International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems (IJPEDS)

Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022, pp. 1645~1653

ISSN: 2088-8694, DOI: 10.11591/ijpeds.v13.i3.pp1645-1653  1645

Ensemble of constraint handling techniques for PV parameter

extraction using differential evolutionary algorithms

Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah1,2, Purushothaman Geethanjali1

1
School of Electrical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore, India
2
School of Electrical Engineering, REVA University, Bengaluru, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The depletion of fossil fuels and rising environmental concerns have paved
the way for the development of clean renewable energy sources. Photovoltaic
Received May 31, 2022 (PV) cells are represented by electrical equivalent circuits. Finding the right
Revised Jun 7, 2022 circuit model parameters for PV cells is critical task. Estimating accurate
Accepted Jun 28, 2022 parameters helps in better performance assessment, control, efficiency
calculation and maximum power point tracking. This manuscript describes a
new approach for obtaining PV system parameters using ensemble of
Keywords: constraint handling techniques (ECHT) with evolutionary algorithms (EA).
Four distinguished technologies of solar PV cells are considered to estimate
Double diode model the parameters with best accuracy. Experiments reveal that ECHT
Ensemble of constraint outperforms each individual constraint handling approach by competing with
Handling techniques state-of-the-art algorithms. The experimental data for these Kyocera cells is
Objective function compared with estimated values obtained from the proposed algorithm using
Parameter estimation MATLAB 2021B for different irradiation. The performance plots show
Root mean square error excellent match between the real and simulated values. The root mean square
error (RMSE) values for research tax credit RTC France were found to be
7.325513*10-4 and Kyocera processing the normalize RMSE of 0.414%. On
comparison with recent algorithms the proposed method achieves the lowest
root mean square error (RMSE) meeting the main objective of proposed work.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Purushothaman Geethanjali
School of Electrical Engineering, VIT University
Vellore, Tamil Nadu 600127, India
Email: pgeethanjali@vit.ac.in

1. INTRODUCTION
Most industrial energy businesses are presently investing millions of dollars in renewable energy
projects, and every increase in efficiency has tremendous economic and societal benefits right away. According
to approved worldwide targets various sorts of renewable energy sources have increased considerably in the
last five years and numerous extremely successful solutions have been offered in this respect [1]. It's worth
emphasizing that water, biomass, wind, sun, and earth energy are the primary sources of renewable energy.
Sustainable energy sources (SES) produce green energy with low environmental impact [2]. In addition to
meeting power demand, switching to solar energy, especially photovoltaic (PV), offers many benefits such as
modularity, minimal maintenance, environmental friendliness and quietness. However, its cell modeling is
important for the design, simulation analysis, evaluation, and control of PV systems [3]. However, accurate
modeling of PV cells is complicated by the non-linearity of PV, the presence of large unknown model
parameters and the lack of proprietary methods. Determining their values has high priority since the number
of related model parameters are directly related to the accuracy and efficiency of the model [4]. Solar energy
is abundant and at the forefront, but its growth is hampered by factors such as partial shading, intermittent

Journal homepage: http://ijpeds.iaescore.com

1646  ISSN: 2088-8694

properties, high initial costs, and expensive storage requirements [5], [6]. Therefore, accurate modeling is
essential and unavoidable to predict PV system performance prior to implementation [7]. The characteristics
of PV modules are essential for the design, simulation analysis, evaluation, and control of PV systems. In
addition, modeling helps to understand the operating principles and characteristics of photovoltaic systems
under different atmospheric conditions [8]. However, limited by inherent lack of data availability, PV cell
modeling approaches to date have applied analytical, iteration and metaheuristic methods to model PV module
properties [9]. In this case, all methods aim to reconstruct the PV properties by identifying the missing unknown
parameters as the mathematical procedure for "n" iterations is executed until the desired output is reached. It
is important to know the arithmetic model of the PV module coupled to the power converter of the PV system
[10]. Unfortunately, not all model parameters are available in the manufacturer's datasheet. The manufacturer's
data sheet includes several parameters such as open circuit voltage (Voc), ideality factor (n), short circuit current
(Isc), voltage and current at maximum power point (V mpp), current at maximum (I mpp), temperature coefficient
of voltage (KV). Current (KI) at standardized test conditions (STC). STC refers to an irradiation of 1000 W/m2
and a temperature of 25°C. Therefore, it is important to estimate unknown parameters in order to accurately
model the PV system [11]. However, the selected procedure remains un-suitable for changing irradiation
conditions. Besides, it's obvious that incorrect parameter identification can lead to incorrect results [12], [13].
Alternatively, numerical extraction techniques are used in accurate reproduction of a single point on
the actual IV curve and thus all changes in irradiance and temperature conditions. During its popularity, the
calculation is complicated because it consumes all the data points of the IV curve [14]. Therefore, many new
optimization algorithms have been developed to generate better solutions for PV. Over the years there is an
extensive intelligent optimization approach applied to extract the parameters of the PV model. Crow search
algorithm [15], behavior search algorithm (BSA) [16], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [17], nonlinear
search algorithm nonlinear least squares (NLS) [18], JAYA (JAYA) [19], cuckoo search (CS) [20], differential
evolution (DE) [21], whale optimization algorithm (WOA) [22]. This paper offers a novel optimization
technique based on this cutting-edge version to predict the electrical parameters of the PV module using the
doubles-diode model representation. The suggested approach corresponds to the ensemble of constraint
handling techniques ECHT, which has not been applied to this issue utilizing the PV data sheet before, with
the key benefit that all the seven parameters of the double diode are computed with convergence time and
accurate results in comparison with the recent algorithms. Furthermore, numerical findings show objective
function values lower than others algorithms considering the same PV technology which are clearly better than
the results published in [23]-[28]. The suggested technique also has the benefit of reaching the best solution in
less than 2 seconds by assuring optimal solution. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2
explains the formulation of the parametric estimate issue in PV modules using the manufacturer's data sheet
information. Section 3 provides a broad overview of the proposed ECHT. Section 4 illustrates the results of
the test system along with computational validation elements.

2. ELECTRICAL EQUVIVALENT CIRCUIT MODEL OF PV CELL

In this manuscript, all the three diode models namely 1-diode and 2-diode are selected to model the
PV cell. The most commonly used model is single and double diode model with five parameters, as shown in
Figures 1(a) and 1(b). It has five and seven unknown parameters such as photogenic current (I ph), saturation
current (Io), diode quality factor (a), series resistance (Rs) and shunt. Resistance (Rsh). Figure 1 shows their
equivalent diagram. The double diode model accounts for two more parameters due to diffusion and
recombination in the emitter and bulk regions of the PN junction namely (I o1 and Io2) and ideality factor (a1 and
a2) respectively. The load current of a PV cell is given by (1) [29]. This equation can be extended for all the
models with variation in ‘i’ values ranging from 1 to 2 respectively.

𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠
𝐼 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼𝑑1 − 𝐼𝑑2 − ( ) (1)
𝑅𝑠ℎ

𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠 𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠

𝐼𝑝𝑣 = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − ∑2𝑖=1 𝐼01 ⌊𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1⌋ − ( ) (2)
𝑎1 𝑉𝑡 𝑅𝑠ℎ

The load current of a PV cell is given by in (1). This equation can be extended for other models with variation
in ‘i’ values ranging from 1 to 2 respectively.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022: 1645-1653
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1647

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Equivalent circuit diagram of (a) single-diode model and (b) double-diode model

3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
3.1. ECHT Algorithm
Differential evolution (DE)-based constraint optimization issues have grabbed the interest of
researchers due to the randomization of the starting population through asexual reproduction to create
offspring. This strategy is more reliant on phenotypic behavioral evolution than genetic change. To investigate
and use the whole search area, many kinds of DE are applied [30]. It is extremely difficult for a single constraint
handling method to perform optimally for a particular task. This strategy is favored when each population has
a distinct constraint management methodology for solving constrained based optimization issues. The generic
formulation of objective function for DDM is given by of the optimization problem with constraints is provided
in (3):

𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠 𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠 𝑉𝑝𝑣 +𝐼𝑝𝑣 𝑅𝑠

𝑓(𝑉𝑝𝑣 , 𝐼𝑝𝑣 , 𝜙) = 𝐼𝑝ℎ − 𝐼01 ⌊𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1⌋ − 𝐼02 ⌊𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( ) − 1⌋ − ( ) (3)
𝑎1 𝑉𝑡 𝑎2 𝑉𝑡 𝑅𝑠ℎ

∅ = {𝐼𝑝ℎ, 𝐼01, 𝐼02, 𝑅𝑠ℎ, 𝑎1, 𝑎2, 𝑅𝑠} (4)

The general formulation of the optimization problem subjected to constraints are given in (5) and (6)

Min/Max: f(x), X= (x1, x2…... xn) (5)

Constraints: Gi (x) ≤ 0 i=1 m

Hi(x) =0 j= m+1……, n (6)

∑𝑤
1=1 𝐾𝑖 (𝐺𝑖 (x))
𝑃𝑥 = ∑𝑤
(7)
1=1 𝐾𝑖

Where ‘V’ is entire search space, m being the inequality constraint, (n-m) is the equality constraint and X ∈V.
Here f should be bounded else it may not be continuous. Inequality constraints which satisfy Gi(x) =0 is referred
as active constraints because it achieves global optimum, converting equality to inequality and assembling with
other inequality constraints.

4. FLOW CHART
The detailed flowchart of ECHT algorithm is depicted in Figure 2. This algorithm includes six steps
as followed:
− Step 1: The population and parameters of various CHT are specified with n dimensions and people. The
total number of generations is set to k=1 and the learning rate is set to P=10 for both the one and two diode
Ensemble of constraint handling techniques for … (Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah)
1648  ISSN: 2088-8694

models, with upper and lower bounds (ub) and (lb) is a set of parameters chosen at random for each person
in each population.
− Step 2: optimize the fitness function: Check the fitness function and constraints that violates the limits in
every population using equation given in (5), (6) and (7).
− Step 3: Updation: Updating the population based on objective function evaluation is done and every
offspring’s generated in every iteration are saved. The mean of the values are calculated and η parameter
for next generation is updated.
− Step 4: Select best Species: Offspring produced by each parent population are accessed and best parent
produced offspring are chosen by mutation and crossover. These rates are chosen to be 0.9 and 0.7
respectively from literature.
− Step 5: Re-evaluation: Evaluate the objective function.
− Step 6: All the four different CH group population parents and their offspring are combined with their own
offspring’s and also with other population offspring’s. Each individual that belongs to population1
randomly selects the new generated offspring’ and competes to complete the process.

Figure 2. Flowchart representing ECHT algorithm

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022: 1645-1653
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1649

5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
To test the reliability of estimated parameters real time data obtained from datasheet of RTC France
model are considered at 1000 W/m2 irradiance and 33°C temperature [31], [32]. The estimated and real values
obtained from the data sheet are compared and the error is presented in Table 1. This table clearly depicts the
comparison performance of proposed method with EVPS. The root mean square error RMSE value obtained
by ECHTE is 7.325513*10-4 which is comparatively low. The plots obtained p-v and i-v cell are presented in
Figure 3. Table 2 presents the data of estimated values of 2-diode model for three commercial PV cells. The
RMSE for all the three cells are also considered to prove upper hand in estimated efficiency.

Table 1. The performance of ECHT in accurate estimation of model parameter

Parameter *ECHT EVPS
Iph (A) 0.760813 0.7608118
Rsh(Ω) 58.37134 58.36465
Io1(μA) 0.760 1.96
Io2(μA) 0.086952 0.0776
a1 1.37 1.36
a2 1.99 1.95
Rs(Ω) 0.038 0.038
RMSE*10-4 7.325513 7.340683

Table 2. Parameter estimated for three different PV cells using ECHT algorithm
Parameters Shell SP140-PC Kyocera, KS20T Sun module, SW245
Iph (A) 1.232 1.263 8.4901
Io1(μA) 1.3858 4.252 0.035459
Io2(μA) 1.3334 0.01 0.92614
RS (mΩ) 440 90 5.8
RP (Ω) 1148.6 1329.1 799.7526
a1 1.9618 2.0264 4.171
a2 1.3609 1.1656 1.518
NRMSE (%) 0.1264 0.414 0.040765

Figure 3. P-V and I-V plots for estimated and experimental values obtained using ECHT for RTC France
cell at 1000 W/m2 irradiance and 33 °C

Ensemble of constraint handling techniques for … (Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah)

1650  ISSN: 2088-8694

Figure 4. Shows the variation of RMSE of RTC France cell with respect to various data points using
EVPS algorithm. It is clearly evident from the plot that ECHT outperforms to yield better accuracy in
comparison with EVPS. The detailed comparison with reference to the work done in the literature is tabulated
in Table 3. The results obtained by ECHT shows greater precision in terms of extracted parameters which
accounts for minimized error. RMSE analysis with various methods is presented in Figure 5. From the plot it
is very clear that ECHT shows the best and HFAPS the least performance in terms of estimated error which is
least 7.3255*10-4 among the different methods existing in the literature. The proposed optimum values are kept
in bold.

Figure 4. RMSE depicting the error in comparison with ECHT

Table 3. The performance comparison of ECHT with recent literature

Algorithm Iph (A) Io1(μA) Io2(μA) a1 a2 Rs(Ω) Rsh(Ω) RMSE* 10-4
ECHT 0.7608131 0.7608131 0.0869527 1.371206 1.999 0.0380 58.3713 7.3255
EVPS [23] 0.7607 0.29749 0.2504 0.0363 55.88 1.4749 1.9726 9.851
ImCSA [24] 0.760781 0.225966 0.747309 1.451543 2 0.0367 55.4826 9.8249
BHCS [25] 0.76078 0.74935 0.22597 2 1.451 0.0367 55.4854 9.8248
ITLBO [26] 0.7608 0.226 0.7493 1.451 2 0.0367 55.4854 9.8248
EO [27] 0.76792 0.39999 0.26605 0.03659 54.17 2 1.46451 9.8353
HFAPS [28] 0.760781 0.225974 0.749358 1.45101 2 0.0367 55.4855 9.8248

Figure 5. RMSE analysis of various methods in comparison with ECHT

To examine and validate the performance characteristics, seven variables (Iph, I01, I02, Rs, Rsh, a1 and
a2) of double-diode multi-crystalline Kyocera KS20T are computed and plotted as shown in Figure 5 and 6.
The upper and lower bounds of the seven variables are defined as a 1 [0.5, 3], a2 [0.5, 3], Rs [0.01, 3] Ω, Iph [0,
10] A, Io1 [e-5, 1e-15], Io2 [1e-5, 1e-15] A and Rsh [100, 3000] Ω. The parameters are extracted for four different

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022: 1645-1653
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1651

irradiation condition and the plot of estimated and experimental values are obtained from MATLAB
simulation. From the plot depicted in Figures 6 and 7. Represents effect of change in irradiation for Kyocera
PV model. It is evident from the plots that the estimated and experimental values coincide at four different
irradiations assuring the minimal deviation meeting the main objective of the proposed work.

Figure 6. Effects of irradiation on i-v characteristics of Kyocera model

Figure 7. Effects of irradiation on p-v characteristics of Kyocera model

6. CONCLUSION
This paper aims in estimating the seven variables of double diode model adopting ECHT using
differential evolutionary algorithm. Four commercial PV models shell SP140-PC, Kyocera (KS20T), SW245
and RTC France are tested on simulation and experimental values to evaluate the accuracy of the estimated
parameters. The obtained results are compared with existing literature with different algorithms to prove the
reliability in extracting results with good precision. The result shows the least RMSE, full filling the set
objective functions with minimum iterations. Special case with change in irradiation is also performed on
Kyocera model to obtain PV and IV performance plots to depict the closeness between experimental and
estimated values. This work can be extended to analyze the impact of soiling and partial shading with the
proposed algorithm. This work can eventually help the researchers to crate the virtual simulator tool which can
predict the behavior and estimate the parameter with best accuracy.

REFERENCES
[1] C. Hajar et al, “Degradation and performance analysis of a monocrystalline PV system without EVA encapsulating in semi-arid
climate,” Helidon, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1-8, 2020, Doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon. 2020.e04079.
[2] M. Louzazni, E. H. Aroudam, and H. Yatimi, “Modeling and simulation of a solar power source for a clean energy without
pollution,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 568-576, 2013.
[3] A. R. Akparibo and E. Normanyo, “Application of resistance energy model to optimising electric power consumption of a belt
conveyor system,” International Journal of Power Systems, vol. 4, pp. 97-108, 2019.
[4] R. Venkateswari and N. Rajasekar, “Review on parameter estimation techniques of solar photovoltaic systems,” International
Transactions on Electrical Energy Systems, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1-72, 2021, doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.13113.
[5] K. Priya, K. Sathishkumar, and N. A. Rajasekar, “A comprehensive review on parameter estimation techniques for Proton Exchange
Membrane fuel cell modelling,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 93, pp. 121-144, 2018, Doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.017.
[6] P. A. Kumari, and P. Geethanjali, “Parameter estimation for photovoltaic system under normal and partial shading conditions: A
survey,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 84, pp. 1-11, 2018, Doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.051.
[7] P. J. Gnetchejo, S. N. Essiane, P. Ele, R. Wamkeue, D. M. Wapet and S. P. Ngoffe, “Important notes on parameter estimation of
solar photovoltaic cell,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 197, no. 111870, 2019, Doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111870.

Ensemble of constraint handling techniques for … (Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah)

1652  ISSN: 2088-8694

[8] G. Farivar, B. Asaei and S. Mehrnami, “An Analytical Solution for Tracking Photovoltaic Module MPP,” IEEE Journal of
Photovoltaics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1053-1061, 2013, Doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2013.2250332.
[9] Hassan, K. H., Rashid, A. T., & Jasim, B. H. (2021). Parameters estimation of solar photovoltaic module using camel behaviour
search algorithm. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 11(1), 788.
[10] H. Rezk, and M. A. Abdelkareem, “Optimal parameter identification of triple diode model for solar photovoltaic panel and cells,”
Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 1179-1188, 2022, Doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.179.
[11] C. Chaibi, M. Salhi, A. Jouni and A. Essadki, “A new method to extract the equivalent circuit parameters of a photovoltaic panel,”
Solar Energy, vol. 165, pp. 376-386, 2018, Doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.02.017.
[12] M. A. Hasan and S. K. Parida, “An overview of solar photovoltaic panel modeling based on analytical and experimental viewpoint,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 60, pp. 75-83, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.087.
[13] H. M. Waly, H. Z. Azazi, D. S. M. Osheba and A. E. El-Sabbe, “Parameters extraction of photovoltaic sources based on experimental
data,” IET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 1466-1473, 2019, doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5418.
[14] P. J. Gnetchejo et al., “A self-adaptive algorithm with Newton Raphson method for parameters identification of photovoltaic
modules and array,” Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Materials, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 869-888, 2021, Doi: 10.1007/s42341-
021-00312-5.
[15] Al-Jumaili, M. H., Abdalkafor, A. S., & Taha, M. Q. (2019). Analysis of the hard and soft shading impact on photovoltaic module
performance using solar module tester. Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN, 2088(8694), 1015..
[16] O. D. Montoya, C. A. R. Vanegas, and L. F. G. Norena, “Parametric estimation in photovoltaic modules using the crow search
algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 82-91, 2022, Doi: 10.11591/ijece.
v12i1.pp82-91.
[17] K. H. Hassan, A. T. Rasyidnand B. H. Jasim, “Parameters estimation of solar photovoltaic module using camel behavior search
algorithm,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 788-793, 2021, Doi: 10.11591/ijece.
v11i1.pp788-793.
[18] K. Ishaque, Z. Salam, H. Taheri, A. Shamsudin, “A critical evaluation of EA computational methods for Photovoltaic cell parameter
extraction based on two diode model,” Solar Energy, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 1768-1779, 2011, Doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2011.04.015.
[19] A. Mohapatra, B. Nayak, K. B. Mohanty, “Parameter Extraction of PV Module Using NLS Algorithm with Experimental
Validation,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2392-2400, 2017, Doi: 10.11591/ijece.
v7i5.pp2392-2400.
[20] Y. Kunjie, J. J. Liang, B. Y. Qu, X. Chen, and H. Wang, “Heshan Wang.Parameters identification of photovoltaic models using an
improved JAYA optimization algorithm,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 150, pp. 742-753, 2017, Doi:
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.063.
[21] J. Ma, T. O. Ting, K. L. Man, N. Zhang, S. U. Guan and W. H. Wong, “Parameter estimation of photovoltaic models via cuckoo
search,” Journal of applied mathematics, vol. 2013, no. 362619, pp. 1-9, 2013, Doi: 10.1155/2013/362619.
[22] S. Das, A. Abraham, U. K. Chakraborty and A. Konar, “Differential Evolution Using a Neighbourhood-Based Mutation Operator,”
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 526-553, 2009, Doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2008.2009457.
[23] W. Long, T. Wu, J. Jiao, M. Tang and M. Xu, “Refraction-learning-based whale optimization algorithm for high-dimensional
problems and parameter estimation of PV model,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 89, no. 103457, 2020,
Doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103457.
[24] P. J. Gnetchejo, S. N. Essiane, P. Ele, R. Wamkeue, D. M. Wapet and S. P. Ngoffe, “Enhanced vibrating particles system algorithm
for parameters estimation of photovoltaic system,” Journal of Power and Energy Engineering, vol 7, no. 8, pp. 1-26, 2019, Doi:
10.4236/jpee.2019.78001.
[25] T. Kang, J. Yao, M. Jin, S. Yang and T. L. Duong, “A novel improved cuckoo search algorithm for parameter estimation of
photovoltaic (PV) models,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1-31, 2018, Doi: 10.3390/en11051060.
[26] X. Chen and K. Yu, “Hybridizing cuckoo search algorithm with biogeography-based optimization for estimating photovoltaic model
parameters,” Solar Energy, vol. 180, pp. 192-206, 2019, Doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.01.025.
[27] S. Li et al., “Parameter extraction of photovoltaic models using an improved teaching-learning-based optimization,” Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 186, pp. 293-305, 2019, Doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.048.
[28] F. E. Ndi, S. N. Perabi, S. E. Ndjakomo, G. O. Abesso and G. M. Mengata, “Estimation of single-diode and two diode solar cell
parameters by equilibrium optimizer method,” Energy Reports, vol. 7, pp. 4761-4768, 2021, Doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.025.
[29] A. M. Beigi and A. Maroosi, “Parameter identification for solar cells and module using a hybrid firefly and pattern search
algorithms,” Solar Energy, vol. 171, pp. 435-446, 2018, doe: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.092.
[30] R. Ndegwa, J. Simiyu, E. Ayieta and N. Odero, “A fast and accurate analytical method for parameter determination of a photovoltaic
system based on manufacturer’s data,” Journal of Renewable Energy, vol. 2020, no. 7580279, pp. 1-18, 2020, Doi:
10.1155/2020/7580279.
[31] R. Mallipeddi and P. N. Suganthan, “Ensemble of Constraint Handling Techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 561-579, 2010, Doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2009.2033582.
[32] D. Mathew, C. Rani, M. Rajesh Kumar, Y. Wang, R. Binns and K. Busawon, “Wind-Driven Optimization Technique for Estimation
of Solar Photovoltaic Parameters,” IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 248-256, Jan. 2018, Doi:
10.1109/JPHOTOV.2017.2769000.

Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2022: 1645-1653
Int J Pow Elec & Dri Syst ISSN: 2088-8694  1653

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah is currently working towards the Ph.D. Degree

with school of Electrical Engineering, VIT University, India and also serving as assistant
Professor in Electrical Engineering Department at the REVA University, Bangalore, and
Karnataka, India. She received her B. E. degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in
2008 and she obtained M.E in Power and Energy systems in 2012 from University
Visvesvaraya College of Engineering (UVCE), Bangalore India. Since 2013, she is with
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, REVA University, Bangalore. She has
presented papers in many reputed conferences and published good journals. Her research
interests include, Solar Photo voltaic, Applications of Artificial intelligence in the field of
engineering, optimization techniques, Design and development of MPPT schemes and design
of inverters for grid connected application. She can be contacted at email:
kanchanapu@gmail.com.

Purushothaman Geethanjali received her B.E. degree in Electrical and

Electronics Engineering from University of Madras, Tamilnadu, India in 2001. She obtained
M. Tech in Electrical Drives and Control from Pondicherry Engineering College,
Pondicherry, India in 2004. She received her Ph. D degree from VIT University, Vellore,
India in 2012. Her Ph.D. thesis has been nominated for “Best Thesis” by Indian National
Academy of Engineering (INAE). She received grants from the Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India. She also received Fulbright-Nehru Academic and
Professional Excellence Fellowship for 2014-15. She is currently working as senior
Associate professor in school of Electrical Engineering, VIT University, India. Her research
interests include bio- signal and image processing, pattern recognition, development of
assistive devices, biomechanics and application of renewable energy in assistive devices. She
can be contacted at email: pgeethanjali@vit.ac.in.

Ensemble of constraint handling techniques for … (Ashwini Kumari Puttaramaiah)