Accepted Manuscript

Optimal Sizing of PV/wind/diesel hybrid microgrid system using multi-objective self-

adaptive differential evolution algorithm

Makbul A.M. Ramli, H.R.E.H. Bouchekara, Abdulsalam S. Alghamdi

PII: S0960-1481(18)30064-8

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.058

Reference: RENE 9663

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 22 May 2017

Revised Date: 03 August 2017

Accepted Date: 17 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Makbul A.M. Ramli, H.R.E.H. Bouchekara, Abdulsalam S. Alghamdi,
Optimal Sizing of PV/wind/diesel hybrid microgrid system using multi-objective self-adaptive
differential evolution algorithm, Renewable Energy (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.058

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Optimal Sizing of PV/wind/diesel hybrid microgrid system using multi-

2 objective self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm

3 Makbul A.M. Ramli1*, H.R.E.H. Bouchekara2, Abdulsalam S. Alghamdi1

4 1Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah

5 21589, Saudi Arabia
6 2Laboratoryof Electrical Engineering of Constantine, LGEC, Department of Electrical
7 Engineering, University of Freres Mentouri Constantine, 25000 Constantine, Algeria.
8

9 Abstract
13 Microgrid systems, such as solar photovoltaic power (PV) and wind energy, integrated

14 with diesel generators are promising energy supplies and are economically feasible for

15 current and future use in relation to increased demands for energy and depletion of

16 conventional sources. It is thus important to optimize the size of hybrid microgrid system

17 (HMS) components, including storage, to determine system cost and reliability. In this

18 paper, optimal sizing of a PV/wind/diesel HMS with battery storage is conducted using

19 the Multi-Objective Self-Adaptive Differential Evolution (MOSaDE) algorithm for the

20 city of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. Using the multi-objective optimization approach, the

21 objectives are treated simultaneously and independently, thereby leading to a reduction in

22 computational time. One of the main criteria to consider when designing and optimizing

23 the HMS is the energy management strategy, which is required to coordinate the different

24 units comprising the HMS. The multi-objective optimization approach is then used to

25 analyze the Loss of Power Supply Probability (LPSP), the Cost of Electricity (COE), and

26 the Renewable Factor (RF) in relation to HMS cost and reliability and is tested using

27 three case studies involving differing house numbers. Results verify its application in

10 * Corresponding author. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah
11 21589, Saudi Arabia. 1
12 E-mail addresses:mramli@kau.edu.sa (M.A.M. Ramli), bouchekara.houssem@gmail.com (H.R.E.H. Bouchekara)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28 optimizing the HMS and in its practical implementation. In addition, optimization results

29 using the proposed approach provided a set of design solutions for the HMS, which will

30 assist researchers and practitioners in selecting the optimal HMS configuration.

31 Moreover, it is important to select optimally sized HMS components to ensure that all

32 load demands are met at the minimum energy cost and high reliability.

33 Keywords: hybrid system; renewable energy; wind energy; PV; optimization; differential

34 evolution algorithm.

35 1. Introduction

36 Although there have been considerable increases in the development of global

37 renewable energy technology, shortages of electricity remain a problem in rural areas and

38 on islands with abundant renewable energy sources. Microgrid systems (using solar PV

39 cells (PV) and wind energy) integrated with diesel generators are considered to be

40 promising in providing an energy supply, and are also economically feasible for current

41 and future usage. However, it is crucial to determine the system cost and reliability when

42 optimizing the size and storage capabilities of the components of a hybrid microgrid

43 system (HMS).

44 Wind and solar energy are popular renewable sources that are being utilized because

45 of their environmental benefits. Furthermore, generous subsidized policies have been

46 implemented by various countries to accelerate and stimulate investment in wind and

47 solar energy development. However, despite the tangible benefits, the main hindrance to

48 the public accepting wind and solar energy systems is the related high capital investment

49 [1]. Nevertheless, wind turbines and PV have considerable potential in meeting the load

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

50 demand of power generation [2-5], and electricity generation from these sources has

51 gained global attention due to its various advantages, such as enabling conservation of

52 conventional fossil energy resources.

53 Wind turbines and PV are the top two most promising energy resources used in the

54 kingdom of Saudi Arabia and are prominently used in coastal areas. A certain amount of

55 research and feasibility studies have been conducted in relation to wind energy system

56 implementation in locations around the Kingdom [6-10], and research exploring wind and

57 solar energy potential in the Kingdom dates back to 1985 [11]. However, the use of solar

58 energy has been more popular in terms of actual system implementation, which is

59 possibly attributed to the highly abundant solar resources present throughout the

60 Kingdom, but is also related to the vast amount of research and development conducted

61 in relation its use.

62 With the aim of utilizing diverse energy sources, a large number of technical studies

63 have been conducted on supplementing energy obtained from fossil fuel combustion with

64 solar and wind energy. For example, Dalton et al. conducted a feasibility study of a

65 renewable energy supply in Australia and concluded that it was techno-economically

66 feasible to use this for a grid-connected hotel and small–medium tourist facilities [12,13].

67 Another study [14] evaluated implementation of renewable energy in Algeria and

68 analyzed its use in future energy supplies, while Malik presented an analysis of the

69 potential and development of renewable energy resources in Brunei [15]. In other studies,

70 the performance of a PV/diesel hybrid system has been analyzed in Thailand [16,17].

71 Research results indicate that integrating renewable energy systems, such as wind and

72 PV, with diesel generators can reduce capital investment and energy costs and improve

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

73 system reliability, particularly in developing countries. The authors’ previous work [18]

74 analyzed the economic feasibility of a PV/diesel system with flywheel energy storage and

75 concluded that by reducing the operation of diesel generators the hybrid system could

76 minimize fuel consumption, total Net Present Cost (NPC), Cost of Electricity (COE), and

77 CO2 emissions.

78 Solar and wind energies are discontinuous, highly variable resources that are site-

79 dependent. Standalone solar or wind energy systems appear to be uneconomical, as

80 fluctuations in generation do not provide a continual supply basis to match energy

81 demand [19–21]. However, the combined operation of solar and wind energy systems

82 helps to smooth this fluctuation and provides a more reliable energy supply compared to

83 the separate use of solar and energy systems. [22–25]. In addition, storage and diesel

84 generator systems can also be used to cope with the intermittency of solar and wind

85 energy supply [26–28], where the storage system relieves the mismatch between

86 electricity generation and power demand [29].

87 In general, diesel generators with a reliable power supply capacity are operated as the

88 main source of electricity and maintain a generation and consumption power balance. For

89 the HMS, it is imperative that energy sources are optimally operated in combination with

90 an energy storage system to supply energy to the load.

91 Over the years, several software applications have been used to optimize microgrid

92 systems, with or without the use of storage and diesel generator systems such as HOMER

93 Pro, PVSYST, HYBRIDS, RAPSIM, and SOLSIM. However, the disadvantages

94 associated with these products have called for the development of optimized

95 computational methods [30]. In this respect, bio-inspired based optimizations methods

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

96 have been intensively developed to improve microgrid systems from a technical and

97 economical point of view, and an increase in hybrid system efficiency has been obtained

98 by selecting the best system configuration [31].

99 The genetic algorithm (GA) has also been proposed to optimize hybrid systems that

100 have a large number of parameters, and its performance has been evaluated [32,33]. The

101 GA is effective in optimizing hybrid systems that have various components with differing

102 sizes so that they meet load demands, and is also effective in evaluating hybrid systems

103 based on the defined fitness function. However, the drawback of this method is that it has

104 difficulties in coding.

105 Particle swarm optimization (PSO) methods have also been employed to optimize

106 various problems. PSO is easy in coding, is robust to control parameters, and gives high-

107 quality solutions with stable convergence. This method makes faster computations than

108 the GA, and is simple to use for a broad variety of problems [34,35]. In a recent study, a

109 multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) was applied to optimize an HMS

110 consisting of solar and wind energies and a diesel generator storage system to meet load

111 demand in Nahavand, Rafsanjan, and Khash [36]. The results of the study concluded the

112 need for appropriate sizing of the components to optimize the model, and both COE and

113 LPSP were considered when determining optimal sizing of the hybrid system.

114 The main objective of this study is to exploit the capabilities of the MOSaDE

115 algorithm for optimizing a PV/wind/diesel HMS with battery storage. For this purpose,

116 the mutation parameter is adaptively adjusted to improve the Differential Evolution (DE)

117 algorithm convergence. By using a multi-objective optimization approach, the objectives

118 are then treated simultaneously and independently, leading to a reduction in

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

119 computational time. Optimal sizing of the HMS components are obtained by considering

120 the COE and LPSP when analyzing cost and reliability of the HMS, and the proposed

121 approach is used to achieve the goal of optimal economic system operation. It is

122 considered that the results of this study will be useful in a number of ways, such as when

123 investigating optimal HMS component scheduling, as a power reference for the economic

124 operation of PV and wind turbine generators, and when ensuring power supply reliability.

125 It will also be useful for regulating diesel generation in a normal range, and to determine

126 the operational set points of PV and wind turbine generators and the energy storage

127 system.

128 The following section describes the HMS used in this study. Section 3 presents the

129 optimization case study, Section 4 discusses the developed MOSaDE algorithm and

130 optimization process, and Section 5 analyzes the optimization results and the effect of

131 design variables on COE. Finally, Section 6 concludes results of research results and

132 findings.

133

134 2. Hybrid microgrid system (HMS) description

135 The HMS evaluated in this study is composed of five major system components: a PV

136 system, wind turbines, diesel generators, an inverter, and a battery bank. The

137 configuration of the hybrid system is shown in Fig. 1.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Diesel Generator

Wind PV

Loads Converter
Battery bank

AC Bus DC Bus

138 Fig. 1. Configuration of HMS.

139

140 2.1 PV system

141 Power output of PV panels is calculated using the following equation [37],
𝐺
142 𝑃𝑃𝑉 ‒ 𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑃𝑁 ‒ 𝑃𝑉 × 𝐺
𝑟𝑒𝑓
[1 + 𝐾𝑡((𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏 + (0.0256 × 𝐺)) ‒ 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓)] (1)

143 where PN-PV is the PV rated power at standard test conditions (STC); G is solar radiation

144 (W/m2); Gref is 1 kW/m2; Kt is a constant, 3.7  103 (1/˚C); Tamb is ambient temperature;

145 and Tref is the temperature of the PV cell at STC (25˚C).

146 Hourly solar radiation data for the city used in this study and for this calculation is

147 shown in Fig. 2. Details of PV parameters are given in Table 1.

148 2.2 Wind power system

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

149 As wind speed changes considerably with height, conversion from wind speed

150 measured at anemometer height to a desired hub height can be made according to the

151 power law equation [38,39],

𝑣2 ℎ2 𝛼
152 𝑣1
= () ℎ1
(2)

153 where v1 is the speed at a reference height, h1; v2 is the speed at a hub height, h2; and  is

154 the coefficient of friction.  is defined by certain parameters, i.e. roughness of terrain,

155 wind speed, temperature, height above ground, hour of the day, and time of year [40–

156 42]. In technical literature, it is commonly defined by different types of terrain [43– 45];

157 however, the recommendations of IEC standards [46,47] give a friction coefficient value

158 of 0.11 for extreme wind conditions, and 0.20 for normal wind conditions.

159 The expected power output of a wind turbine is expressed as [48]

{
0 𝑉 < 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑖𝑛, 𝑉 > 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑜𝑢𝑡

(
3

160 𝑉
(
3
3
𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
3
𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ‒ 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑖𝑛 ) ‒ 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑖𝑛
3 3
𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ‒ 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑖𝑛 ) 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑉 < 𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑

𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 ≤ 𝑉 < 𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑡 ‒ 𝑜𝑢𝑡

161 (3)

162 where V is current time step wind speed, Vrated is the nominal wind speed, Vcut-out is the

163 cut out wind speed, Vcut-in is the cut in wind speed, and Prated is the rated power.

164 Details of the wind turbine used in the HMS optimization process are shown in Table

165 1.

166 2.3 Diesel generator

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

167 The diesel generator is the secondary power source, and thus plays a significant role

168 in maintaining stable system operation. Therefore, maintaining diesel generation within a

169 safe range is of considerable importance. The generator works at a low efficiency with a

170 low loading rate [49]. Therefore, to proficiently utilize energy and realize an adequate

171 safety margin for power fluctuations, such as a sudden increase in load consumption,

172 diesel generation needs to be operated within a normal operating range in order to avoid

173 unloaded and lightly loaded conditions [50].

174 In the design of a hybrid system, the fuel consumption of a diesel generator, q(t), can

175 be defined as [51,52]

176 𝑞(𝑡) = 𝑎 𝑃(𝑡) + 𝑏 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 (4)

177 where P(t) is the generated power, a and b are coefficients of the fuel consumption

178 parameters, and Prated is the rated power. In this study, a and b are approximated as 0.246

179 and 0.08415 [53].

180 The overall diesel generator efficiency can be calculated using the following equation

181 [54],

182 𝜂𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝜂𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 × 𝜂𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 (5)

183 where overall is the overall efficiency and brake thermal is the brake thermal efficiency.

184 Diesel generator data used in optimization are provided in Table 1.

185

186 2.4 Inverter

187 The efficiency of the inverter is calculated using the following equation,

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

𝑃
188 𝜂𝑖𝑛𝑣 = 2 (6)
𝑃 + 𝑃0 + 𝑘𝑃

189 where P, P0, and k are defined as follows [55–58],

𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡
190 𝑃= 𝑃𝑛
(7)

2
191 𝑃0 = 1 ‒ 99 ( 10
‒
1
𝜂10 𝜂100
‒ )
9 (8)

1
192 𝑘=𝜂 ‒ 𝑃0 (9)
100

193 in which 10 and 100 represent the inverter efficiency at 10% and 100% of nominal

194 power (values given by manufacturers).

195 Data for the diesel generator are provided in Table 1.

196

197 2.5 Battery

198 The battery capacity is calculated based on demand and autonomy days as follows,

𝐸𝐿 𝐴𝐷
199 𝐶𝐵 = 𝐷𝑂𝐷 𝜂 (10)
𝑖𝑛𝑣 𝜂𝑏

200 where EL is load, AD is autonomy days, DOD is depth of discharge (80%), inv is inverter

201 efficiency (95%), and b is battery efficiency (85%).

202 2.6 Energy management strategy

203 As previously mentioned, the HMS optimized in this work consists of a photovoltaic

204 power plant, wind energy system, battery energy storage system, and a diesel generator,

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

205 all of which are local generation units located near the area of electrical consumption;

206 therefore, there are no electrical losses due to distribution considered here.

207 One of the main criteria to consider when designing and optimizing the HMS is the

208 energy management strategy, which is required to coordinate the different units

209 comprising the HMS. The energy management strategy used in this study is given in Fig.

210 2 [36]. Renewable resources provide the main source of energy, while the diesel

211 generator plays the role of a dispatchable source and the battery bank is charged when

212 generated power is greater than the load. In addition, if renewable resources generate

213 more power than the load and battery bank can use, the excess power is sent to a dump

214 load, whereas if renewable resources generate less power than required by the load then

215 the power deficit is provided by the battery bank. However, if both renewable resources

216 and battery bank are unable to supply the load then the diesel generator operates to

217 supply the load and charge the battery bank.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Start

Read data

PI(t)
If Pw(t) + PPV ‒ out(t) ≥ ηinv

No Yes
PI(t)
Pdch(t) = ∙ (Pw(t) + PPV ‒ out(t)) If Pw(t) + PPV ‒ out(t) > PI(t)
ηinv
Edch(t) = Pdch(t) ∙ 1hr (iteration time) No

Eb(t) = Eb(t ‒ 1)

If Eb(t ‒ 1) ‒ Ebmin ≥ Edch(t)

return
Yes Yes
PI(t)
Eb(t) = Eb(t ‒ 1) ∙ Ech Pch(t) = Pw(t) + PPV ‒ out(t) ‒
ηinv

Ech(t) = Pch(t) ∙ 1hr (iteration time)

return

No
If Ech(t) ≤ Ebmax ‒ Eb(t)

( ( ))
PI(t)
Eb(t) = Eb(t ‒ 1) + Pg ∙ ηinv + Pw(t) ‒ ∙1
ηinv
Yes No
diesel(t) = Pg ∙ ηinv
Eb(t) = Eb(t ‒ 1) + Ech Eb(t) = Ebmax

If Eb(t) > Ebmax If Eb(t) < Ebmin

Edump(t) = Ech(t) ∙ (Ebmax ‒ Eb(t))
Yes Yes

If Eb(t) > Ebmax return

Edump(t) = Eb(t) ‒ Ebmax Edump(t) = 0

No

Eb(t) = Ebmax Eb(t) = Ebmin Edump(t) = 0

return
Yes
Eb(t) = Ebmax
Edump(t) = Ech(t) ∙ (Ebmax ‒ Eb(t))

return
218
219 Fig. 2. Flowchart of HMS energy management strategy.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

220

221 3. Case study

222 Saudi Arabia has a hot dry climate and abundant renewable energy resources,

223 particularly those of solar and wind. In this study, optimization of a hybrid

224 PV/wind/diesel/battery system is analyzed for Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. Yanbu is an

225 industrial city in the western region of the Kingdom (latitude of 24o0520″ N and

226 longitude 38o0349″ E) that is situated on the Red Sea coastal area and has both good

227 levels of solar irradiation and great wind potential [7,59]; an average annual wind speed

228 of 3.53 m/s and solar irradiation of 5.95 kWh/m2/day are considered in this study [60]

229 (Fig. 3 shows the hourly wind speed, and Fig. 4 shows hourly solar irradiation in the

230 city). The temperature of the city is in the range of 15–40 o C, while the average annual

231 temperature is about 29 o C. Real weather data obtained in Yanbu is used in optimization

232 process.

16

12
Wind Speed (m/s)

233 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

234 Fig. 3. Hourly wind speed.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.2

1.0

Solar Radiation (kW/m²) 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

235 0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

236 Fig. 4. Hourly solar irradiation.

237

238 4. Optimization

239 4.1 Problem formulation

240 In this paper, the HMS is optimized based on a multi-objective problem that can

241 generally be formulated as follows,

𝑇
Minimize F(𝐱) = [f1(𝐱),f2(𝐱),…,f𝑘(𝐱)]
242 Subject to 𝑔(𝐱) = 0 (11)
and h(𝐱) ≤ 0

243 where x is the vector of design variables, fi(𝐱) is the ith objective function, F(x) is the

244 vector of objective functions (k is the number of objective functions), g(𝐱) is the set of

245 equality constraints, and h(𝐱) is the set of inequality constraints.

246 4.2 Objective functions

247 In this work, COE and the LPSP parameters are selected as objective functions,

248 where the aim is to optimize an HMS that can guarantee a reliable energy supply at a low

249 cost.

250 4.2.1 Cost of Electricity (COE)

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

251 In general energy development and in analysis of the COE of hybrid systems in

252 particular, the total net present cost (NPC) is a critical factor and consists of capital,

253 operation and maintenance (O&M), and replacement costs. Hybrid renewable energy

254 systems have no fuel expense and therefore the O&M costs are very low. However, the

255 investment or capital costs are very high. In this study, the costs involved in operating the

256 HMS are costs for PV array, wind turbine, diesel generator, inverter, and battery

257 components.

258 The COE is the average cost of useful electrical energy generated by the system, in

259 $/kWh, and is calculated by [61,62]

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑃𝐶
260 𝐶𝑂𝐸 = × 𝐶𝑅𝐹 (12)
∑ℎ = 8760𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
ℎ=1

261 where Pload is the hourly amount of consumed power and CRF is a ratio given by
𝑛
𝑖(1 + 1)
262 𝐶𝑅𝐹 = 𝑛 × 𝐶𝑅𝐹 (13)
(1 + 1) ‒ 1

263 where i is the annual interest rate and n is years.

264 4.2.2 Loss of Power Supply Probability

265 As a statistical parameter, the loss of power supply probability (LPSP) is defined as

266 the probability of power supply failure to meet load demand, and occurs because of a

267 technical failure or a low renewable resource input. LPSP can be calculated using the

268 following equation [63,64],

∑(𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 ‒ 𝑃𝑃𝑉 ‒ 𝑃𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 + 𝑃𝑆𝑂𝐶 𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑃𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑙
269 𝐿𝑃𝑆𝑃 = ∑𝑃𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
(14)

270 In addition, in the analysis of system reliability, the following condition is applied,

271 𝑃(𝑡)𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 > 𝑃(𝑡)𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (15)

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

272 4.3 Constraints

273 4.3.1 Renewable Factor (RF)

274 The RF is defined to identify the quantity of power generated from the diesel

275 generator compared to the amount generated from renewable resources, and is expressed

276 as follows,

(
∑𝑃
100 × 1 ‒ ∑𝑃
diesel
) = (%)RF
renewable resources
(16)

277 As the value of RF approaches 100% it becomes more suitable.

278 4.4 Design Variables

279 The design variables considered in this work are the nominal power of PV (PV), the

280 number of autonomy days (AD), and the number of wind turbines (WT).

281 4.5 Multi-objective Self-adaptive Differential Evolution algorithm

282 The differential evolution (DE) algorithm is one of the most commonly used and

283 promising evolutionary algorithms for solving real world optimization problems. It was

284 initially developed by Price and Storn in 1995 while trying to solve the Chebyshev

285 polynomial fitting problem [65]. The DE starts with an initial population randomly

286 generated, which then evolves until termination conditions are fulfilled. While the

287 population is evolving, three evolutionary operations (namely, differential mutation,

288 crossover, and selection) are executed in sequence [66–67].

289 In a standard version of a DE, it is necessary to pre-specify one certain trial vector

290 generation strategy that has its parameters tuned using a time-consuming trial and error

291 scheme. However, a new version of DE called the Self-adaptive Differential Evolution

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

292 (SaDE) algorithm has been developed [68], in which both trial vector generation

293 strategies and their associated parameters can be automatically adapted according to their

294 previous experience of generating promising or inferior individuals.

295 The SaDE is widely used in different research fields and for many applications, and

296 this motivated Huang et al. [69] to extend this algorithm to solve multi-objective

297 optimization problems. The developed algorithm is known as the Multi-Objective Self-

298 Adaptive Differential Evolution algorithm (MOSaDE), which can be described using the

299 following steps:

300 Step 1: Randomly generate a population of NP individuals in the search space. Initialize

301 certain parameters such as the probability of strategy pk where k=1K, (K is the number

302 of available strategies), and the median value of the Crossover Probability (CR ∈ [0,1])

303 that is (CRmk) for each strategy and the learning period (LP=50). It is of note here that

304 there are two implemented strategies in the MOSaDE algorithm, which are as follows:

305 Strategy # 1: DE/rand/1/bin

𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + 𝐹 ∙ (𝑥𝑟 ,𝑗 ‒ 𝑥𝑟 )
𝑢𝑖,𝑗 = { 1
𝑥𝑖,𝑗
2,𝑗
𝑖𝑓 rand[0,1] < 𝐶𝑅 𝑜𝑟 𝑗 = 𝑗𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
otherwise (17)

306 Strategy # 1: DE/rand/2/bin

𝑥𝑖,𝑗 + 𝐹 ∙ (𝑥𝑟 ,𝑗 ‒ 𝑥4,𝑗) + 𝐹 ∙ (𝑥𝑟 ,𝑗 ‒ 𝑥𝑟 )

𝑢𝑖,𝑗 =
{ 3
𝑥𝑖,𝑗
5 6,𝑗
𝑖𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑[0,1] < 𝐶𝑅 𝑜𝑟 𝑗 = 𝑗𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 (18)

307 where F is the differential weight (usually ∈ [0,2]) and r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, and r6 are mutually

308 exclusive integers randomly generated within the range [1, NP].

309 Step 2: Evaluate the objective functions of each individual, and then fill the external

310 archive with these individuals.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

311 Step 3: Perform the following optimization loop:

312 (1) Calculate the strategy probability, pk, which is the percentage of the success rate

313 of trial vectors generated by each strategy during the learning period.

314 (2) Assign trial vector generation strategy and parameters to each target vector, 𝐱𝑖:

315 a. Use Stochastic Universal Sampling (SUS) for selecting one strategy, k, for

316 each target vector Xi;

317 b. Assign control parameters, F and CR, where F is generated using a normal

318 distribution with a linearly reducing mean value from 1.0 to 0.05 and a

319 standard deviation of 0.1, and CR is generated using a normal distribution

320 of the mean, CRmk, and standard deviation of 0.1.

𝑘
321 (3) Generate a new population where each trial vector, 𝐮 𝑖 , is generated according to

322 an assigned k, F, and CR in Phase (2) of this step.

323 (4) Selection:

FOR i=1:NP
𝑘
Evaluate the trial vector, 𝐮 𝑖 , and compare it with the target
𝑘
vector, 𝐱𝑛𝑖, nearest to 𝐮 𝑖 in the solution space.
𝑘
IF 𝐱𝑛𝑖 dominates 𝐮 𝑖
𝑘
discard 𝐮 𝑖 ,

ELSE
𝑘
IF 𝐮 𝑖 dominates 𝐱𝑛𝑖
𝑘
replace 𝐱𝑛𝑖 with 𝐮 𝑖 .

However,
𝑘
IF neither 𝐮 𝑖 or 𝐱𝑛𝑖 dominate each

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

other then
select the less crowded vector
as the new target vector.
𝑘
𝐮 𝑖 will enter the external archive if:
𝑘
I. 𝐮 𝑖 dominates an individual(s) in the

archive (the dominated individuals in

the archive will be deleted)
𝑘
II. 𝐮 𝑖 is nondominated with archived

individuals
END IN THE
FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES:
k
If there is a case where 𝐮 i is better than 𝐱ni. Record the

associated parameter, CR, and flag strategy, k, as being a

successful strategy. If not, record the flag strategy, k, as a
failed strategy.
If the external archive exceeds a maximum predefined size,
the less crowded individuals are selected to respect the
archive’s predefined size.
END FOR
324 Step 4: If one of the termination criteria is satisfied then terminate the process and

325 display the Pareto front, and if not, go to Step 3.

326

327 5. Results and discussion

328 As previously mentioned, the city of Yanbu is used as a case study for optimization of

329 the HMS. The hourly load profile of a single house over one year in Yanbu city is shown

330 in Fig. 5; this profile was generated by conducting a building energy simulation in eQuest

331 [70]. The economical parameters of the HMS are given in Table 1.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jan Feb Mar

3000 3000 3000

2000 2000 2000

1000 1000 1000

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
Apr May Jun
3000 3000 3000

2000 2000 2000

1000 1000 1000

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
Jul Aug Sep
3000 3000 3000

2000 2000 2000

1000 1000 1000

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
Oct Nov Dec
3000 3000 3000

2000 2000 2000

1000 1000 1000

0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
332

333 Fig. 5. Hourly electrical load for single house (kW).

334

335 Table 1
336 Economical parameters of HMS [36].
337
Component Parameter Value Unit
PV PV regulator cost 1500 $
Rated power 7.3 kWh
Initial cost 3400 $/kW
Life time 24 year
PV regulator efficiency 95 %

Wind Model ZEYU FD-2KW

Life time 24 year
Price 2000 $/kW
Rated power 5 kW
Rated speed 9.5 m/s
Cut in 2.5 m/s
Cut out 40 m/s
Efficiency 95 %

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wind regulator cost 1000 $

Diesel generator Rated power 4 kW

Initial cost 1000 $/kW
Life time 24,000 hours

Inverter Initial cost 2500 $

Life time 24 year
Efficiency 92 %

Battery Rated power 40 kWh

Initial cost 280 $/kWh
Life time 12 year
Efficiency 85 %

Economic parameters Project life time 24 year

Fuel inflation rate 5 %
O&M + running cost 20 %
Real interest 13 %
Discount rate 8 %
338

339 Three cases are considered: CASE 1, CASE 2, and CASE 3 correspond to 5, 10, and

340 15 houses, respectively. The MOSaDE is run for each case using a population of 100

341 individuals and 200 iterations, and the lower and upper bounds for PV, AD and WT are

342 [15 45], [1 5] and [0 10], respectively.

343 The Pareto fronts obtained for CASE 1, CASE 2, and CASE 3 are shown in Fig. 6,

344 Fig. 7, and Fig. 8, respectively. In addition, 30 selected solutions for every case along

345 with the detailed results are tabulated in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4.

346 From these results, it is evident that very interesting sets of solutions are determined

347 for each case when the MOSaDE is applied to HMS optimization. A system designer

348 would therefore be able to select a solution based on his/her experience and the

349 associated specifications. For example, solution # 1 of CASE 1 has a power of 18.2 kW

350 for PV panels, 5 autonomy days, and 10 wind turbines. This solution corresponds to a

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

351 COE of 0.083 $/kWh, an LPSP of 0.219, and a RF of 95.51%. It is of note that the COE

352 has a higher value and the LPSP a lower value than the other available solutions. The

353 energy contribution from each part (i.e. PV panels, wind turbines, diesel generator, and

354 battery) for solution # 1 is given in

355 Fig. 9a. Contribution of energy supplied by PV panels is 59 % which is higher as

356 compared to solution # 15 and solution # 30. The diesel generator and battery supplied 4

357 % and 27 % of energy, which are lower than energy contribution of diesel generator and

358 battery in solution # 15 and solution # 30. Wind turbines contribute 10 % of energy, the

359 same percentage for all solutions. For solution # 15 of CASE 1, we can see that the COE

360 is 0.081 $/kWh, LPSP is 0.228, and RF is 95.12 %. The energy contribution for each part

361 in this solution is given in

362 Fig. 9b. PV panels supplied 58 % of energy while amount of energy generated by

363 diesel generator and battery are 5% and 28%, respectively. If we select solution # 30 of

364 CASE 1 with the contributions shown in

365 Fig. 9c, we can see that the COE is 0.081 $/kWh, LPSP is 0.280 %, and RF is 93.56

366 %, which corresponds to a lower value of COE and a higher LPSP than the other

367 solutions. In solution # 30, PV panels contribute 56% energy, the lowest percentage of

368 energy contribution in all available solutions. Contribution of energy provided by diesel

369 generator and battery are 6% and 28%, respectively, which are higher as compared to

370 solution # 15 and solution # 30.

371 The same analysis can also be made for the results of CASE 2 and CASE 3, when the

372 numbers of houses are increased.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

373 In a previous study [36], the multi-objective optimization of HMS was only treated as

374 a single objective optimization problem. In other words, the original problem was

375 converted to a single objective optimization problem where different objective functions

376 were aggregated into one objective function. This approach had the disadvantage of

377 determining only one optimal solution that did not express the trade-off between different

378 objective functions. In order to offer the designer multiple choices, several runs using

379 different weights and constraints were required, which involved a greater amount of time.

380 However, the proposed approach in this paper is a true multi-objective one, in which the

381 objectives are treated simultaneously and independently. Moreover, this approach offers

382 the designer a set of optimal solutions known as the Pareto front.

0.0835

0.083

0.0825
COE ($/kWh)

0.082

0.0815
Solution # 15

0.081

0.0805
0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.3
383 LPSP

384 Fig. 6. Pareto front obtained for CASE 1.

385

386 Table 2
387 Selected solutions from Pareto front for CASE 1.
388
PV AD WT COE LPSP RF PV WIND BATTERY DIESEL

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Solution # 1 18.2 5.0 10 0.083 0.219 95.51 82356 13534 36771 5951
Solution # 2 18.0 5.0 10 0.083 0.220 95.49 81698 13534 36771 5954
Solution # 3 17.9 5.0 10 0.083 0.220 95.47 81307 13534 36771 5958
Solution # 4 17.9 5.0 10 0.083 0.220 95.47 81257 13534 36771 5958
Solution # 5 17.8 5.0 10 0.082 0.220 95.45 80849 13534 36771 5962
Solution # 6 17.6 5.0 10 0.082 0.221 95.39 79608 13534 36771 5995
Solution # 7 17.5 5.0 10 0.082 0.221 95.38 79396 13534 36771 5998
Solution # 8 17.4 5.0 10 0.082 0.222 95.34 78828 13534 36771 6017
Solution # 9 17.4 5.0 10 0.082 0.222 95.34 78761 13534 36771 6017
Solution # 10 17.3 5.0 10 0.082 0.223 95.31 78390 13534 36771 6039
Solution # 11 17.3 5.0 10 0.082 0.223 95.29 78177 13534 36771 6046
Solution # 12 17.2 5.0 10 0.082 0.223 95.29 78127 13534 36771 6054
Solution # 13 17.2 4.9 10 0.081 0.227 95.15 77750 13534 36771 6204
Solution # 14 17.0 5.0 10 0.081 0.227 95.14 76890 13534 36771 6186
Solution # 15 16.9 5.0 10 0.081 0.228 95.12 76723 13534 36771 6204
Solution # 16 16.9 5.0 10 0.081 0.229 95.07 76390 13534 36771 6249
Solution # 17 16.8 5.0 10 0.081 0.230 95.04 76199 13534 36771 6271
Solution # 18 16.8 5.0 10 0.081 0.230 95.04 76127 13534 36771 6271
Solution # 19 16.8 5.0 10 0.081 0.230 95.03 76070 13534 36771 6278
Solution # 20 16.7 5.0 10 0.081 0.231 95.01 75808 13534 36771 6289
Solution # 21 16.7 5.0 10 0.081 0.231 94.99 75632 13534 36771 6315
Solution # 22 16.7 4.9 10 0.081 0.233 94.93 75808 13534 36771 6392
Solution # 23 16.7 4.9 10 0.081 0.233 94.93 75808 13534 36771 6392
Solution # 24 16.7 4.9 10 0.081 0.234 94.93 75808 13534 36771 6392
Solution # 25 16.7 4.9 10 0.081 0.235 94.91 75808 13534 36771 6425
Solution # 26 16.7 4.8 10 0.081 0.238 94.82 75808 13534 36771 6528
Solution # 27 16.2 4.6 10 0.081 0.260 94.11 73535 13534 36772 7297
Solution # 28 16.1 4.2 10 0.081 0.277 93.61 73117 13534 36772 7883
Solution # 29 16.1 4.2 10 0.081 0.278 93.59 73151 13534 36772 7916
Solution # 30 16.1 4.2 10 0.081 0.280 93.56 73151 13534 36772 7949
389

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.075

0.07

COE ($/kWh)

0.065

0.06

0.055
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
390 LPSP

391 Fig. 7. Pareto front obtained for CASE 2.

392

393 Table 3
394 Selected solutions from Pareto front for CASE 2.
395
PV AD WT COE LPSP RF PV WIND BATTERY DIESEL
Solution # 1 36.7 5.0 10 0.072 0.262 97.30 167630 13534 79511 7040
Solution # 2 36.1 5.0 10 0.072 0.266 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 3 36.0 5.0 10 0.072 0.266 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 4 36.0 5.0 10 0.072 0.266 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 5 36.0 5.0 10 0.072 0.266 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 6 35.6 5.0 10 0.072 0.269 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 7 35.6 5.0 10 0.072 0.269 97.20 163099 13534 79511 7183
Solution # 8 32.8 4.5 10 0.070 0.317 96.12 149508 13534 79512 9413
Solution # 9 32.9 4.3 10 0.069 0.321 96.12 149508 13534 79512 9413
Solution # 10 31.2 3.5 10 0.066 0.372 95.71 140446 13534 79521 10024
Solution # 11 30.9 3.5 10 0.066 0.375 95.18 140446 13534 79521 11253
Solution # 12 30.9 3.3 10 0.065 0.381 95.18 140446 13534 79521 11253
Solution # 13 31.1 3.1 10 0.064 0.388 95.18 140446 13534 79521 11253
Solution # 14 30.9 3.1 10 0.064 0.391 95.18 140446 13534 79521 11253
Solution # 15 30.9 2.9 10 0.064 0.397 95.18 140446 13534 79521 11253
Solution # 16 30.9 2.7 9 0.063 0.408 95.13 140446 12181 80120 11338
Solution # 17 29.7 2.6 10 0.062 0.415 94.94 135916 13534 79640 11603
Solution # 18 28.2 2.5 10 0.062 0.424 94.43 126855 13534 80394 12302
Solution # 19 28.2 2.4 10 0.062 0.430 94.02 126855 13534 80394 13204
Solution # 20 28.4 2.4 9 0.062 0.431 93.92 126855 12181 81195 13384

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Solution # 21 27.9 2.3 10 0.061 0.436 94.02 126855 13534 80394 13204
Solution # 22 28.7 2.1 9 0.061 0.441 94.22 131385 12181 80573 12965
Solution # 23 28.2 2.0 10 0.060 0.443 94.02 126855 13534 80394 13204
Solution # 24 28.1 1.9 10 0.060 0.446 94.02 126855 13534 80394 13204
Solution # 25 27.5 1.7 10 0.059 0.453 93.64 122324 13534 81260 13818
Solution # 26 27.2 1.7 10 0.059 0.457 93.64 122324 13534 81260 13818
Solution # 27 26.9 1.7 10 0.059 0.457 93.64 122324 13534 81260 13818
Solution # 28 27.1 1.2 10 0.057 0.475 93.22 122324 13534 81260 14716
Solution # 29 26.8 1.2 10 0.057 0.475 93.22 122324 13534 81260 14716
Solution # 30 28.2 1.0 9 0.057 0.475 93.46 126855 12181 81195 14392
396

0.07

0.065
COE ($/kWh)

0.06

0.055

0.05

0.045
0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48
397 LPSP

398 Fig. 8. Pareto front obtained for CASE 3.

399

400 Table 4
401 Selected solutions from Pareto front for CASE 3.
402
PV AD WT COE LPSP RF PV WIND BATTERY DIESEL
Solution # 1 44.9 4.7 10 0.064 0.372 96.90 203874 13534 122741 10547
Solution # 2 44.9 4.6 10 0.064 0.373 96.90 203874 13534 122741 10547
Solution # 3 44.9 4.2 10 0.062 0.381 96.77 203874 13534 122741 10992
Solution # 4 44.9 3.9 10 0.061 0.386 96.77 203874 13534 122741 10992
Solution # 5 44.8 3.5 10 0.059 0.395 96.51 203874 13534 122741 11883
Solution # 6 44.9 3.4 10 0.059 0.396 96.51 203874 13534 122741 11883
Solution # 7 44.9 3.3 10 0.058 0.397 96.51 203874 13534 122741 11883
Solution # 8 44.9 3.3 10 0.058 0.398 96.51 203874 13534 122741 11883

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Solution # 9 44.4 3.3 9 0.058 0.401 96.38 199343 12181 123889 12133
Solution # 10 44.6 3.1 10 0.057 0.410 96.51 203874 13534 122741 11883
Solution # 11 44.1 2.7 10 0.056 0.419 96.40 199343 13534 123137 12081
Solution # 12 44.4 2.6 10 0.056 0.420 96.40 199343 13534 123137 12081
Solution # 13 43.9 2.6 9 0.055 0.422 96.38 199343 12181 123889 12133
Solution # 14 43.6 2.6 10 0.055 0.423 96.40 199343 13534 123137 12081
Solution # 15 43.5 2.6 10 0.055 0.424 96.40 199343 13534 123137 12081
Solution # 16 43.2 2.5 10 0.055 0.429 96.00 194813 13534 123823 13285
Solution # 17 43.4 2.2 9 0.053 0.440 95.96 194813 12181 124637 13388
Solution # 18 43.2 2.2 10 0.053 0.440 96.00 194813 13534 123823 13285
Solution # 19 43.5 2.1 10 0.053 0.441 96.12 199343 13534 123137 13024
Solution # 20 42.3 2.1 10 0.053 0.444 95.85 190282 13534 124675 13645
Solution # 21 43.2 2.0 10 0.053 0.446 96.00 194813 13534 123823 13285
Solution # 22 42.4 1.9 9 0.052 0.449 95.80 190282 12181 125509 13771
Solution # 23 41.3 1.8 9 0.051 0.454 95.62 185752 12181 126474 14205
Solution # 24 40.4 1.7 10 0.051 0.458 95.41 181221 13534 126660 14768
Solution # 25 40.4 1.7 10 0.051 0.459 95.41 181221 13534 126660 14768
Solution # 26 40.3 1.7 10 0.051 0.459 95.41 181221 13534 126660 14768
Solution # 27 40.4 1.6 10 0.051 0.463 95.41 181221 13534 126660 14768
Solution # 28 40.6 1.6 9 0.050 0.465 95.62 185752 12181 126474 14205
Solution # 29 40.4 1.6 10 0.050 0.466 95.41 181221 13534 126660 14768
Solution # 30 40.4 1.4 10 0.050 0.473 95.18 181221 13534 126660 15482
403

DIESEL DIESEL DIESEL

4% 5% 6%

BATTERY BATTERY
27%
28% BATTERY
28%

PV
PV
PV 56%
59% 58%

10% WIND
WIND
WIND 10%
10%

(a) Solution # 1 (b) Solution # 15 (c) Solution # 30

404

405 Fig. 9. Contribution of energy supplied by PV panels, wind turbines, diesel generator,
406 and battery for certain selected solutions for CASE 1.

407 5.1 Sensitivity analysis

408 A sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the effect of design variables on the

409 COE. In this study, each variable was varied between 50% and 150% of each of the

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

410 optimal values; the curves obtained for solution 15 of CASE 1 are shown in Fig. 10. It

411 can be seen from these curves that the COE is relatively stable when the number of wind

412 turbines is varied. However, if the value of PV varies around the optimal point, the COE

413 increases. In addition, the COE decreases in line with a decrease in the number of

414 autonomy days, and when the number of days increases so does the COE.

0.13
PV
AD
0.12 WT

0.11
COE ($/kWh)

0.1

0.09

0.08

0.07
0.5 1 1.5
415 Parameter variation

416 Fig. 10. Sensitivity of COE to variation in design variables.

417

418 6. Conclusion

419 In this paper, the MOSaDE algorithm is used to optimize an HMS composed of solar

420 PV, wind turbines, battery bank, and diesel generator. Use of a multi-objective

421 optimization approach ensures the objectives are treated simultaneously and

422 independently, thereby leading to a reduction in computational time. The objective

423 functions treated in this paper are the COE and LPSP, and three case studies are

424 performed, each involving a particular number of houses in the city of Yanbu. The results

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

425 obtained include not only one optimal solution, but a set of optimal solutions (Pareto

426 front), thereby offering a designer several options. Optimization of the HMS is performed

427 so that the optimal capacities of a wind turbine, a number of PV modules, and the

428 capacity of a diesel generator and battery can be selected. In addition, a sensitivity

429 analysis is conducted to test the effect of variation of optimal design variables. It is

430 important to select optimally sized HMS components to ensure that all load demands are

431 met at the minimum energy cost and high reliability.

432 It is considered that the results of this study are useful in investigating optimal

433 scheduling of HMS components, and can be used as a power reference for the economic

434 operation of PV and wind turbine generators. In addition, the results are also useful for

435 ensuring a reliable power supply, regulating diesel generation within a normal range,

436 operating the set points of PV and wind turbine generators, and providing an optimal

437 energy storage system, thereby contributing to the realization of microgrid projects in the

438 country. The aim of all these efforts is to reduce the price of renewable energy resources,

439 especially solar PV and wind energy, and to make products more competitive for use in

440 the energy industry and market, with the ultimate aim of accelerating renewable energy

441 resources development and energy diversification plans.

442 Acknowledgment

443 This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King

444 Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant no. (G/664/135/1437). The authors, therefore,

445 acknowledge with thanks DSR for technical and financial support.

446

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

447 References

448 [1] Ellabban O, Abu-Rub H, Blaabjerg F. Renewable energy resources: current status,

449 future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;

450 39:748–64.

451 [2] Bayod-Rújula A A. Future development of the electricity systems with distributed

452 generation. Energy 2009;34(3):377–83.

453 [3] Moghaddam A A, Seifi A, Niknam T. Multi-objective operation management of a

454 renewable MG (micro-grid) with back-up micro-turbine/fuel cell/battery hybrid

455 power source. Energy 2011;36(11): 6490–507.

456 [4] Hatziargyriou N, Asano H, Iravani R. Microgrids. Power and Energy Magazine

457 2007;5(4):78-94.

458 [5] Pogaku N, Prodanovic M, Green T C. Modeling, analysis and testing of

459 autonomous operation of an inverter-based microgrid. IEEE Transactions on

460 Power Electronics 2007; 22(2): 613–625.

461 [6] Rehman S. Wind energy resources assessment for Yanbo, Saudi Arabia. Energy

462 Convers Manage 2004;45:2019–32.

463 [7] Rehman S, Ahmad A. Assessment of wind energy potential for coastal locations of

464 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Energy 2004;29:1105–15.

465 [8] Al-Abbadi NM. Wind energy resource assessment for five locations in Saudi

466 Arabia. Renew Energy 2005;30:1489–99.

467 [9] Rehman S, El-amin IM, Ahmad F, Shaahid SM, Al-Shehri AM, Bakhashwain JM.

468 Wind power resource assessment for Rafha, Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy

469 Rev 2007;11:937–50.

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

470 [10] Rehman S, Sahin AZ. Wind power utilization for water pumping using small wind

471 turbines in Saudi Arabia: A techno-economical review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev

472 2012;16(7):4470–8.

473 [11] Hepbasli A, Alsuhaibani Z. A key review on present status and future directions of

474 solar energy studies and applications in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev

475 2011;15(9):5021–50.

476 [12] Dalton GJ, Lockington DA, Baldock TE. Case study feasibility analysis of

477 renewable energy supply options for small to medium-sized tourist

478 accommodations. Renew Energy 2009;34(4):1134–44.

479 [13] Dalton GJ, Lockington DA, Baldock TE. Feasibility analysis of renewable energy

480 supply options for a grid-connected large hotel. Renew Energy 2009;34(4): 955–

481 64.

482 [14] Himri Y, Arif S, Stambouli AB, Himri S, Draoui B. Review and use of the

483 Algerian renewable energy for sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy

484 Rev 2009;13(6–7):1584–91.

485 [15] Malik AQ. Assessment of the potential of renewable for Brunei Darussalam.

486 Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(1):427–37.

487 [16] Phuangpornpitak N, Kumar S. User acceptance of diesel/PV hybrid system in an

488 island community. Renew Energy 2011;36(1):125–31.

489 [17] Phuangpornpitak N, Kumar S. PV hybrid systems for rural electrification in

490 Thailand. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11(7):1530–43.

491 [18] Ramli MAM, Hiendro A, Twaha S. Economic analysis of PV/diesel hybrid system

492 with flywheel energy storage. Renew Energy 2015;78:398–405.

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

493 [19] Kaabeche A, Belhamel M, Ibtiouen R. Sizing optimization of grid independent

494 hybrid photovoltaic/wind power generation system. Energy 2011;36:1214–22.

495 [20] Li Y, Yue D, Liu H, Liu Y. Wind-solar complementary power inverter based on

496 intelligent control. In: 4th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and

497 Applications: 2009 May 25-27. 363–58.

498 [21] Takle ES, Shaw RH. Complimentary nature of wind and solar energy at a

499 continental mid-latitude station. Int J Energy Res 1979;3(2):103–12.

500 [22] Himri Y, Stambouli AB, Draoui B, Himri S. Techno-economical study of hybrid

501 power system for a remote village in Algeria. Energy 2008;33(7):1128–36.

502 [23] Bekele G, Palm B. Feasibility study for a standalone solar-wind-based hybrid

503 energy system for application in Ethiopia. Appl Energy 2010;87(2):487–95.

504 [24] Dali M, Belhadj J, Roboam X. Hybrid solar-wind system with battery storage

505 operating in grid-connected and standalone mode: control and energy management

506 – experimental investigation. Energy 2010;35(6):2587–95.

507 [25] Abdullah MO, Yung VC, Anyi M, Othman AK, Hamid KBA, Tarawe J. Review

508 and comparison study of hybrid diesel/solar/hydro/fuel cell energy schemes for a

509 rural ICT Telecenter. Energy 2010;35(2):639–46.

510 [26] Strunz K, Kristina Brock E. Stochastic energy source access management:

511 infrastructure-integrative modular plant for sustainable hydrogen-electric

512 cogeneration. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;31(9):1129–41.

513 [27] Agbossou K, Kolhe M, Hamelin J, Bose TK. Performance of a stand-alone

514 renewable energy system based on energy storage as hydrogen. IEEE Trans

515 Energy Convers 2004;19(3):633–40.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

516 [28] Caisheng W, Nehrir MH. Power management of a stand-alone

517 wind/photovoltaic/fuel cell energy system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers

518 2008;23(3):957–67.

519 [29] Chen H, Cong TN, Yang W, Tan C, Li Y, Ding Y. Progress in electrical energy

520 storage system: a critical review. Prog Nat Sci 2009;19:291–312.

521 [30] HOMER energy modeling software. National Renewable energy laboratory.

522 http://en.openei.org/wiki/HOMER.

523 [31] Erdinc O, Uzunoglu M. Optimum design of hybrid renewable energy systems:

524 overview of different approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(3):1412–

525 25.

526 [32] Dufo-Lopez R, Bernal-Agustín JL, Contreras J. Optimization of control strategies

527 for stand-alone renewable energy systems with hydrogen storage. Renew Energy

528 2007;32(7):1102–26.

529 [33] Mohammadi M, Hosseinian SH, Gharehpetian GB. GA-based optimal sizing of

530 microgrid and DG units under pool and hybrid electricity markets. Int J Elect

531 Power Energy Syst 2012;35(1):83–92.

532 [34] Luna-Rubio R, Trejo-Perea M, Vargas-V_azquez D, Ríos-Moreno GJ. Optimal

533 sizing of renewable hybrids energy systems: a review of methodologies. Sol

534 Energy 2012;86(4):1077–88.

535 [35] Schutte JF. The particle swarm optimization algorithm – structural optimization

536 overview; 2005.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

537 [36] Borhanazad H, Mekhilef S, Ganapathy VG, Modiri-Delshad M, Mirtaheri A.

538 Optimization of micro-grid system using MOPSO. Renew Energy 2014;71:295–

539 306.

540 [37] Daud AK, Ismail MS. Design of isolated hybrid systems minimizing costs and

541 pollutant emissions. Renew Energy 2012;44(0):215–24.

542 [38] Elliott DL, Holladay CG, Barchet WR, Foote HP, Sandusky WF. Wind energy

543 resource atlas of the United States. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2006. p. 44.

544 [39] Justus CG. Wind energy statistics for large arrays of wind turbines (New England

545 and Central U.S. Regions). Sol Energy 1978;20(5):379–86.

546 [40] Rehman S, Al-Abbadi NM. Wind shear coefficients and energy yield for Dhahran,

547 Saudi Arabia. Renew Energy 2007;32(5):738–49.

548 [41] Jaramillo OA, Borja MA. Wind speed analysis in La Ventosa, Mexico: a bimodal

549 probability distribution case. Renew Energy 2004;29(10):1613–30.

550 [42] Farrugia RN. The wind shear exponent in a Mediterranean island climate. Renew

551 Energy 2003;28(4):647–53.

552 [43] Banuelos-Ruedas F, Angeles-Camacho C, Rios-Marcuello S. Analysis and

553 validation of the methodology used in the extrapolation of wind speed data at

554 different heights. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14(8):2383–91.

555 [44] Bechrakis DA, Sparis PD. Simulation of the wind speed at different heights using

556 artificial neural networks. Wind Eng 2000;24(2):127–36.

557 [45] Patel MR. Wind and solar power systems. CRC Press. 1999. p. 50–54.

558 [46] International Electrotechnical Committee IEC. 61400–1, Wind Turbines Part 1:

559 Design Requirements, 3rd ed., IEC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

560 [47] International Electrotechnical Committee IEC. 61400–3, Wind Turbines Part 3:

561 Design Requirements for Offshore Wind Turbines, 1st ed., IEC, Geneva,

562 Switzerland, 2009.

563 [48] Wang L, Singh C. PSO-based multi-criteria optimum design of a gridconnected

564 hybrid power system with multiple renewable sources of energy. Proceeding

565 Swarm Intelligence Symposium 2007:250–7.

566 [49] Korpaas M, Holen A T, Hildrum R. Operation and sizing of energy storage for

567 wind power plants in a market system. Int J Elect Power Energy Syst 2003;25(8):

568 599–606.

569 [50] El-Hefnawi SH. Photovoltaic diesel-generator hybrid power system sizing. Renew

570 Energy 1998;13(1):33–40.

571 [51] Ashari M, Nayar CV. An optimum dispatch strategy using set points for a

572 photovoltaic (PV)/diesel/battery hybrid power system. Sol Energy 1999;66(1):1–9.

573 [52] Skarstein O, Uhlen K. Design considerations with respect to long-term diesel

574 saving in wind/diesel plants. Wind Eng 1989;13(2):72–87.

575 [53] Azoumah Y, Yamegueu D, Ginies P, Coulibaly Y, Girard P. Sustainable electricity

576 generation for rural and peri-urban populations of sub-Saharan Africa: the “flexy-

577 energy” concept. Energy Policy 2011;39(1):131–41.

578 [54] Deshmukh MK, Deshmukh SS. Modeling of hybrid renewable energy systems.

579 Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12(1):235–49.

580 [55] Diaf S, Diaf D, Belhamel M, Haddadi M, Louche A. A methodology for optimal

581 sizing of autonomous hybrid PV/wind system. Energy Policy 2007;35(11):5708–

582 18.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

583 [56] Schmid J, Dincklage RD von. Power conditioning and control. Proceeding

584 Euroforum New Energies Congress 1988:241–3.

585 [57] Schmid J, Schmid H. Inverter for photovoltaic system. Proceeding 5th Contractor's

586 Meeting of the European Community Photovoltaic Demonstration Projects 1991:

587 122–32.

588 [58] Darras C, Sailler S, Thibault C, Muselli M, Poggi P, Hoguet JC, et al. Sizing of

589 photovoltaic system coupled with hydrogen/oxygen storage based on the oriented

590 model. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(8):3322–32.

591 [59] Rehman S. Prospects of wind farm development in Saudi Arabia. Renew Energy

592 2005;30:447–63.

593 [60] Ramli MAM, Hiendro A, Al-Turki YA. Techno-economic energy analysis of

594 wind/solar hybrid system: Case study for western coastal area of Saudi Arabia

595 Renew Energy 2016;91:374–85.

596 [61] Luna-Rubio R, Trejo-Perea M, Vargas-Vazquez D, Ríos-Moreno GJ. Optimal

597 sizing of renewable hybrids energy systems: a review of methodologies. Sol

598 Energy 2012;86(4):1077–88.

599 [62] Kaabeche A, Belhamel M, Ibtiouen R. Techno-economic valuation and

600 optimization of integrated photovoltaic/wind energy conversion system. Sol

601 Energy 2011;85(10):2407–20.

602 [63] Yang H, Zhou W, Lu L, Fang Z. Optimal sizing method for stand-alone hybrid

603 solar/wind system with LPSP technology by using genetic algorithm. Sol Energy

604 2008;82(4):354–67.

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

605 [64] Rajkumar RK, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Yong BL, Chia DB. Techno-economical

606 optimization of hybrid pv/wind/battery system using Neuro-Fuzzy. Energy

607 2011;36(8):5148–53.

608 [65] Storn RM, Price KV. Differential Evolution – A simple and efficient adaptive

609 scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. 1995; pp. 1–12.

610 [66] Qing A. Differential Evolution Fundamentals and Applications in Electrical

611 Engineering. John Wiley & Sons. 2009.

612 [67] Price KV, Storn RM. Lampinen JA. Differential Evolution A Practical Approach

613 to Global Optimization. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005.

614 [68] Huang VL, Qin AK, Suganthan PN. Self-adaptative differential evolution

615 algorithm for constrained real-parameter optimization. Proceeding 2006 IEEE

616 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’2006) 2006:17–24.

617 [69] Huang VL, Qin AK, Suganthan PN, Tasgetiren MF. Multi-objective optimization

618 based on self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm. Proceeding 2007 IEEE

619 Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2007:3601–8.

620 [70] Alaidroos A, He L, Krarti M. Feasibility of renewable energy based distributed

621 generations in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. Proceeding World Renewable Energy Forum

622 2012:1–8.

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

1. Optimal sizing of PV/wind/diesel hybrid system with battery storage was analyzed.

2. The analysis was done using MOSaDE algorithm for the city of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia.

3. The energy management strategy is the main criteria to design and optimize the HMS.

4. The multi-objective optimization approach was used to analyze the cost and reliability.

5. HMS components are selected to meet the minimum energy cost and high reliability.