknown para-
meters of solar cell models: A comprehensive overview of available approaches.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.03.
011.
Alam, D.F., Yousri, D.A., Eteiba, M.B., 2015. Flower pollination Algorithm based solar PV
parameter estimation. Energy Convers. Manag. 101, 410–422. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2015.05.074.
Allouhi, A., Saadani, R., Buker, M.S., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Rahmoune, M., 2019.
Energetic, economic and environmental (3E) analyses and LCOE estimation of three
technologies of PV grid-connected systems under different climates. Sol. Energy 178,
25–36.
Allouhi, A., Saadani, R., Kousksou, T., Saidur, R., Jamil, A., Rahmoune, M., 2016. Grid-
connected PV systems installed on institutional buildings: Technology comparison,
energy analysis and economic performance. Energy Build. 130. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2016.08.054.
Attivissimo, F., Adamo, F., Carullo, A., Lanzolla, A.M.L., Spertino, F., Vallan, A., 2013. On
the performance of the double-diode model in estimating the maximum power point
for different photovoltaic technologies. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 46, 3549–3559.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.032.
Blair, N., Dobos, A.P., Freeman, J., Neises, T., Wagner, M., Ferguson, T., Gilman, P.,
Janzou, S., 2014. System advisor model, sam 2014.1. 14: General description. NREL
Rep. No. TP-6A20-61019, Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. Golden, CO 13. https://doi.org/
10.2172/1126294.
BP MSX60, 2002. bp solar msx60 Solar PV module datasheet [WWW Document].
Chaibi, Y., Salhi, M., 2019. Sliding mode controllers for standalone PV systems: Modeling
and approach of control. Int. J. Photoenergy 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/
5092078.
Chaibi, Y., Malvoni, M., Chouder, A., Boussetta, M., Salhi, M., 2019. Simple and efficient
approach to detect and diagnose electrical faults and partial shading in photovoltaic
systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 196, 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2019.05.086.
Chaibi, Y., Salhi, M., El-jouni, A., Essadki, A., 2018. A new method to extract the
equivalent circuit parameters of a photovoltaic panel. Sol. Energy 163. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.02.017.
Chan, D.S.H., Phillips, J.R., Phang, J.C.H., 1986. A comparative study of extraction
methods for solar cell model parameters. Solid. State. Electron. 29, 329–337. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0038-1101(86)90212-1.
Chenni, R., Makhlouf, M., Kerbache, T., Bouzid, A., 2007. A detailed modeling method for
photovoltaic cells. Energy 32, 1724–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.
12.006.
Chtita, S., Chaibi, Y., Derouich, A., Belkadid, J., 2019. Modeling and Simulation of a
Photovoltaic Panel Based on a Triple Junction Cells for a Nanosatellite. Int. Symp.
Adv. Electr. Commun. Technol. ISAECT 2018 - Proc. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ISAECT.2018.8618840.
De Blas, M.A., Torres, J.L., Prieto, E., García, A., 2002. Selecting a suitable model for
characterizing photovoltaic devices. Renew. Energy 25, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0960-1481(01)00056-8.
Ding, K., Bian, X., Liu, H., Peng, T., 2012. A MATLAB-simulink-based PV module model
and its application under conditions of nonuniform irradiance. IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers. 27, 864–872. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2012.2216529.
Ebrahimi, S.M., Salahshour, E., Malekzadeh, M., FranciscoGordillo, 2019. Parameters
identification of PV solar cells and modules using flexible particle swarm optimiza-
tion algorithm. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.218.

1109
Y. Chaibi, et al.
Et-torabi, K., Nassar-eddine, I., Obbadi, A., Errami, Y., Rmaily, R., Sahnoun, S., El fajri, A.,
Agunaou, M., 2017. Parameters estimation of the single and double diode photo-
voltaic models using a Gauss–Seidel algorithm and analytical method: A comparative
study. Energy Convers. Manag. 148, 1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.06.064.
Gao, X., Cui, Y., Hu, J., Tahir, N., Xu, G., 2018a. Performance comparison of exponential,
Lambert W function and special trans function based single diode solar cell models.
Energy Convers. Manag. 171, 1822–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2018.06.106.
Gao, X., Cui, Y., Hu, J., Xu, G., Wang, Z., Qu, J., Wang, H., 2018b. Parameter extraction of
solar cell models using improved shuffled complex evolution algorithm. Energy
Convers. Manag. 157, 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.033.
Hadj Arab, A., Chenlo, F., Benghanem, M., 2004. Loss-of-load probability of photovoltaic
water pumping systems. Sol. Energy 76, 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2004.01.006.
Haouari-Merbah, M., Belhamel, M., Tobías, I., Ruiz, J.M., 2005. Extraction and analysis of
solar cell parameters from the illuminated current-voltage curve. Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 87, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.07.019.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., 2011. An improved modeling method to determine the model
parameters of photovoltaic (PV) modules using differential evolution (DE). Sol.
Energy 85, 2349–2359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.06.025.
Ishaque, K., Salam, Z., Taheri, H., 2011. Simple, fast and accurate two-diode model for
photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95, 586–594. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.solmat.2010.09.023.
Ismail, M.S., Moghavvemi, M., Mahlia, T.M.I., 2013. Characterization of PV panel and
global optimization of its model parameters using genetic algorithm. Energy Convers.
Manag. 73, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.03.033.
Jervase, J.A., Bourdoucen, H., Al-Lawati, A., 2001. Solar cell parameter extraction using
genetic algorithms. Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 1922–1925. https://doi.org/10.1088/
0957-0233/12/11/322.
Jordehi, A.R., 2016. Parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic (PV) cells: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.
049.
Kou, Q., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 1998. A method for estimating the long-term per-
formance of direct-coupled PV pumping systems. Sol. Energy 64, 33–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0038-092X(98)00049-8.
Lineykin, S., Averbukh, M., Kuperman, A., 2014. An improved approach to extract the
single-diode equivalent circuit parameters of a photovoltaic cell/panel. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.015.
Malvoni, M., Fiore, M.C., Maggiotto, G., Mancarella, L., Quarta, R., Radice, V., Congedo,
P.M., De Giorgi, M.G., 2016. Improvements in the predictions for the photovoltaic
system performance of the Mediterranean regions. Energy Convers. Manag. 128,
191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.09.069.
Malvoni, M., Leggieri, A., Maggiotto, G., Congedo, P.M., De Giorgi, M.G., 2017. Long term
performance, losses and efficiency analysis of a 960 kWPphotovoltaic system in the
1110
Solar Energy 188 (2019) 1102–1110
Mediterranean climate. Energy Convers. Manag. 145, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2017.04.075.
Motahhir, S., Ghzizal, A. El, Sebti, S., Derouich, A., 2018. Modeling of Photovoltaic
System with modified Incremental Conductance Algorithm for fast changes of irra-
diance. Int. J. Photoenergy 2018, 13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3286479.
Mughal, M.A., Ma, Q., Xiao, C., 2017. Photovoltaic cell parameter estimation using hybrid
particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing. Energies 10, 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en10081213.
Oliva, D., Cuevas, E., Pajares, G., 2014. Parameter identification of solar cells using ar-
tificial bee colony optimization. Energy 72, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2014.05.011.
PVGIS [WWW Document], n.d.
Rauschenbach, H. s., 1980. Solar Cell Array Design Handbook.
Saha, C., Agbu, N., Jinks, R., 2018. Review article of the Solar PV Parameters Estimation
using Evolutionary Algorithms 2, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojsp.2018.02.
00026.
Shell SM55, 2002. Shell SM55 Solar PV module datasheet [WWW Document].
Siddiqui, M.U., Abido, M., 2013. Parameter estimation for five- and seven-parameter
photovoltaic electrical models using evolutionary algorithms. Appl. Soft Comput. J.
13, 4608–4621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2013.07.005.
Stutenbaeumer, U., Mesfin, B., 1999. Equivalent model of monocrystalline, polycrystal-
line and amorphous silicon solar cells. Renew. Energy 18, 501–512. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00813-1.
Sudhakar Babu, T., Prasanth Ram, J., Sangeetha, K., Laudani, A., Rajasekar, N., 2016.
Parameter extraction of two diode solar PV model using Fireworks algorithm. Sol.
Energy 140, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.10.044.
Suite, S., Co, B., 2016. Homer User Manual.
Suthar, M., Singh, G.K., Saini, R.P., 2013. Comparison of mathematical models of photo-
voltaic (PV) module and effect of various parameters on its performance. 2013 Int.
Conf. Energy Effic. Technol. Sustain. 1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEETS.
2013.6533584.
Ulapane, N.N.B., Dhanapala, C.H., Wickramasinghe, S.M., Abeyratne, S.G., Rathnayake,
N., Binduhewa, P.J., 2011. Extraction of parameters for simulating photovoltaic pa-
nels. 2011 6th Int. Conf. Ind. Inf. Syst. ICIIS 2011 - Conf. Proc. 539–544. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICIINFS.2011.6038128.
Universidade De Genebra, 2012. User’s Guide, PVsyst Contextual Help.
Villalva, M.G., Gazoli, J.R., Filho, E.R., 2009. Comprehensive approach to modeling and
simulation of photovoltaic arrays. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 24, 1198–1208.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2009.2013862.
Walker, G., 2001. Evaluating Mppt converter topologies using a matlab Pv model. J.
Electr. Electron. Eng. 21, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.7237/.
Xiao, W., Dunford, W.G., Capel, A., 2004. A novel modeling method for photovoltaic cells.
PESC Rec. - IEEE Annu. Power Electron. Spec. Conf. 3, 1950–1956. https://doi.org/
10.1109/PESC.2004.1355416.