See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305627778

Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind/PV

microgrid with hydrogen energy storage using MOPSO

Article in Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · February 2017

DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-152372

CITATIONS READS

130 1,599

3 authors:

Hamid Reza Baghaee Mojtaba Mirsalim

Amirkabir University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology
179 PUBLICATIONS 4,914 CITATIONS 278 PUBLICATIONS 5,541 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gevork B. Gharehpetian
Amirkabir University of Technology
1,100 PUBLICATIONS 21,535 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Reza Baghaee on 28 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 32 (2017) 1753–1773 1753
DOI:10.3233/JIFS-152372
IOS Press

Multi-objective optimal power management

and sizing of a reliable wind/PV microgrid
with hydrogen energy storage using
MOPSO
Hamid Reza Baghaeea,b , Mojtaba Mirsalima,b,∗ and Gevork B. Gharehpetiana
a Departmentof Electrical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b Electrical
Machines and Transformer Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract. In this paper, a multi-objective algorithm is presented for optimal power management and design of a hybrid
Wind/Photovoltaic/ generation system with hydrogen energy storage system including electrolyzer, fuel cell and hydrogen
tank to supply power demand in a microgrid system. The generation units are intrinsically non-dispatchable and moreover,
the major components of the system i.e. wind turbine generators, photovoltaic arrays and DC/AC converter may be subjected
to failure. Also, solar radiation, wind speed and load data are assumed to be entirely deterministic. The goal of this design is
to use a novel multi-objective optimization algorithm to minimize the objective functions i.e. annualized cost of the system,
loss of load expected and loss of energy expected and provide optimal energy management in the microgrid. The system
costs involve investment, replacement and operation and maintenance costs. Prices are all empirical and components are
commercially available. The simulation results for different cases reveal the impact of components outage on the reliability
and cost of the system. So, they are directly depends on component’s reliabilities, i.e. outages lead to need for a larger and
more expensive generation system to supply the load with the acceptable level of reliability. In addition, an approximate
method for reliability evaluation of hybrid system is presented which lead to reduce computation time. Simulation results
show the effectiveness of proposed multi-objective algorithm to solve optimal sizing problem in contrast with traditional
single objective methods.

Keywords: Microgrid, wind energy, photovoltaic, fuel cell, reliability, optimal power management and sizing, multi-objective
particle swarm optimization

1. Introduction These drawbacks result in serious reliability concerns

A drawback common to Photovoltaic (PV) and
Wind Generation (WG) units, is unpredictable and
non-dispatchable nature of solar and wind energy
sources in the microgrid systems. Moreover, the vari-
ations of these sources may not match with the
time distribution of demand in the microgrid [1–3].
∗ Corresponding
author. M. Mirsalim. Tel.: +98 21 64543321;
Fax: +98 21 66406469; E-mail: mirsalim@aut.ac.ir.
in both design and operation of PV and WG sys-
tems. Although over sizing is usually an approach
to overcome reliability problem, however, it may
be costly and so as an alternative approach, hybrid
PV/WG systems efficiently combine complementary
characteristics of solar and wind sources to enhance
the microgrid system’s reliability and reduce its
costs [4].
Overall single line/block diagram of studied micro-
grid system is demonstrated in Fig. 1 including

1064-1246/17/$35.00 © 2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
1754 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
Fig. 1. Block diagram f a hybrid wind/Photovoltaic generation microgrid unit with hydrogen based ESS.
WG/PV units connected to a common DC bus and
a combination of a Fuel Cell (FC) stack, an elec-
trolyzer, and a hydrogen storage tank as the Energy
Storage System (ESS). In recent years, hydrogen as a
suitable storage medium in renewable energy systems
has become a matter of grave challenge [5–8].
Unlike diesel generator, hydrogen-based ESS are
emission free and they do not need any supply of fuel.
Moreover, hydrogen-based systems will be econom-
ically reasonable in future considering expectation of
increase in fuel price and extreme reductions in FC
costs [9–11]. Also, in hybrid PV/WG/diesel systems,
it is not possible to store surplus during good sea-
sons. In contrary, in proposed hydrogen-based ESS,
electrolyzer converts the excess energy into chemi-
cal form, i.e. produces hydrogen, and stores in the
hydrogen tank [12, 13].
Because of intermittent characteristic of wind
speed and radiation, most important challenge in
design of such systems is reliable supply of demand
so, the goal is optimal design of a hybrid system for
reliable and economical supply of the load [7]. Litera-
ture offers a variety of methods for optimal designing
of hybrid PV/WG generating systems [1–4, 7, 10,
12–28].
In [15], non-Linear programming (NLP) is used to
find the optimal size and location of grid-connected
wind turbines. Simple iterative algorithms have been
used for optimal sizing of hybrid WG/PV system
with battery ESS [12, 19–25]. Deficiency of power
supply probability (DPSP) [19] and Loss of power
supply probability (LPSP) [23–25] have been used
as the technical criteria in iterative solution for opti-
mal sizing of hybrid WG/PV systems with battery
ESS. In [16], Genetic Algorithm (GA) and in some
other works, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
are successfully implemented for optimal sizing of
hybrid stand-alone systems, assuming continuous
and reliable supply of load [7, 18, 26–28]. GA
and preference-inspired co-evolutionary algorithm
(PICEA) have been used in [3] and [17] to find
optimal size of a wind/PV/battery system subject
to reliability index of LPSP. However, they do not
consider outage probabilities of components such as
wind turbines and PV arrays. In [14], a methodology
for calculation of economic costs of power inter-
ruptions for different user sectors and interruption
durations has been developed.
Reliability assessment is relevant for any engi-
neering system [29]. But, previous researches do not
consider reliability issues in depth. For instance, some
very given phenomena that may extremely affect sys-
tem’s reliability and cost, such as failures and outages
of generating units are usually ignored.
Impacts of uncertainties in operating parameters
and reliability of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel
Cell (PEMFC) has been studied and it has been noted
that, uncertainty and reliability shall be considered
in designing stage of any robust and applicable sys-
tem and finally, it suggests that a stochastic modeling
framework should be interfaced with a numerical
optimization scheme [30]. This suggestion was a
great motivation to consider the impact of component
reliabilities, on economical design of stand-alone
renewable systems. So, in [4], the outage probabili-
ties of PV arrays and WGs have been considered. But,
further studies revealed that the availability of DC/AC
converter, as the only single cut-set [29] in reliability
diagram, has an extreme influence over the system’s
reliability. Later, [28] investigated the problem more
carefully as a Single Objective Optimization (SOO)
problem.
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind 1755

Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) methods where, G is perpendicular radiation at array’s surface

have also been used to design and optimize a (W/m2 ), PPV,rated is rated power of each PV array at
hybrid energy systems [11, 34]. In [11], a hybrid G = 1000 W/m2 , and ηMPPT is the efficiency of PV’s
PV-wind-diesel-hydrogen-battery system has been DC/DC converter and Maximum Power Point Track-
designed using a MOO algorithm minimizing total ing (MPPT). PVs are usually equipped with MPPT
net present cost, CO2 emissions, and the unmet load systems to maximize the power output [3]. Using
as three objective functions by using Multi-Objective these systems, usually result in about 30% increase
Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) and GA. Multi- in the average amount of the extracted energy from
objective linear Programming (MOLP) has been used PV arrays [2]. Thus, it is assumed that PV arrays are
to optimize economic/environmental objectives in a equipped with 95% efficient MPPT systems which
distributed energy system including PV, FC and gas provide a 48 V DC at DC bus side.
engine for combined heat and power (CHP) plants
[31].
2.2. Wind Turbine Generator
In this paper, Multi-Objective Particle Swarm
Optimization (MOPSO) algorithm is exploited to
Output power of WG against wind speed is
minimize costs of the system over its 20 years of
depicted in Fig. 2. This curve is given by manufac-
operation, as well as reliability indices like Loss
turer and usually describes the real power transferred
of Load Expected (LOLE) and Loss of Energy
from WG to DC bus. In this paper, Bergey Wind
Expected (LOEE) subject to reliability and oper-
Power’s BWC Excel R/48 [9] is considered. It has
ational constraint. Wind speed and solar radiation
a rated capacity of 7.5 kW and provides 48 V DC
data are available for Ardebil province in North
as output. Here, power curve versus wind speed is
West of Iran (latitude: 38 170, longitude: 48 150,
defined by (Fig. 2):
altitude: 1345 m), and system costs include AC of
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0 ; vW ≤ vcut in , vW ≥ vcut out
⎪
⎨  m
vW −vcut in
PWG = PWG,max × vrated −vcut in ; vcut in ≤ vW ≤ vrated (2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩P +
Pfurl −PWG,max
× (v − v ) ;v ≤v ≤v
WG,max vcut out −vrated W rated rated W furl

Where, PWG,max and PWG,furl are WG’s output

investment, replacement, and O&M, as well as cos-
power at rated and cut out speeds, respectively. In this
tumers’ dissatisfaction costs. Finally, an approximate
paper, m is set to 3. Also, in above equation, vW refers
method for reliability evaluations of the hybrid sys-
to wind speed at the height of WG’s hub. Measured
tem is proposed. Results indicate that the approximate
data at any height can be converted to installation
method provides not only acceptable accuracy, but
height through exponent law [2]:
also reduces problem complexity significantly and,
consequently, needed time and computation intensity.

2. PV/WG/FC system modeling

The microgrid is simulated for one year period of

operation in one hour time steps. Given yearly pro-
file of wind speed and solar are available, generated
power by PV and WG can be calculated.

2.1. Photo voltaic array

Insulation data is converted in to output power of

the PV panel using the following equation [4, 7].
G
PPV = PPV,rated × ηPV,conv (1) Fig. 2. Power output characteristic of BWC Excel-R/48 versus
1000 wind speed.
1756 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
 α
hhub
vW = vmeasure
W ×
hmeasure
where, α is the exponent law coefficient [3].
2.3. Power generated by renewable Units
By adding WG and PV power outputs, injected
power from renewable sources to DC bus is:
   
fail fail fail
Pren nWG , nPV = NWG − nWG × PWG
 
fail
+ NPV − nPV × PPV (4)
fail fail
Where, NWG , NPV , nWG and nWG are number
of installed and failed WG turbines and PV panels,
respectively [32]. At this point, generated power by
renewable sources distributes through two streams,
one stream goes to DC/AC inverter to meet the load
(Pren−inv ), and other, transfers the extra power to
electrolyzer for hydrogen production (Pren−el ).
2.4. Electrolyzer
Most electrolyzers produce hydrogen at pressure
around 30 bars which can then be further compressed
for storage [28, 33]. But, the reactant pressures within
a Proton Exchange Membrane FC (PEMFC) are
around 1.2 bar (a bit higher than atmosphere pres-
sure) [34]. So, the electrolyzer output is directly
injected to a hydrogen tank [8, 9, 18, 34, 35]. In
this paper, the electrolyzer is directly connected to
hydrogen tank, although, the developed software is
flexible to handle compressor model. When the tank
is fully charged, compressors pump the hydrogen into
a second high-pressure tank. So, compressor does not
work continuously and, it consumes lower energy.
Transferred power from electrolyzer to hydrogen is:
Pel− tank = Pren−el × ηel
where, ηel is the electrolyzer efficiency [9, 28].
2.5. Hydrogen tank
The energy of hydrogen stored in the tank at time
step t can be obtained by the following equation:
Etan k (t) = Etan k (t − 1)
 supplied by fuel cell. If shortage power exceeds
Ptan k−FC (t)
+ Pele−tan k (t) −
ηstorage
where, Ptank FC is the transferred power from the
(3) hydrogen tank to the FC. Storage efficiency (hstorage )
may present losses resulted from leakage or pump-
ing, and assumed to be equal to 95% [28, 36]. The
mass of stored hydrogen, at time step t, is calculated
as:
Etan k (t)
mtan k (t) = (7)
HHVH2
where, the Higher Heating Value (HHV) of hydrogen
is equal to 39.7 kWh/kg [28, 37]. Hydrogen pressure
drop, a small fraction of the hydrogen (here, 5%) may
not be extracted. This fraction is the lower limit of the
stored energy [28]. Therefore,
Etank,min ≤ Etank (t) ≤ Etank,max (8)
2.6. Fuel cell
A PEM fuel cell has reliable performance under
intermittent supply and is commercially available
[33]. Its output power can be defined as a function
of its input and efficiency (ηFC ) which is considered
to be constant (here, 50%) [9].
PFC− inv = Ptank−FC × ηFC (9)
2.7. DC/AC converter
The inverter’s losses can be presented by its effi-
ciency (ηinv ). The efficiency is roughly supposed to
be constant (here, 90%) [9].
Pinv− load = (PFC−inv + Pren−inv ) × ηinv (10)
2.8. Operation strategy
Strategy of system operation is governed by the
(5) following rules:
(t)
• If Pren (t) = Pload
ηinv , then whole power gener-
ated by renewable sources is injected to the load
through inverter.
(t)
• If Pren (t) > Pload
ηinv then the surplus power is
transferred to electrolyzer. If the injected power
exceeds electrolizer’s rated power and the sur-
plus energy will circulate in a dump resistor.
(t)
• If Pren (t) < Pload
ηinv then shortage power will be
× t fuel cell’s rated power or stored hydrogen cannot
afford the shortage, some fraction of the load
(6) must be shaded. This fact leads to loss of load.
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind 1757

Under all above conditions, components limits are • Loss of power supply probability [4, 32]
regarded and Equations (1–10) rein the system.
H
LOEE
LPSP = H
= E [LOE (h)] (15)
3. Reliability/cost assessment D (h) h=1
h=1
The microgrid system is simulated over a year with
where, D(h) is the load demand (kWh) at time step h.
1-h time steps and reliability/cost assessment studies
are carried out. Then, using economic factors, results • Equivalent loss factor [4, 32]
are expanded to the 20-year period of a microgrid
lifetime. Load growth and uncertainty in load, solar H
radiation and wind speed are neglected. 1 E [Q (h)]
ELF = (16)
H D (h)
h=1
3.1. Reliability Indices
In all above equations, H is the number of time
Several reliability indices introduced before [17, steps in which system’s reliability is evaluated (here,
32, 33, 38, 39]. LOLE, LOEE or Expected Energy not H = 8760). The ELF is the ratio of the effective
Supplied (EENS), LPSP, and Equivalent Loss Factor forced outage hours to the total number of hours
(ELF) are some of the most common used indices in [33]. Therefore, ELF is chosen as the main reliability
the reliability evaluation of generating systems. From constraint of the optimization problem. In developed
these, LOLE is a loss of load index, whereas others countries, electricity suppliers aim at ELF <0.0001.
belong to category of loss of energy indices. On the other hand, in rural areas and stand-alone
applications (this study), ELF <0.01 is acceptable
• Loss of load expected [4, 32] [33].

H
3.2. System’s reliability model
LOLE = E [LOL (h)] (11)
h=1
In this study, outages of PV arrays, wind turbine
where, E[LOL(h)] is the expected value of loss of generators, and DC/AC converter are considered.
load at hth time step defined by [4, 32]: Forced Outage Rate (FOR) of PVs and WGs is
assumed to be 4% [28, 39] and they will be available
E [LOL] = T (s) × f (s) (12) with a probability of 96%. Probability of encoun-
s∈S tering each state is calculated through binomial
fail
In the above equation, f (s) is the probability of distribution function [40]. For example, given nWG
fail
encountering the state s, and T (s) is the loss of load out of total NWG installed WGs, and nPV out of total
duration (h), given that the occurring state s and S is NPV installed PV arrays are failed, the probability of
the set of all possible states. encountering this state is calculated as follows:
 
• Loss of energy expected (expected energy not fail fail
fren nWG , nPV
supplied [4, 32]
 
NWG fail
NWG −nWG fail
H = fail × AWG × (1 − AWG ) nWG
nWG
LOEE = EENS = E [LOE (h)] (13)
h=1  
NPV NPV −nPV
fail fail
where, E[LOE(h)] is the expected value of loss of × fail × APV ×(1 − APV )
nPV
(17)
nPV
energy, or energy not supplied, at time step h:
where, AWG and APV are availabilities of each WG
E [LOE] = Q (s) × f (s) (14)
and PV array. Since, other components do not have
s∈S
moving parts and are installed indoors, their out-
Here, Q(s) is the amount of loss of energy (kWh) age probabilities, in comparison with WGs and PV
when system encounters state s. arrays, are much lower and therefore negligible. But,
1758 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

as simulation results will confirm the extreme influ-

ence of this component over system’s reliability,
DC/AC converter plays a vital role in supplying the
demand, and its failure, under any conditions, will
result in loss of entire load as the only single cut-
set of the system reliability diagram [29] and so, the
outage probability of inverter shall be taken into reli-
ability evaluations, although its FOR is too small [2,
41, 42].
Given failure rate of an inverter is equal to
2.5 × 10–5 [41], since Mean Time To Failure (MTTF)
of each equipment is reciprocal of its failure rate [29],
MTTF of the inverter is equal to 37,037 h, which is
about 4.23 years (Also, [2] assumes 5 years for Mean
Time Between Failure (MTBF) of DC/AC convert- Fig. 3. Steady-state reliability variation of a proton exchange
ers). On the other hand, as it is given in [42], the Mean membrane fuel cell versus operation years (the solid line: first
5 years, the dashed line: second 5 years with battery replacement)
Time To Repair (MTTR) of each inverter is about [13].
40 h. Steady-state reliability, or in a better word avail-
ability, of DC/AC converter can be calculated as [29]:
sizing. They, require detailed information that is often
MTTFinv not available [44].
Ainv = (18)
MTTFinv + MTTRinv Figure 3 shows the availability (steady-state reli-
ability) of a battery equipped with PEMFC over a
Regarding above equation, the inverter is avail- 10-year operation period [13]. It is observed that dur-
able with a probability of 99.89%, which is indeed ing its useful lifetime, i.e. first 5 years, FC is almost
much more reliable than WGs and PV arrays. Finally, available with a probability of more than 99%. Unfor-
fail fail
probability of failure of nWG WGs, nPV PV arrays, tunately, there is no information about reliabilities of
fail
and ninv inverters out of, respectively, NWG , NPV , electrolyzer and hydrogen tank. By the way, failure
and Ninv (here, Ninv = 1) installed components is probabilities of FC, electrolyzer, and hydrogen tank
calculated by the following equation. are neglected. Unlike DC/AC converter, these parts,
    do not involve in any single cut-set and, therefore, do
fail fail fail fail fail
fsystem nWG , nPV , ninv = fren nWG , nPV not directly cause loss of load. Also, they are much
  more reliable than WGs and PV arrays.
Ninv fail
Ninv −ninv fail
× fail × Ainv × (1 − Ainv ) ninv
(19)
ninv 3.3. Cost of loss of load
fail fail
Where fren (nWG , nPV ) is the probability of fail- Cost of electricity interruptions has been esti-
fail fail mated in different ways. For example, looking at the
ure of nWG WGs and nPV PV arrays calculated
in Equation (17). Consideration of failures of other costumer’s willingness to pay for expansion or at pro-
components as well as uncertainties in solar radi- duction losses at industries affected, or at the level
ation, wind speed and load profile, in reliability of compensations, which makes shortages accept-
assessment of the system results in numerous num- able. The values found are similar in all cases: in
ber of system states which leads to tedious and the range of 5–40 US$/kWh for industrial users and
time-consuming computations. Accurate reliability 2–12 US$/kWh for domestic users [33]. Here, cost of
assessment of such a system requires numerical meth- customer’s dissatisfaction, caused by loss of load, as
ods like Monte-Carlo simulations [38, 39, 43, 44]. it used in [33], is equal to 5.6 US$/kWh.
In [44] a WG/PV/battery system is simulated using
Monte Carlo method. Results show that this method 3.4. Approximate method
converges to final values after more than 50 years
simulation. Consequently, simulation models based For reliability assessments, all possible states
on Monte Carlo-type algorithms are usually very of the system must be enumerated. Generally,
time consuming, complex and unsuitable for a rough Artificial Intelligence (AI) based algorithms are
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind 1759

Substituting Equations (4–17) in above equations

yields:
⎧   ⎫
NPV ⎪ ⎪
fail fail
0.08 NWG ⎨ Pren nWG , nPV ⎬
Pren =
eq
 
0.06
fail fail
⎪
⎩ ×fren nfail , nfail ⎪⎭
nWG =0 nPV =0 WG PV
probability

0.04
(21)
0.02
Ultimately, it can be proved that:
15

0 10
eq
Pren = NWG × PWG × AWG + NPV × PPV × APV
200
150 5
(22)
100
50
0
# of failed Wind Turbines However, Equation (22) could be logically antic-
0
# of failed PV arrays
a) ipated. Results, presented in the following section,
probability will validate the acceptability of the proposed approx-
15
imate method. By using this method, number of all
possible states for outages of 14 WGs and 199 PV
arrays at each time step, reduces from 6000 to only
10
2 states.
# of failed PV array s

4. Problem statement
5

Goal of this paper is reliability/cost based opti-

0
0 0.5
Fig. 4. a) Probability distribution function and b) equal-probability
curves of failures of WGs and PV arrays.
evolutionary or population-based and demand a num-
ber of simulations. For instance, in this study a
swarm of 200 particles searches the solution spaces
through 2000 iterations. Thus, system must be
simulated for 200 × 2000 × 8760 = 3,504,000,000 h.
Now, given system is composed of 199 PV arrays
and 14 WGs, each time step must be enumerated to
2 × 15 × 200 = 6000 states and so any effort to reduce
the complexity and computation time is well worth.
Failure Probability Distribution Function (PDF) and
equal-probability curves of 14 WGs (FOR = 4%) and
199 PV arrays (FOR = 4%) are shown in Fig. 4 (It is
observed that this function is nonzero only in a small
area.) In approximate method, all the possible states
for outages of WGs and PV arrays to be modeled with
an equivalent state. Probability of encountering the
equivalent state is 100% and the generated power by
renewable sources in this state is equal to the expected
value of generated power in all the possible states, i.e.
eq
Pren = E [Pren ] =
mal design of a hydrogen-based hybrid WG/PV
system. Optimization variables are number of wind
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 turbine generators, number and installation angle of
# of failed Wind Turbines
photovoltaic arrays, and capacities of electrolyzer,
b)
hydrogen tank, fuel cell, and DC/AC converter.
System costs consist of annualized cost of invest-
ment, replacement, and operation and maintenance
of components during 20 years of operation. Relia-
bility indices used as objective functions are LOEE
and LOLE. The problem is subjected to maximum
allowable ELF reliability index. Besides, system sim-
ulation is subjected to some other constraints, like
components’ maximum and minimum power and
energy. The Annualized Cost (AC) of component i
is defined as in the following [3, 18]:
 
CCi + RCi × Ki (ir, Li , yi )
ACi = Ni × (23)
×CRF (ir, R) + O&MCi
where, N may be number (unit) or capacity (kW or
kg), CC is capital cost (US$/unit), RC is cost of
each replacement (US$/unit), and O&MC is annual
operation and maintenance cost (US$/unit-yr) of the
component, and R is the useful lifetime of the project
(here, 20 years). ir is the real interest rate (here, 6%)
which is a function of nominal interest rate (irnominal )
and annual inflation rate (fr), defined by [16]:
Pren (s) × fren (s) (20) irnominal − fr
ir = (24)
s∈S 1 + fr
1760 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

Also, CRF and K are capital recovery factor [3] Minimize: f (x) = [f1 (x) , f2 (x) , . . . , fM (x)]T (36)
and single payment present worth [16], respectively: 
gj (x) ≤ 0; i = 1, 2, . . . J
ir × (1 + ir)R Subject to: (37)
CRF (ir, R) = (25) hk (x) = 0; i = 1, 2, . . . K
(1 + ir)R − 1
where, fi (x) is the ith objective function, gj (x) is the
yi jth inequality constraint and hk (x) is the kth equality
1
Ki (ir, Li , yi ) = (26) constraint [45, 47, 48]. The constraints given by (33)
(1 + ir)n×Li
n=1 define feasible region  and any point x in  defines a
where, L and y are useful lifetime and number of feasible solution. The vector f (x) is a function, which
replacements of the component during useful lifetime maps the set  into the set  and represents all pos-
of the project, respectively [2]. Using Equation (13), sible values of the objective functions. The notion
annual cost of loss of load is calculated by: of an optimum solution in MOO is different than
SOO, the concept of Pareto dominance formulated
ACloss = LOEE × Closs (27) by Vilfredo Pareto is used as [45, 47, 48]: A vector
where, Closs is cost of customer’s dissatisfaction u = [u1 , u2 , . . . , uM ]T is said to dominate a vec-
(US$/kWh) described in Section III. Finally, the tor v = [v1 , v2 , . . . , vM ]T (denoted by u≺v), for a
objective functions are defined as: MOO problem, if:
  ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , M} , ui ≤ vi
JCost = min ACi (28)
X ∧ ∃i ∈ {1, . . . , M} : ui < vi (38)
i
JRe liability1 = min {LOEE} (29) where, M is the dimension of the objective space. A
X
solution u ∈ U, where U is the universe, is said to be
JRe liability2 = min {LOLE} (30) Pareto Optimal if and only if, there exists no other
X
solution v ∈ U, that u is dominated by v. Such solu-
(31) tions (u) are called non-dominated solutions. The set
i is the component indicator, and X is a seven dimen- of all non-dominated solutions constitutes the Pareto
sional vector consisting of optimization variables. set or non-dominated set [45, 47, 48].
The optimization problem is subjected to:
5.2. Particle swarm optimization
E [ELF ] ≤ ELFmax (32)
Ni ≥ 0 (33) The PSO is a population-based algorithm that
π exploits a population of individuals to probe promis-
0 ≤ θPV ≤ (34) ing region of the search space [45, 50–53]. Suppose
2
that the search space is n-dimensional, then ith
Etan k (0) ≤ Etan k (8760) (35) particle is a n-dimensional vector, Xi = [xi1 , xi2 ,
where, θP V is array’s installation angle, and con- . . . , xin ]T and velocity Vi = [vi1 , vi2 , . . . , vin ]T ,
straint (34) ensures that the amount of stored energy where i = 1, 2, . . . , N and N is size of popula-
in the hydrogen tank at the end of first year will be tion. In PSO, the particle i remembers the best
more than its initial amount (worst condition). position it visited so far (Pbest ), referred to as
Pi = [pi1 , pi2 , . . . , pin ]T , and best position of best
particle in the swarm (Gbest ) is referred as Gi =
5. Multi Objective Particle swarm [g1 , g2 , . . . , gn ]T . Each particle i adjusts its position
optimization (MOPSO) in the next iteration t + 1, with respect to following
equations [45, 50, 53]:
5.1. Multi-objective optimization
Vi (t + 1) = ω (t) × Vi (t) + c1 × r1
A general minimization problem of M objectives × (Pi (t) − Xi (t)) + c2 × r2
can be stated as: given x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xd ]T , where
× (Gi (t) − Xi (t)) (39)
d is the dimension of the decision variable space
[45, 46]: Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + χ × Vi (t + 1) (40)
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
where ω(t) is inertia coefficient. The factor χ, is used
to limit velocity (here, χ = 0.7). c1 , and c2 denote
the cognitive and social parameters and r1 and r2 are
random real numbers drawn from interval [0, 1] [45,
50]. More details have been provided in [45].
5.3. Multi-objective particle swarm optimization
To make the PSO algorithm capable of dealing with
MOO problems, some modifications become neces-
sary because PSO is an inherent SOO algorithm. In
[46], the personal best performance (Pbest ) of each
individual particle is replaced with the new solution
if and only if it dominates the former Pbest . Also,
two major issues should be considered in the updat-
ing process of the global best performance (Gbest ).
First, the fitness assignment and selection should be
addressed such that a search can move towards the
Pareto optimal set. Second, the diversity of swarm
should be maintained to prevent premature conver-
gence and obtain an evenly distributed Pareto optimal
front [45, 46]. Here, the authors employ an archiving
mechanism proposed in [45] to form a repository,
which may contain only a limited number of solu-
tions. The density parameter (deni ) of the solution
i defined as its distance to the nearest neighbor in
the archive is introduced as a measure of the diver-
sity of archive. However, it may happen that two
solutions are the closest to each other. For instance,
for a two-objective (f1 and f2 ) minimization prob-
lem illustrated in Fig. 5, solutions e and f are closest
to each other and therefore, will get the same value
for the distance to their nearest neighbor. To prevent
Fig. 5. The diversity measure proposed in [48].
1761
such a problem, the calculation for the distance of the
nearest neighbor is done in an order such that, the dis-
tance of a solution to its nearest neighbor which has
not already been considered, is taken. For example,
if the nearest neighbor distance is computed in the
order a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h then, for the nearest
neighbor of solution f , solution g should be consid-
ered since, its distance to solution e has already been
considered [45, 46].
5.4. Best tradeoff solution
Because none of Pareto optimal set solutions is
the absolute global optimal, the designer should
choose the most proper solution according. To han-
dle this dilemma fuzzy sets are proposed [45]. In this
approach, a linear membership function is defined for
each objective function (Ji ) as follows:
Ji − Jimin
ui = (41)
Jimax − Jimin
It is evident that the lower values of the member-
ship function indicate more degrees of achievement
of the objective function. For every non-dominated
solution (k), the aggregate membership function can
be defined as follows:
M
Uk = uki (42)
i=1
The solution with the minimum membership, U k
can be considered as the best compromise solution
(Best Tradeoff I). Here, the authors propose another
criterion to choose the best compromised solution.
First, the distance of each non-dominated solution
(k) from the origin in the fuzzified coordinate, is
calculated by the following equation:
1/2
M  2
Vk = uki (43)
i=1
Then, the nearest solution (V k ) to the fuzzified ori-
gin is chosen as the best compromised solution (Best
Tradeoff II).
6. Simulation results
Software is developed in MATLAB programming
environment. To perform the reliability/cost assess-
ments, it is necessary to simulate the systems through
1762 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

1000 value of stored hydrogen at the end of previous time

Vertical
900 Horizontal step. Also, capital cost of hydrogen tank includes the
800 cost of initial amount of hydrogen that is US$1.8/kg
700
[36].
Annual radiation (W/m 2)

600
6.1. Base case
500

400 Software is run for the base case on a Pentium

300 IV, 3.2 GHz CPU and 2 GB of RAM. For saving the
200
computation time, states with negligible probabili-
ties (here, 10–16 ) are not enumerated. For instance,
100
by applying this approach to a system consisting
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 of 14 WGs and 199 PV arrays with availabilities
Time (hr)
of 96%, number of enumerated states reduces from
15 × 200 = 6000 to 252 and, as a consequence, about
Fig. 6. Hourly vertical horizontal solar radiation during a year.
half of the computation time is saved. It should be
noted that, this approach is not effective for small
25
systems, because the number of low probable states
is not considerable. For example in case of 3WGs
20 and 5 PV arrays, there is no state less probable than
10–16 . By the way, it takes about 36 h that the software
Annual wind s peed (m/s )

finds the optimal combination. Simulation Parame-

15
10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time (hr)
Fig. 7. Hourly wind speed during a year (at a height of 15 m).
a year with 1-h time steps. The available data con-
sist of hourly averages of wind speed, recorded at a
height of 40 m, and vertical and horizontal solar radi-
ation in one of the northeastern provinces of Iran, i.e.
Ardebil (latitude: 38◦ 17’, longitude: 48◦ 15’, altitude:
1345 m). The load data are for IEEE Reliability Test
System (IEEE RTS) [32], with a peak of 50 kW. Using
Equation (3), wind speed data at 15 m (WGs’ instal-
lation height) are calculated. These data are shown in
Figs. 6, 7. Origin of horizontal axis is first hour of the
first day of solar year, i.e. March 21. Specifications
of components of the hybrid system are summarized
in Table 1 [2, 9, 39, 41, 42]. It is worth to mention
that, in the following simulations it is assumed that,
initial amount of the hydrogen stored in the tank, i.e.
Etank (t − 1) for t = 1 in Equation (6), is equal to half
of its rated capacity. Also, for other time step (t > 1),
initial amount of stored hydrogen is the expected
ters have been presented in Table 2. Obtained results,
are shown in Tables 3 and 4 for three systems i.e.
hybrid WG/PV, only WG and only PV when WGs
and PV arrays are 96% available. It is observed in
Table 3 that reliability inequality constraint, i.e. Equa-
tion (31), is not activated in the base case for none of
hybrid, only WG and only PV systems and because of
6000 7000 8000 9000
high loss of load costs (i.e. cost of customer’s dissatis-
faction), designing a reliable and expensive microgrid
is economically reasonable. Pareto optimal set and
best tradeoff solutions for optimal sizing of hybrid
WG/PV, only WG and only PV systems have been
depicted in Figs. 8–10. It can be seen in Figs. 8–10
that for the hybrid WG/PV and only PV systems, the
Pareto frontier is evenly distributed along cost, LOLE
and LOEE axes and the tradeoff criteria results into
different solutions. Since reliable supply of the load
at each time step, strongly depends on the amount
of the stored energy, the hourly expected amounts of
stored energy in the hydrogen tank, during the year,
have been shown in Fig. 11 for hybrid, only WG and
only PV systems.
6.2. 100% available components
Literature on optimal sizing of hybrid WG/PV
systems, has not considered outage probabilities of
system components and as a matter of fact To under-
stand the impact of components’ outage probabilities
on the system’s costs and reliability, problem has
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind 1763

Table 1
Components’ specifications [2, 9, 26, 28, 29]
Component Capital cost Replacement Cost O&M Life (yr) Efficiency Availability Unit
(US$/unit) (US$/unit) (US$/unit-yr)
WG 19400 1500 75 20 – 96 7.5 kW
PV panel 7000 6000 20 20 – 96 1 kW
electrolyzer 2000 1500 25 20 0.75 100 1 kW
Hydrogen storage tank 1300 1200 15 20 0.95 100 1 kg
Fuel cell 3000 2500 175 5 0.50 100 1 kW
inverter 800 750 8 15 0.90 99.89 1 kW

Table 2
Optimal combination in base case for hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Optimal Combination
NWG NPV Pel (kW) Mtank (kg) PFC (kW) Pinv (kW) θPV
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 9 251 126.760 192.235 48.152 49.832 29.994
Best tradeoff II 9 251 127.019 193.063 49.030 50.504 29.970
Minimum Cost 9 251 126.155 191.222 45.489 48.939 30.075
Minimum LOEE 9 251 127.533 193.817 50.9084 51.486 29.909
Minimum LOLE 9 251 127.533 193.817 50.9084 51.486 29.909
Only WG Best tradeoff I 204 – 354.584 1009.295 55.993 53.902 –
Best tradeoff II 204 – 354.584 1009.295 55.993 53.902 –
Minimum Cost 204 – 354.610 1009.212 55.943 53.872 –
Minimum LOEE 204 – 354.584 1009.295 55.993 53.902 –
Minimum LOLE 204 – 354.584 1009.295 55.993 53.902 –
Only PV Best tradeoff I – 340.016 167.665 200.981 49.019 49.816 57.230
Best tradeoff II – 340.040 167.642 201.871 49.683 50.146 57.193
Minimum Cost – 340.298 167.687 193.405 45.540 47.930 57.418
Minimum LOEE – 339.936 167.003 212.213 55.778 53.037 56.862
Minimum LOLE – 339.936 167.003 212.213 55.778 53.037 56.862

been solved assuming 100% availability of all com-
ponents. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, comparing
to the base case, in this case a smaller system
can supply the load with lower costs and higher
reliability. In fact, as a consequence of failure prob-
abilities of WGs, PV arrays, and DC/AC converter,
annual cost of the system increases from 3,134,902
to US$3,183,155/yr, for hybrid WG/PV system, from
7077828 to US$7222327/yr, for only WG system,
and from 3703402 to US$3792828/yr, for only PV
system, respectively. Additionally, components’ out-
age probability results in increase about US$64809
for hybrid WG/PV, US$182075 for only WG, and
US$89930 for only PV systems, respectively, in
investment cost of the system that might be con-
siderable. Besides, it can be observed that failure
probabilities cause deterioration in system’s reliabil-
ity, i.e. ELF index from 0 to 0.00005850 for hybrid
WG/PV system, and from 0.00001486 to 0.00005385
for only PV system, respectively. Also, since in this
case all the components are assumed 100% available,
both accurate and approximate methods provide same
results. In fact, at each time step, system can work
only in one feasible state.
6.3. Impact of DC/AC convertor on the system’s
reliability
To understand the impact of inverter on the sys-
tem’s reliability, in this section the optimization
problem has been subject to reliability constraint of
ELF <0.0001, i.e. reliability constraint in developed
countries [33]. The program has been run and actu-
ally, this huge fitness value is resulted from the heavy
penalty term of fitness function assigned to reliabil-
ity inequality constraint. Taking a closer look at the
result reveals that the ELF of the system can fall even
to zero. This fact, directly results from the vital role
of the inverter, as the only single cut-set, in reliabil-
ity diagram of the hybrid system. Given Psupply , Ainv ,
and Aothers are, respectively, probability of supplying
the load, availability of the inverter, and availability
of all other components as well as energy resources,
the upper limit of the probability of supplying the
load is:
 
Psup ply = Aothers × Ainv Lim Psup ply = Ainv
⇒
Aother→1
(44)
 1764
Table 3
Optimal costs and reliability indices in base case for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Reliability Indices Costs Etank
LOLE (h/yr) LOEE (MWh/yr) ELF LPSP Investment Cost (MUS$) JCOST (US$/yr) ACloss (US$/yr) Etank (0) Etank (8760)
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 34 25 0.00006196 0.00008813 3183155 2592947.76 228.7388 3761.05 6923.076
Best tradeoff II 9 5.848345 0.0000147 0.00002173 3195813 2597714.82 32.73018 3777.48 6960.692
Minimum Cost 154.937751 229.4364754 0.00060050 0.00085257 3149071 2581715 1285.336 3740.933 6660.267
Minimum LOEE 0.518042 0.13885044 3.4087e-13 5.1596e-13 3220598 2606141 0 3792.438 6777.453
Minimum LOLE 0.518042 0.13885044 3.4087e-13 5.1596e-13 3220598 2606141 0 3792.438 6777.453
Only WG Best tradeoff I 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553.45 0 19979.7 31875.62
Best tradeoff II 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553.45 0 19979.7 31875.62
Minimum Cost 0 0 0 0 7221651 6170322 0 19978.03 31872.99
Minimum LOEE 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553 0 19979.69 31876.28
Minimum LOLE 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553 0 19979.69 31876.28
Only PV Best tradeoff I 30 21.36 0.00005043 0.000075 3792828 3.16E+06 210.4686 3934.65 7454.67
Best tradeoff II 15 10.2 0.00002523 0.00003214 3802057 3166882.15 82.49374 3952.31 7490.008
Minimum Cost 227.081825 361.30623035 0.00094232 0.00134260 3739635 3141763 2026.47 3784.262 7150.989
Minimum LOEE 0 0 0 0 3881517 3192644 0 4157.607 7897.704
Minimum LOLE 0 0 0 0 3881517 3192644 0 4157.607 7897.704

Table 4
Optimal Combination when all components are 100% available for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Optimal Combination
NWG NPV Pel (kW) Mtank (kg) PFC (kW) Pinv (kW) θPV
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.012 33.0616
Best tradeoff II 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.012 33.0616
Minimum Cost 7 246 127.362 186.989 50.931 50.180 33.025
Minimum LOEE 7 245 127.199 189.839 53.896 51.141 32.251
Minimum LOLE 7 245 127.199 189.839 53.896 51.141 32.251
Only WG Best tradeoff I 193 – 355.709 1002.344 62.006 54.744 –
Best tradeoff II 193 – 355.709 1002.344 62.006 54.744 –
Minimum Cost 193 – 353.766 999.374 56.303 52.548 –
Minimum LOEE 193 – 355.709 1002.344 62.006 54.744 –
H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

Minimum LOLE 193 – 355.709 1002.344 62.006 54.744 –

Only PV Best tradeoff I – 331 169.397 174.897 50.0050 50.510 57.186
Best tradeoff II – 331 169.579 175.519 50.139 50.577 57.200
Minimum Cost – 331 169.015 176.185 49.516 50.172 57.191
Minimum LOEE – 331 169.624 175.467 50.169 50.598 57.201
Minimum LOLE – 331 169.967 174.540 50.524 50.844 57.200
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind 1765

3D Pareto Optimal Set 8000

7000

3.35
6000
3.3

Etank [k W]
5000
3.25

3.2 4000

3.15
3000

3.1
300 2000 E0tank
200
200 Etank
150
100 100 1000
50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Loss of Energy Expected (MWh/yr) 0 time [hour]
0
Loss of Load Expected (h/yr)
a)
Fig. 8. 3D Pareto optimal sets and best tradeoffs in base case for x 10
4

Hybrid WG/PV system. 4.5

3D Pareto Optimal Set

3.5

7.36
Etank [k W]

2.5
7.34
2
Annual Cos t (M$)

7.32
7.3 1.5
7.28
1
7.26
0.5 E0tank
7.24
Etank
7.22
0
1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
0.5 1 time [hour]
0
0
0.5
b)
-0.5 -0.5
Loss of Energy Expected (MWh/yr) -1 -1
Loss of Load Expected (h/yr) 8000

Fig. 9. 3D Pareto optimal sets and best tradeoffs in base case for 7000
only WG system.

6000
3D Pareto Optimal Set
Etank [k W]

5000

3.95
4000
3.9
Annual Cos t (M$)

3.85 3000
E0tank
Etank
3.8
2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
3.75 time [hour]

3.7 c)
400
300 250
200
200 150
100 100 Fig. 11. Hourly expected amount of stored energy in the hydrogen
50
Loss of Energy Expected (MWh/yr) 0 0 tank during a year for a) hybrid WG/PV b) only Wg and c) only
Loss of Load Expected (h/yr)
PV systems.

Fig. 10. 3D Pareto optimal sets and best tradeoffs in base case for
only PV system.
 1766

Table 5
Optimal costs and reliability indices when all components are 100% available for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Reliability Indices Costs Etank
LOLE (h/yr) LOEE (MWh/yr) ELF LPSP Investment Cost (MUS$) JCOST (US$/yr) ACloss (US$/yr) Etank(0) Etank(8760)
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139.39 0 3657.67 6853.478
Best tradeoff II 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139.39 0 3657.67 6853.478
Minimum Cost 0 0 0 0 3130699 2522146 304.5668 3656.91 6630.147
Minimum LOEE 0 0 0 0 3182522 2547590 0 3713.481 6731.608
Minimum LOLE 0 0 0 0 3182522 2547590 0 3713.481 6731.608
Only WG Best tradeoff I 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988477.93 0 19841.7 31542.21
Best tradeoff II 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988477.93 0 19841.7 31542.21
Minimum Cost 0 0 0 0 7001743 5961866 0 19782.75 31422.36
Minimum LOEE 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0 19841.7 31542.21
Minimum LOLE 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0 19841.7 31542.21
Only PV Best tradeoff I 9.1 6.2 0.00001484 0.000023 3703402 3073583.2 228.61105 3416.88 6420.145
Best tradeoff II 7 4.9 0.00001221 0.00002008 3706363 3075210.28 28.15963 3429.23 6444.847
Minimum Cost 6 5.02850497 0.00001243 0.00001886 3691224 3065754 639.0887 3442.451 6468.211
Minimum LOEE 6 4.86651195 0.00001203 0.00001808 3706752 3075339 135.3972 3428.188 6439.889
Minimum LOLE 5 3.02194714 0.00000075 0.00001123 3710460 3076082 149.1336 3409.787 6403.086
H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
 Table 6
Optimal Combination when Ainv = 1 and ELFmax = 0.0001 for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Optimal Combination
NWG NPV Pel (kW) Mtank (kg) PFC (kW) Pinv (kW) θPV
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 7 252 128.598 190.624 47.931 49.635 31.305
Best tradeoff II 7 252 128.6 190.635 47.969 49.658 31.305
Minimum Cost 7 252 128.586 190.62 47.884 49.612 31.302
Minimum LOEE 7 252 128.599 190.637 47.971 49.659 31.304
Minimum LOLE 7 252 128.598 190.637 47.97 49.659 31.304
Only WG Best tradeoff I 200 – 357.205 1000.669 49.013 49.8 –
Best tradeoff II 200 – 357.439 1000.507 49.307 50.27 –
Minimum Cost 200 – 357.050 1000.460 47.745 49.578 –
Minimum LOEE 200 – 357.598 1000.699 52.039 50.253 –
Minimum LOLE 200 – 357.594 1000.667 52.038 50.327 –
Only PV Best tradeoff I – 346 172.158 167.281 50.744 50.147 57.224
Best tradeoff II – 346 172.601 166.431 51.67 50.487 57.162
Minimum Cost – 345 170.38 173.483 48.925 49.063 57.314
Minimum LOEE – 347 173.19 164.526 52.331 50.872 57.125
Minimum LOLE – 347 173.19 164.526 52.331 50.872 57.125
H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
1767
 1768

Table 7
Optimal costs and reliability indices when Ainv = 1 and ELFmax = 0.0001 for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Reliability Indices Costs Etank
LOLE (h/yr) LOEE (MWh/yr) ELF LPSP Investment Cost (MUS$) JCOST (US$/yr) ACloss (US$/yr) Etank(0) Etank(8760)
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I 44.30959 32.15181 0.00008182 0.000119 3176238 2588307 182.5857 3729.073 6712.936
Best tradeoff II 42.30947 30.68983 0.000078068 0.000114 3176722 2588459 174.055 3729.278 6713.378
Minimum Cost 48.55628 34.04078 0.000086681 0.000126 3175652 2588120 193.934 3728.985 6712.557
Minimum LOEE 42.30947 30.60183 0.000077843 0.000114 3176750 2588467 173.693 3729.318 6713.428
Minimum LOLE 42.30947 30.6298 0.000077915 0.000114 3176741 2588464 173.895 3729.323 6713.429
Only WG Best tradeoff I 9 13.806811 4.0083175e-05 5.1305238e-5 7069553 6082159 58.973 19808.46 31442.89
Best tradeoff II 6 8.828806 2.190914e-05 3.280728e-5 7073804 6083675 48.193 19805.23 31436.44
Minimum Cost 46 37.401437 0.00010329 0.000139 7054331 6077595 204.306 19804.3 31434.57
Minimum LOEE 1 0.9480587 2.254001e-06 3.5229256e-6 7105097 6092423 5.309 19809.06 31444.09
Minimum LOLE 1 0.9487957 2.255754e-06 3.5256647e-6 7105132 6092430 5.313 19808.42 31442.81
Only PV Best tradeoff I 4 2.12976 5.246075e-06 7.91405e-06 3815387 3176132 11.969 3265.707 6115.158
Best tradeoff II 0 0 0 0 3825983 3178964 0 3248.838 6081.447
Minimum Cost 33. 26.94925 6.68782e-05 0.0001 3791526 3167315 153.9 3388.825 6361.156
Minimum LOEE 0 0 0 0 3839682 3186956 0 3211.028 6006.041
Minimum LOLE 0 0 0 0 3839682 3186956 0 3211.028 6006.041
H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
 Table 8
Comparison of the accurate method with the approximate method for Hybrid, Only WG and Only PV Systems
Type of the system Tradeoff solution Method Reliability Indices Costs
LOLE (h/yr) LOEE (MWh/yr) ELF LPSP Investment Cost (MUS$) JCOST (US$/yr) ACloss (US$/yr)
Base case
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I Accurate 29 21.5 5.38e-05 7.99e-05 3792827.535 3163513.154 203.6610
Approx. 30 36.4 0.00011 0.000135 3792827.535 3160000 120.4686
Error (%) –3.48 –69.06 –105.08 –69.06 0 0 40.848472
Best tradeoff II Accurate 9.12 5.84 1.47e-05 2.17e-05 3195813.245 2597714.822 32.7507328
Approx. 9 5.85 1.47e-05 2.17e-05 3195813.245 2600000 32.73017597
Error (%) 1.29 –0.063 –0.0619 –0.06281 0 0 0.06276754
Only WG Best tradeoff I Accurate 0 0 0 0 7222326.555 6170553.454 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 7222326.555 6170000 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Best tradeoff II Accurate 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 7222327 6170553 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only PV Best tradeoff I Accurate 29 21.5 5.38e-05 7.99e-05 3792827.535 3163513.154 203.661
Approx. 30 36.4 0.000110 0.00013 3792827.535 3160000 120.4686
Error (%) –3.45 –69.06 –105.08 –69.06 0 0 40.8485
Best tradeoff II Accurate 14 9.37 2.33e-05 3.48e-05 3802057.042 3166882.15 90.634
Approx. 15 16.2 4.92e-05 6.01e-05 3802057.042 3170000 52.494
Error (%) –7.14 –72.66 –111.23 –72.66 0 0 42.081
Approx.
100% Available Components
Hybrid System Best tradeoff I Accurate 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Best tradeoff II Accurate 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only WG Best tradeoff I Accurate 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Best tradeoff II Accurate 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0
Approx. 0 0 0 0 7077828 5988478 0
Error (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

Only PV Best tradeoff I Accurate 9 6 1.49e-05 2.23e-05 3703402 3073583 35.4178

Approx. 10.1 5.6 1.53e-05 0.0000218 3703402 3.07E+06 33.61105
Error (%) –12.22 6.666667 –2.68456 2.24215 0 0 5.70246
Best tradeoff II Accurate 6 5.03 1.24e-05 1.87e-05 3706363 3075210 139.6726
Approx. 6.6 4.9 1.32e-05 1.72e-05 3706363 3.08E+06 128.15963
Error (%) –10 –7.54 –6.45161 8.02139 0 0 7.913669
1769
1770 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind

Table 9
Comparison of optimal combination between proposed multi-objective PSO and single objective algorithm presented in [28] for Hybrid
System
Optimization Method Tradeoff solution Optimal Combination
NWG NPV Pel (kW) Mtank (kg) PFC (kW) Pinv (kW) θPV
Base Case
Proposed MOPSO Best tradeoff I 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.0121 33.0616
Best tradeoff II 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.0121 33.0616
SOO – 8 224 119.44 144.19 43.431 43.725 34.129
100% Available Components
Proposed MOPSO Best tradeoff I 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.0121 33.0616
Best tradeoff II 7 246 127.259 187.027 50.692 50.0121 33.0616
SOO – 9 214 117.27 127.1 43.736 46.464 33.993

Table 10
Comparison of results between proposed multi-objective PSO and single objective algorithm presented in [28] for Hybrid System
Optimization Method Tradeoff solution Reliability Indices Costs
LOLE LOEE ELFE LPSP JCOST Investment Cost ACloss
(h/yr) (MWh/yr) (US$/yr) (MUS$) (US$/yr)
Base Case
Proposed MOPSO Best tradeoff I 34 25 0.00006196 0.00008813 3183155 2592947.76 228.7388
Best tradeoff II 9 5.848345 0.00001473 0.00002173 3195813 2597714.82 32.73018
SOO – 335.96 2.372667 0.00836036 0.00881527 250410 2321000 13287
100% Available Components
Proposed MOPSO Best tradeoff I 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139.39 0
Best tradeoff II 0 0 0 0 3134902 2528139.39 0
SOO – 303 2202768.7 0.0078850 0.00818404 242648 2247700 12335

Usually, there are two remedies for improving the
reliability limit of such a hybrid system. The first,
using a more reliable (more available) inverter, and
the second, using two or more inverters in parallel. For
example, in case of using a 100% available inverter,
the software yields Tables 6 and 7.
6.4. Comparison of the accurate method with the
approximate method
To compare accurate method with the approx-
imate method, the approximate method has been
applied to the problem. In this case, optimization
process has been terminated in about 7 h which is
considerably less than 20 h. Results are presented in
Table 8. Since, the deference between approximate
and accurate method is only in reliability calculations,
both of them result in same investment, replacement,
and operation and maintenance costs. Also, Table 8
indicates that the approximate reliability indices are
acceptably close to actual indices provided by the
accurate method. It is observed that, the magnitudes
of the percentage errors are almost below 10%. Addi-
tionally, negative percentage errors are evidences that
the approximate method estimates reliability of the
base case system somehow optimistically.
6.5. Comparison of proposed MOPSO with SOO
algorithm
To show the efficiency of proposed algorithm,
the multi-objective particle swarm optimization pre-
sented in this paper has been compared with the
conventional single objective particle swarm opti-
mization algorithm proposed in [28]. The results have
been presented in Tables 9 and 10. It can be seen
that the proposed MOPSO algorithm offers better
combination with lower reliability indices.
7. Conclusion
The main goal to propose optimal power man-
agement and sizing design of hybrid wind–solar
generating microgrid systems is a reliable supply
of the load under varying weather conditions, with
minimum cost. In this paper, a hybrid WG/PV/FC
microgrid system with hydrogen ESS is designed
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
for a 20-year period of operation. Optimal combina-
tion of components is achieved by a novel MOPSO
algorithm, which acceptably converges to the opti-
mum combination. The MOO problem involves cost
and reliability indices as objective functions and also
subjected to reliability constraint. Results indicate
that costs of the system, directly, depend on its com-
ponents’ reliabilities and the outage probabilities of
three major components of the system, i.e. WG,
PV and DC/AC converter are taken into account.
Comprehensive reliability/cost assessment of such a
system, considering failures of other components as
well as uncertainty in wind speed, solar radiation, and
load data, demands computationally intensive and
time consuming algorithms like Monte Carlo simu-
lations which is beyond the aspects of this paper and
may be subject of future studies. Versatile software,
developed in MATLAB programming environment,
carries out all these huge computations, including
yearly simulation of the microgrid system with 1-
h time steps, accurate and approximate evaluations
of reliability indices, and MOO algorithm. The soft-
ware is capable of integrating any component model
and therefore, quite flexible to be implemented to
any application. It is just needed to input the wind
speed, solar radiation, and load demand data, as well
as specifications of the microgrid components and
then, running the software. Results of a case study,
based on the empirical data, testify that component
outages can extremely impact system’s reliability and
economy. Moreover, this study reveals the signifi-
cant impact of DC/AC converter, as the only single
cut-set in the reliability diagram of the hybrid sys-
tem. It is observed that the inverter’s reliability is
an upper limit for the system’s reliability. Also, an
approximate method for reliability evaluation of the
hybrid microgrid system considerably reduces the
time and computations. Since the accurate method
is time-consuming, the approximate method may be
useful in rough calculations like design/sensitivity
analysis.
References
[1] S. Sinha and S.S. Chandel, Review of recent trends in
optimization techniques for solar photovoltaic–wind based
hybrid energy systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2015 50 (2015), 755–769.
[2] A.S.A. Busaidi, H.A. Kazem, A.H. Al-Badi and M.F. Khan,
A review of optimum sizing of hybrid PV–Wind renew-
able energy systems in Oman, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 53 (2016), 185–193.
1771
[3] Z. Shi, R. Wang and T. Zhang, Multi-objective opti-
mal design of hybrid renewable energy systems using
preference-inspired coevolutionary approach, Solar Energy
118 (2015), 96–106.
[4] A. Kashefi Kaviani, G.H. Riahy and S.H.M. Kouhsari,
Optimal design of a reliable hydrogen-based stand-alone
wind/PV generation system, In: Proceeding of 11th Inter-
national Conference on Optimization of Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (OPTIM’08), Brasov, Romania,
2008.
[5] M.H. Athari and M.M. Ardehali, Operational performance
of energy storage as function of electricity prices for on-grid
hybrid renewable energy system by optimized fuzzy logic
controller, Renewable Energy 85 (2016), 890–902.
[6] C. Bussar, P. Stöcker, Z. Cai, L. Moraes Jr, R. Alvarez, H.
Chen, C. Breuer, A. Moser, M. Leuthold and D.U. Sauer,
Large-scale integration of renewable energies and impact
on storage demand in a european renewable power system
of 2050, Energy Procedia 73 (2015), 145–115.
[7] A. Kashefi Kaviani, H.R. Baghaee and G.H. Riahy, Design
and optimal sizing of a photovoltaic/wind-generator sys-
tem using particle swarm optimization, In: Proceedings
of the 22nd power system conference (PSC), Tehran, Iran,
2007.
[8] M.J. Khan and M.T. Iqbal, Dynamic modeling and sim-
ulation of a small wind-fuel cell hybrid energy system,
Renewable Energy 30 (2005), 421–439.
[9] B. Zakeri and S. Syri, Electrical energy storage systems: A
comparative life cycle cost analysis, Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews 42 (2015), 569–596.
[10] R. Belfkira, L. Zhang and G. Barakat, Optimal sizing
study of hybrid wind/PV/diesel power generation unit, Solar
Energy 85(1) (2011), 100–110.
[11] R. Dufo-López and J.L. Bernal-Agustı́n, Multi-objective
design of PV–wind–diesel–hydrogen–battery systems,
Renewable Energy 33(12) (2008), 2559–2572.
[12] A. Mills and S. Al-Hallaj, Simulation of hydrogen-based
hybrid systems using hybrid2, Int J Hydrogen Energy 29
(2004), 991–999.
[13] A. Rajabi-Ghahnavieh and S.A. Nowdeh, Optimal PV–FC
hybrid system operation considering reliability, Interna-
tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 60
(2014), 325–333.
[14] W.D. Kellogg, M.H. Nehrir, G. Venkataraman and V. Gerez,
Generation unit sizing and cost analysis for stand alone
wind, photovoltaic and hybrid wind/PV systems, IEEE
Trans Energy Convers March 13(1) (1998), 70–75.
[15] S. Roy, Optimal planning of wind energy conversion sys-
tems over an energy scenario, IEEE Trans Energy Convers
September 12(3) (1997).
[16] G. Merei, C. Berger and D.U. Sauer, Optimization of an
off-grid hybrid PV–Wind–Diesel system with different bat-
tery technologies using genetic algorithm, Solar Energy 97
(2013), 460–473.
[17] D. Xu, L. Kang, L. Chang and B. Cao, Optimal sizing of
standalone hybrid wind/PV power systems using genetic
algorithms, In: Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering, 2005, 2005, pp. 1722–1725.
[18] S.M. Hakimi, S.M. Tafreshi and A. Kashefi Kaviani, Unit
sizing of a stand-alone hybrid power system using particle
swarm optimization (PSO), In: Proceeding of the Inter-
national Conference on Automation and Logistics, Jinan,
China, 2007.
[19] A. Kaabeche, M. Belhamel and R. Ibtiouen, Siz-
ing optimization of grid-independent hybrid photo-
1772 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
voltaic/wind power generation system, Energy 36(2) (2011),
1214–1222.
[20] F.O. Hocaoğlu, Ö.N. Gerek and M. Kurban, A novel hybrid
(wind–photovoltaic) system sizing procedure, Solar Energy
83(11) (2009), 2019–2028.
[21] P. Nema, R.K. Nema and S. Rangnekar, A current and future
state of art development of hybrid energy system using wind
and PV-solar: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 13(8) (2009), 2096–2103.
[22] R. Belfkira, C. Nichita, P. Reghem and G. Barakat, Mod-
eling and optimal sizing of hybrid renewable energy
system, Power Electronics and Motion Control Confer-
ence, 2008 EPE-PEMC 2008. 13th Publication Year, 2008,
pp. 1834–1839.
[23] S. Diaf, G. Notton, M. Belhamel, M. Haddadi and A.
Louche, Design and techno-economical optimization for
hybrid PV/wind system under various meteorological con-
ditions, Applied Energy 85(10) (2008), 968–998.
[24] A. Maleki and A. Askarzadeh, Artificial bee swarm opti-
mization for optimum sizing of a stand-alone PV/WT/FC
hybrid system considering LPSP concept, Solar Energy 107
(2014), 227–235.
[25] A. Maleki and F. Pourfayaz, Optimal sizing of autonomous
hybrid photovoltaic/wind/battery power system with LPSP
technology by using evolutionary algorithms, Solar Energy
115 (2015), 471–483.
[26] C. Shang, D. Srinivasan and T. Reindl, An improved parti-
cle swarm optimisation algorithm applied to battery sizing
for stand-alone hybrid power systems, International Jour-
nal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 74 (2016),
104–117.
[27] S.M. Hakimi and S.M. Moghaddas-Tafreshi, Optimal siz-
ing of a stand-alone hybrid power system via particle swarm
optimization for Kahnouj area in south-east of Iran, Renew-
able Energy 34(7) (2009), 1855–1862.
[28] A. Kashefi Kaviani, G.H. Riahy and S.H.M. Kouh-
sari, Optimal design of a reliable hydrogen-based
stand-alone wind/PV generating system, considering com-
ponent outages, Renewable Energy 34(11) (2009), 2380–
2390.
[29] R. Billinton and R.N. Allan, Reliability evaluation of
engineering systems: Concepts and techniques. 2nd ed. Ger-
many, Springer; Softcover reprint of the original 2nd ed.
1992 edition, 2013.
[30] A. Mawardi and R. Ptchumani, Effects of parameter uncer-
tainty on the performance variability of proton exchange
membrane (PEM) fuel cells, J Power Sources 160 (2006),
232–245.
[31] H. Ren, W. Zhou, K. Nakagami, W. Gao and Q. Wu,
Multi-objective optimization for the operation of distributed
energy systems considering economic and environmental
aspects, Applied Energy 87(12) (2010), 3642–3651.
[32] R. Billinton and R.N. Allan, Reliability evaluation of power
systems. 2nd ed. Germany, Springer; Softcover reprint of
the original 1st ed. 1996 edition, 2013.
[33] R.S. Garcia and D. Weisser, A wind–diesel system with
hydrogen storage: Joint optimization of design and dispatch,
Renewable Energy 31 (2006), 2296–2320.
[34] A.T.D. Perera, R.A. Attalage, K.K.C.K. Perera and V.P.C.
Dassanayake, A hybrid tool to combine multi-objective
optimization and multi-criterion decision making in design-
ing standalone hybrid energy systems, Applied Energy 107
(2013), 412–425.
[35] D.B. Nelson, M.H. Nehrir and C. Wang, Unit sizing
and cost analysis of stand-alone hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell
power generation system, Renewable Energy 31 (2006),
1641–56.
[36] M.Y. El-Sharkh, M. Tanrioven, A. Rahman and M.S. Alam,
Cost related sensitivity analysis for optimal operation of a
grid-parallel PEM fuel cell power plant, J Power Sources
161 (2006), 1198–1207.
[37] K. Strunz and E.K. Brock, Stochastic energy source access
management: Infrastructure- integrative modular plant for
sustainable hydrogen-electric cogeneration, Int J Hydrogen
Energy 31 (2006), 1129–1141.
[38] I. Bagen and R. Billinton, Evaluation of different operating
strategies in small standalone power systems, IEEE Trans
Energy Convers September 20(3) (2005), 654–660.
[39] R. Karki and R. Billinton, Reliability/cost implications of
PV and wind energy utilization in small isolated power
systems, IEEE Trans Energy Convers Dec 16(4) (2001),
368–373.
[40] S. Nomura, Y. Ohata, T. Hagita, H. Tsutsui, S. Tsuji-Iio and
R. Shimada, Wind farms linked by SMES systems, IEEE
Trans Appl Supercond (2005), 1951-1954.
[41] M.K. Khairil and S. Javanovic, Reliability modeling of unin-
terruptible power supply systems using fault tree analysis
method, Eur Trans Electr Power (2007).
[42] M. Marchesoni and S. Savio, Reliability analysis of a fuel
cell electric city car, In: IEEE 2005 European Conference
on Power Electronics and Applications, 2005, p. 10.
[43] R. Karki and R. Billinton, Cost-effective wind energy uti-
lization for reliable power supply, IEEE Trans Energy
Convers June 19 (2004), 435–440.
[44] G. Tina, S. Gagliano and S. Raiti, Hybrid solar/wind power
system probabilistic modeling for long-term performance
assessment, Sol Energy 80 (2006), 578–588.
[45] H.R. Baghaee, M. Mirsalim, G.B. Gharehpetian and A.
Kashefi Kaviani, Security/cost-based optimal allocation of
multi-type FACTS devices using multi-objective particle
swarm Optimization, Simulation: International Transac-
tions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation 88(8)
(2012), 999–1010. DOI: 10.1177-0037549712438715
[46] L. Wang and C. Singh, Environmental/economic power
dispatch using a fuzzified multi-objective particle swarm
optimization algorithm, Electric Power System Research 77
(2007), 1654–1664.
[47] P.K. Tripathi, S. Bandyopadhyay and S.K. Pal, Multi-
Objective Particle Swarm Optimization with time variant
inertia and acceleration coefficients, Information Sciences
177 (2007), 5033–5049.
[48] P. Zhang, H. Chen, X. Liu and Z. Zhang, An iterative multi-
objective particle swarm optimization-based control vector
parameterization for state constrained chemical and bio-
chemical engineering problems, Biochemical Engineering
Journal 103 (2015), 138–151.
[49] Y. Wang and Y. Yang, Particle swarm with equilibrium strat-
egy of selection for multi-objective optimization, European
Journal of Operational Research 200(1) (2010), 187–197.
[50] K.E. Parasopoulos and M.N. Vrahatis, On the computation
of all global minimizers through particle swarm optimiza-
tion, IEEE Trans on Evolutionary Computation 8(3) (2004).
[51] W. Fang, J. Sun, H. Chen and X. Wu, A decentralized
quantum-inspired particle swarm optimization algorithm
with cellular structured population, Information Sciences
330 (2016), 19–48.
[52] B. Jarboui, N. Damak, P. Siarry and A. Rebai, A combina-
torial particle swarm optimization for solving multi-mode
resource-constrained project scheduling problems, Applied
Mathematics and Computation 205(2) (2008), 509–510.
 H.R. Baghaee et al. / Multi-objective optimal power management and sizing of a reliable wind
[53] R.R. Tan, Hybrid evolutionary computation for the develop-
ment of pollution prevention and control strategies, Journal
of Cleaner Production 15 (2007), 902–906.
[54] Z. Jinghui, H. Xiaomin, Z. Jun and G. Min, Comparison
of Performance between Different Selection Strategies on
Simple Genetic Algorithms, International Conference on
Intelligent Agents, Computational Intelligence for Model-
ing, Control and Automation, and International Conference
View publication stats
1773
on Web Technologies and Internet Commerce, 2005, Vol. 1,
pp. 1115–1121.
[55] R. Saborido, A.B. Ruiz, J.D. Bermúdez, E. Vercher
and M. Luque, Evolutionary multi-objective optimization
algorithms for fuzzy portfolio selection, Applied Soft Com-
puting, Accepted Manuscript In Press, Available online 12
November 2015.