Parameter Identification of Photovoltaic Cell Model Based on Enhanced Particle Swarm Optimization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author proposes photovoltaic cell modeling predicts the behavior of PVCs in various real-world environmental settings and this study presents an enhanced particle swarm optimization algorithm to accurately and efficiently extract optimal PVC parameters. The reader is very interested in the content. The calculation contents and experimental results are also described in detail. 

However, the polite report of the results hinders understanding. Please scrutinize the calculation result to make it easier for the reader to understand.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewers’insightful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “sustainability-1052675”. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our future researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the paper exactly according to the reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision can meet with approval.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewers’insightful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “sustainability-1052675”. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our future researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the paper exactly according to the reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision can meet with approval. The revised portions corresponding to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:

B:comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. GENERAL COMMENTS

The review paper prepared by authors concerns photovoltaic cell (PVC) parameters modeling using enhanced particle swarm optimization (EPSO). Analyzes were performed for single-, double- and triple diode models and results compared with other swarm optimization algorithms e.g. particle swarm optimalization (PSO) and differential evolution (DE). The search for renewable energy sources is a challenge for the modern world. Moreover, computational intelligence is entering this field. For this reason, modeling and optimization of the operation of photovoltaic cells is essential. In my opinion, although the article is importance, the results presentation and discussion has not been sufficiently indicated. The current form of the article, the arrangement of the sections and confusion make the article seem unattractive to the reader. Before publication, I would suggest considering the following comments.

2. MAIN COMMENTS

a1:Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?  In the introduction, the author should provide information as to why accurate parameter estimation ofPVC is crucious. What is the importance of research in the general state of knowledge and who is it addressed to? What direct impact do they have on sustainable development? The reader should get this knowledge from the author.

 

Thank you ,as refered, we provide some information “accurate parameter estimation can improve not only the performance of a PVC but also its control quality(in paper line 37)” to prove. We will add our proposed solution improve the performance of  PVC while more energy be used  which good for  sustainable development

 

a2:Is the research design appropriate?  I have no objections to the conducted experiments and the selection of estimation methods. In my opinion, the author could also use other types of errors (e.g. MAPE). This would allow other authors to compare and discuss the results in the future.

Thank you .We would use other types of error in future research.

 

a3:Are the methods adequately described?  The methods are correctly described from an algorithmic point of view, but I believe there is a need to reorganize the sections. There should be a "material and methods" section or a clearly indicated subsection of “material and methods” with description of algorithms in the article. The reader may be confused. 

Thanks ,we had changed in new submit paper

 

a4:Are the results clearly presented? 

The presentation of the results requires a thorough improvement. It is not allowed for one

drawing to be three pages long. I have no objections to the table. The results are not interpreted or discussed in any way.  Are the conclusions supported by the results?  The conclusions are too vague and do not result from constructive discussion.

 

Thank you .We had change to appropriate format, conclusions had improve

3. DETAILED COMMENTS
4. “Keywords” instead of “index term” should be used.

Thank you ,wo change in  submit  paper

Introduction 

1. Line 18-19: It should be explained why accurate parameter estimation is crucial in PVC.

Thank you, as refered, we provide some information “accurate parameter estimation can improve not only the performance of a PVC but also its control quality(in paper line 37)” to prove

 

1. The algorithms are described from a methodological point of view, but how does the

proposed solution affect sustainable development? 

We will add our proposed solution improve the performance of  PVC while more energy be used  which good for  sustainable development

 

Description of the problem 

1. A caption on a single line should be centered (all figures).
2. This section is only a collection of formulas and diagrams. Describe the essence of the

problem from a scientific point of view. This section could be part of "materials and methods". 

1. Line 72: “DD Model” not “SD Model”.

 

PVC model parameter identification based on EPSO 

1. Line 119: Cited figure 5 should be closer.
2. Line 131: Cited figure 6 should be closer.
3. I suggest creating new section “Material and methods” and transfer of that content.
4. Line 228-236: Requires proper formatting.

D

For  problem d.e.f .g. h. i. j. Sorry, we had changed in paper, correct in appropriate format

 

 

Simulation experiments 

1. The description of the experiments should be included in the “material and methods”

section. 

Thanks ,we already change in paper.

1. Line 256: The title of the table should appear above the table.

Thanks ,we already change in paper.

285. Line 264-271: Where is the table no.3? Please pay attention to line 284-285.

Sorry, we used error number, we already change in paper

1. Line 275: I think this is where the results section should start.

Thanks, we admit your view

1. In my opinion, it is unacceptable for one figure to be three pages long. I suggest

correcting all such figures and creating summary charts. 

Sorry, we had changed ,our figure contain a lot of information

 

 

1. I did not find an interpretation of figures and tables. It is necessary to interpret and

discuss in comparison with the literature.

Sorry ,we add the interpretation for each experiment  in paper.

1. I suggest creating subsections for SD, DD, TD model.

Thank you ,I had createdsubsections for SD, DD, TD modelexperiment

1. Creation of summary tables and figures (within the description line 470-485) would

improve the presentation of the results and facilitate the interpretation. 

Thanks, we had already changed the format and added interpretation

1. Line 470-485: This is too superficial an interpretation.

Sorry  we write superficial interpretation, we had changed in paper .

 

Conclusion 

1. Comparing the EPSO algorithm with others and proving that it is faster than other

algorithms and requires a short computation time is an estimation guide for other researchers.

However, lack of discussion lowers the value of the achievement, which is significant

Sorry ,we used EPSO algorithm to estimate parameters of PVC, and compare with others algorithm in convergence and it-Vt, e(t)-Vt, pt(w)-Vt, we discuss in SD DD TD model respectively, it would be value.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The author report about his results of modeling experimental current voltage data of photovoltaic devices (cell and module) with a modified particle swarm algorithm. In order to enhance the advantage of this newly introduced approach a comparison with other models is given. The quality is described by the resulting of the least mean error between model and experiment. The focus is put on the necessary computing power for parameter evaluation as measured by the speed (or number of iterations). The high number of models suggested and published in the past indicate that there is an interest in the photovoltaic engineering community in further improvements.

 

The current manuscript suffers from several formatting errors especially concerning table headers. (see for instance table III near line 284 superimposed by figure 8).

The author clearly describes the numerical background based on 3 diode models for a single solar cell and another model for the parameter extraction of a photovoltaic module. The results are well elaborated and the author's conclusion is convincing from an engineering point of view.

 

What I miss is a more in depth discussion which can improve the presented work. The author points out that one weakness of the original particle swarm model is that it easily get captured in a local minimum whereas his newly proposed model overcomes this weakness. On the opposite end: A mere mathematically derived solution of error minimization often leads to a senseless set of parameters from a physical point of view. A simple example: A value for an electric resistor in the equivalent circuits (figs 1-4) of less than 0 is unacceptable. Therefore the author introduces correctly boundary conditions in table III which appear to be a reasonable choice for the one-diode model. However the results of fitting with the two diode model easily can lead to a simple one diode-model when a1=a2 and Isd1+Isd2=Isd. Therefore boundary conditions have to be carefully chosen with respect to the applied model in all cases.

 

In the otherwise scientifically correct article citations are the major source of weakness.

1. Either the given ones are not appropriate (i.e. ref 1-6 in line 8)
2. they are missing (i.e. line 112 about the “inventors” of swarm theory) or
3. they are essential in order to avoid the impression of plagiarism: In section IV the author writes about the experiments in a way as if they were carried out by himself. However he uses the data sets originally published 1986 by T. Easwarakhanthan. From there on these data have been used many times by scientists which are involved in solar cell modeling. This could be considered as advantage because it eases the comparison of different publications. However it must be said.

 

Beside these major points of criticism only few more comments:

In line 68/69 the definition of q is not correct. It is the ABSOLUTE value of the (otherwise negative) charge of a SINGLE electron

In line 72 the title should be DD Model

Fig 9 is spread over 2 ½ pages and in the I(V) plot the experimental data (as dashed lines) behind the modeled results (line+symbol) are “invisible”. I suggest to use symbols only and make the plots more compact. i.e. left graph I(V) right graph e(V) and all 5 results on the same side.

Figs 12 and 15 as above.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewers’insightful comments concerning our manuscript entitled “sustainability-1052675”. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving the quality and readability of our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our future researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have revised the paper exactly according to the reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision can meet with approval. The revised portions corresponding to the reviewers’ comments are as follows:

1.The current manuscript suffers from several formatting errors especially concerning table headers. (see for instance table III near line 284 superimposed by figure 8).

Sorry, three errors you point out we already correct in paper.

 

2.The author clearly describes the numerical background based on 3 diode models for a single solar cell and another model for the parameter extraction of a photovoltaic module. The results are well elaborated and the author's conclusion is convincing from an engineering point of view.

Thank you

 

3.What I miss is a more in depth discussion which can improve the presented work. The author points out that one weakness of the original particle swarm model is that it easily get captured in a local minimum whereas his newly proposed model overcomes this weakness. On the opposite end: A mere mathematically derived solution of error minimization often leads to a senseless set of parameters from a physical point of view. A simple example: A value for an electric resistor in the equivalent circuits (figs 1-4) of less than 0 is unacceptable. Therefore the author introduces correctly boundary conditions in table III which appear to be a reasonable choice for the one-diode model. However the results of fitting with the two diode model easily can lead to a simple one diode-model when a1=a2 and Isd1+Isd2=Isd. Therefore boundary conditions have to be carefully chosen with respect to the applied model in all cases

This is an experimental study, our proposed method outperform other algorithms, the double diode and three diode model different from single diode,a1=a2 or Isd1+Isd2=Isd can’t influence boundary conditions.

4.citations are major source of weakness

Sorry make such mistake, reference had correct proper(ref 1-6),In section IV sorry make wrong error ,had refered “sets originally published 1986 by T.E aswarakhanthan”

5.beside these major points of criticism only few more comments

Thank ,all these error format had chang in new submit paper, hope would appropriate.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

thank you for the submitted corrections of the manuscript. The article is interesting and of great practical importance. I wish you good luck with further research. I am pleased to accept the article.

 

Best regards