Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

A novel optimum arrangement for a hybrid renewable energy system

using developed student psychology based optimizer: A case study
∗ ∗
Ruijing Shi a,b , Weiqing Wang a , , Zhi Yuan a , Xiaochao Fan a , Ehsan Ramezani c ,
a
Engineering Research Center of Renewable Energy Power Generation and Grid-connected Control, Ministry of Education, Xinjiang University,
Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830047, China
b
Xinjiang Institute of Engineering, Urumqi, Xinjiang, 830047, China
c
Department of electrical engineering, Amir Kabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: A novel optimum arrangement of combinatorial PV/BG/Battery/PSH-based off-grid combinatorial sus-
Received 12 August 2020 tainable energy system is suggested in this paper to provide the required energy of a radio transmitter
Received in revised form 17 October 2020 station on the Three Gorges Dam in Hubei, China. The study proposes four decision variables to lessen
Accepted 15 November 2020
the overall life-cycle cost under different constraints. To enhance the solution capability, a novel
Available online 21 November 2020
developed version of Student Psychology Based Optimizer (DSPBO) is proposed. The study also works
Keywords: on lessening the levelized energy expense based on the proposed method with a comparison to some
Radio transmitter station various algorithms from the literature. Simulation results showed that in the DSPBO algorithm, OLCC
Developed student psychology based has higher convergence. The optimal design for this algorithm is a OLCC of $ 816,427 and LEOE of $
optimizer 0.4913 $/kWh which is the best compared with other analyzed methods. Final simulations show that
Loss of Load Probability
the presented technique obtains the optimum outcomes with comparison to the others
Overall Life-Cycle Cost
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Combinatorial sustainable energy system
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction et al., 2019). In this case, using Hybrid Sustainable Energy Systems
(HSES) which use an integration of several sustainable sources
The pollutants emission from fossil fuels have led to climate instead of one source, is the most expense-efficient and depend-
alteration, even though these fuels have led to fast economic able method (Fei et al., 2019); Because the existence of several
development in human communities (Yuan et al., 2020b). How- different sources, such as wind and sun together, causes the chal-
ever, fossil fuel origins such as coal, gas, uranium and oil are lenge of using another source to be covered by taking advantage
continuously decreasing (Yu and Ghadimi, 2019). This necessi- of one renewable source (Tian et al., 2020). This combination
tates research into alternative and sustainable energy origins, help avoiding oversizing (Elhadidy and Shaahid, 2000) as well
such as wind energy, biomass energy, solar energy and fuel cells as increasing the economic power supply and system efficiency
(Meng et al., 2020). The most important advantages of renewable (Fan et al., 2020a). Some other advantages of HSES are lower
energy sources are inexhaustibility, lack of fuel costs, availability atmospheric contamination, fuel saving (up to 50%), silent system,
everywhere on earth and no emission of greenhouse gases for savings in maintenance, and connection to other power sup-
electricity generation (clean sources) (Yu and Ghadimi, 2019). plies (Cao et al., 2019a,b). Furthermore, using HSES can remove
The development of renewable energies leads to help achieve the distribution and transmission losses for the distant areas (Gong
goals of economic, social and environmental development of the and razmjooy, 2020; Guo et al., 2020). One significant case that
country, which is one of the key factors in achieving sustainable should be properly considered in the HSES designing is to techno-
development in any country (Tarafdar and Ghadimi, 2014; Ye economically sizing of the components in a feasible condition
et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2020a). One of the major challenges of (Mir et al., 2020a; Mirzapour et al., 2019; Nejad et al., 2019;
renewable energies is the unpredictable nature of these resources Shamel and Ghadimi, 2016). Due to the presence of different
(Fan et al., 2020b). components in HSES, the optimal sizing of its components is a
Systems that use a single, renewable source (such as just complicated task (Akbary et al., 2019; Hamian et al., 2018; Liu
wind-powered systems or systems with only the sun or any et al., 2017; Mirzapour et al., 2019).
proprietary renewable source) are not safe and secure (Saeedi To achieve a proper optimal configuration for the HSES sys-
tem, both of reliability and economical aspects should be con-
∗ Corresponding authors. sidered and because of their contradictory nature, this task can
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (W. Wang), [email protected] be considered as non-deterministic polynomial time hardness
(E. Ramezani). (NP-hardness) problem (Guo and Razmjooy, 2019). Solving the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.168
2352-4847/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Fig. 1. The main arrangement of the considered hybrid system.

NP-hardness problems based on classic optimization methods Although, each type of metaheuristic has its specific shortcom-
is complicated and in some cases it is impossible (Liu et al., ings. For example, most of these methods have the limitation of
2020; Mir et al., 2020b). Therefore, to solve the presented HSES stuck in the local optimum, lower consistency, premature con-
sizing problem, different works have been introduced in the vergence, etc. Therefore, here, a novel developed metaheuristic
field of metaheuristics. For instance, Particle Swarm Optimization is suggested to refine the defined shortcomings as it can to uti-
algorithm (PSO) (Mansouri Kouhestani et al., 2020), Genetic Algo- lize it for techno-economic optimum arrangement of an off-grid
rithm (GA) (Rullo et al., 2019), hybrid P-GA-PSO algorithm (Mel- combinatorial sustainable energy system in a radio transmitter
louk et al., 2019), flower pollination algorithm (FPA) (Moghad- station.
dam et al., 2019), Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA)
(Mokhtara et al., 2020), Improved Deer Hunting Optimization 2. Mathematical design of the studied Combinatorial Renew-
(DHO) (Tian et al., 2020). One of the advantages of the meta- able Energy System
heuristics is that they search to the optimal variables with a
stochastic movement without considering the problem gradient This paper includes Bio-Diesel (BG), solar Photovoltaic (PV),
and nature. converter, Pumped-storage hydroelectricity (PSH) (PSH), and bat-
Wu et al. (2020) suggested a technique to optimize the size tery storage system. The PSH is a storage system that converts
of the grid-connected renewable energy systems coupled with potential energy of the stored water to the electricity (Rehman
pumped-storage system. For achieving better results, Salp Swarm et al., 2015). The PSH employs two water storages that are divided
Algorithm (SSA) as the metaheuristic solution was utilized. The vertically such that when there is surplus electricity, the water
results show the system efficiency based on the energy exchange is pumped from the lesser storage to the higher storage. Then,
values of the system and the network. The simulation results when there is requirement for energy, the water flow is reversed
showed that the proposed HSES reduces power exchange with and directed through turbines for electricity production (Cai et al.,
the network. 2019; Gao et al., 2019; Ghadimi and Firouz, 2015). Due to refine
Sandeep and Nandihalli (2020) offered a hybrid PV-wind en- the slow dynamics of the PSH from answering to abrupt load fluc-
tuations as fast as feasible, battery storage system is used in this
ergy production system to provide power demands. The purpose
paper (Akbary et al., 2019). Fig. 1 depicts the main arrangement
was provided by optimum system equipment sizing for load
of the considered hybrid system.
demand compensation. The idea was to use PSO algorithm, Artifi-
The system is off-grid and the PSH has two separate penstocks
cial Fish Swarm Optimization (AFSO) algorithm, Adaptive Genetic
to pump water from lesser reservoir to UR, and for transfer-
Algorithm with Cauchy mutation (AGA-Cauchy), Social Spider Op-
ring water from higher to lesser storage to provide the turbine
timization Algorithm (SSOA) and Opposition-Based Social Spider
required energy (Ghadimi et al., 2013).
Optimization Algorithm (OSSOA) for optimal sizing of the HSES.
The analytical model of the studied HSES is illustrated based
Final results showed that the OSSO has better results toward the
on each component in the following.
other compared methods.
Pandey and Kirmani (2020) introduced a method for optimal
2.1. Power production of photovoltaic system
location and optimal placement of the photovoltaic and energy
saving system. The optimal solution was based on considering the
In this work, the output power of the photovoltaic (PV) model
voltage consistency of the system, the power loss, and sizes of is considered as one of the required cases. Based on (Belmili et al.,
the storage and photovoltaic. Optimization was performed based 2014), the output power of PV is obtained by the following.
on Crow Search Optimization (CSO) algorithm. Two case stud-
ies were employed for system efficiency analysis. A comparison PPV = APV × Sirr × ηPV (1)
of the final outcomes of the system with some famous algo- 2
where, APV (m ) signifies the PV generator surface, Sirr represents
rithms from the literature was carried out to show the method
the global solar irradiation (W/m2 ), and ηPV describes the conver-
superiority.
sion efficiency that is achieved by the following equation (Belmili
It is apparently from the literature that using metaheuristic
et al., 2014):
techniques are counted as a popular and widely-ranged meth-
ods for solving of the complicated HSES in the recent years. ηPV = ηre × [1 − γ × (Tsc − TRsc )] (2)
71
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Table 1 where, LP represents the peak load, sml describes the load safety
The technical characteristics of the utilized PV panel (Jamil Ahmad
margin (here, sml = 5%), and ηTur is the highest effectiveness of
and N Tiwari, 2009).
turbine. Consequently, turbine energy has been calculated and the
Explanation of TP250 panel Requirement
volumetric flow rate has been achieved by the following (Ekoh
Nominal power 300 W
Area 1750*1235 mm2 et al., 2016):
Short-circuit flow (Isc ) 9.15 A
PTur (t)
Open circuit voltage (Voc ) 39.4 V QTur (t ) = (6)
NOCT (◦ C) [47, 51] ρ×g ×h
Effectiveness (η) 18%
Temperature impact on power 0.3965 (%/◦ C) where, PTur describes the produced power by the turbine at time
t (kW), ρ represents the water density (kg/m3 ), QTur signifies the
volumetric discharge (m3 /s), h is the hydraulic head (m), and g
Table 2
The technical features of the utilized converter (Agarwal and defines the gravitational acceleration (m/s2 ).
Kumar, 2013). The study used variable speed turbine to satisfy the load at
Details Specification every possible scenario. The hourly limitations of the turbine
Inlet/Outlet voltage 48VDC/220VAC power is as follows (Spyrou and Anagnostopoulos, 2010):
Inverter effectiveness 90%
Rectifier effectiveness 90% PTM ≤ PTur (t ) ≤ PTI (7)

where, PTM represents 20% of turbine power and PTI denotes 20%
of installed turbine power (Spyrou and Anagnostopoulos, 2010).
where, γ represents the temperature coefficient (%/ C), ηre de- ◦
The water flow rate (m3 /s) in lesser storage to upper reser-
scribes the reference efficiency of PV module, TRsc represents the
voir by the pump is explained by the following (Spyrou and
referral temperature of the solar cell (◦ C), and Tsc is the solar cell’s
Anagnostopoulos, 2010):
temperature achieved by the following (Ross, 1980):
NOCT − 20 ηPum × PPum (t)
Tsc = Tair + ×S (3) QPum (t ) = (8)
80 ρ×g ×h
where, S describes the insolation value (mW/cm2 ) and NOCT where, ηPum describes the performance of the pump, PPum signifies
represents the Nominal Operating Cell Temperature. the left-over power. Variable pump is assumed so that additional
Table 1 indicates the technical characteristics of TATA TP250 energy from sustainable power generator should be saved in
panel series which is used for modeling of the system in this every feasible case.
study. The upper reservoir’s size is based on the autonomy days
number and also on the highest volumetric current ratio of the
2.2. Power output of biogas generator turbine. The definition for resolving of the upper reservoir (UR )
volume is as follows (Spyrou and Anagnostopoulos, 2010):
Biogas (BG) is a sort of biofuel which is naturally generated
by the decomposition of organic waste (Mohammed et al., 2020). UR = QTur × (1 + smU ) × d (9)
The output power of BG is achieved by the following (Das et al.,
2019): where, d describes the autonomy days smU signifies the safety
margin of UR volume which is considered 5%, and QTur describes
PBG = ηBG × LHVBG × FBG (t ) (4)
the peak volumetric current ratio at peak turbine power, the
where, FBG (t ) describes the biogas consumption (m /h), ηBG de- 3
UR volume is obtained as follows (Spyrou and Anagnostopoulos,
fines the electrical efficiency, and LHVBG describes the BG lower 2010):
heating value (kWh/m3 ).
The methane percentage content is the main case of the lower UR (t ) = UR (t − 1) × (1 − σ ) + QPum (t ) − QTur (t) (10)
heating for the Biogas. Based on (Lambert, 2006), the methane
where, σ is the self-discharge ratio because of evaporation (ig-
percentage has been taken 60% with lesser heating amount of
21.78 kJ/m3 [80]. nored here), and UR (t ) and UR (t − 1) describe the UR volume in
time t and t − 1, respectively
2.3. Converter modeling
2.5. The battery reservoir modeling
In this study, both models of inverter and rectifier converters
are utilized to keep the load flow among the DC and AC elements.
The power for the transformer should be greater toward the peak The battery reservoir system is a kind of energy reservoir
power to let the highest rated load flow of the elements. The power unit which employs a set of batteries to save electrical
present study, a ratio of 25% higher than the peak load has been power. The capacity of a battery storage unit is achieved as
utilized. Table 2 indicates the system specifications of the utilized follows:
converter (Agarwal and Kumar, 2013).
Ld × d
CBS = (11)
2.4. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity modeling VBS × DOD × ηBS
where, VBS describes the battery voltage, Ld defines the daily load
In this paper, a natural lake around the radio transmitter (Wh), DOD stands for the depth of discharge, and ηBS is the battery
station has been considered as the lower reservoir. For sizing the efficiency. 21 numbers of the batteries are employed such that
turbine in the PHEM, the peak load demand has been considered
four are in series and the others are in parallel integration. Table 3
in which extracted from Ekoh et al. (2016).
indicates the system specifications of the utilized battery storage
n
PTur = ((1 + sml ) × LP ) /ηTur (5) unit (Das et al., 2019).
72
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Table 3 where, Pal describes the actual load power, DPr describes the ratio
The technical features of the utilized battery storage unit (Das et al., 2019). of deficit in power supply, and T = 365 × 24 = 8760 h in a year.
Details Specification LOLP is limited in the following constraint (Celik et al., 2008):
Type of the battery Trojan model SAGM 06 220 Lead Acid Battery
Nominal voltage 6 V 0 ≤ LLP ≤ LLP max (17)
Nominal volume 220 Ah
Round trip effectiveness 89% If the value of LOLP tend to zero, it shows that the HSES meet
Highest charge flow 48 A the load for the lifetime with no deficit while the value of LOLP
Highest discharge flow 325 A tend to one show that the system cannot provide the power
demand.

3. Techno-economic analysis of the studied combinatorial sus- 3.3. Levelized expense of energy
tainable energy system
The levelized expense of energy (LEOE) is another index for
measuring of the average NPC of electricity production for an
In this study, for techno-economic analysis of the proposed
electricity production unit through its lifetime, i.e. LEOE defines
HSES, three indexes have been employed, including Levelized
the cost per unit energy. The mathematical formulation of this
Cost of Energy (LEOE), Overall Life-Cycle Cost (OLCC), and Loss of
index is given below:
Load Probability (LOLP). The idea is to rank the optimum system
by the lowest OLCC and LEOE under some constraints. In the ACS
LCOE = (18)
following, the mathematical equation for these techno-economic Annual generated pow er
indexes has been explained.
4. Objective function
3.1. The Overall Life-Cycle Cost
This study uses single objective optimization method for sim-
The Overall Life-Cycle Cost (OLCC) describes the current plification. The key objective is designed to lessen the overall net
amount of all the costs of the studied system suffers through present cost subject to various limitations. The formulation of the
its lifespan minus the current amount of all the income it earns objective function is given below:
over its lifetime. These costs are different from operation and
∑
OF = MinTNPC = Min ACC (i)/CRF (19)
maintenance cost, capital costs, fuel costs, replacement costs, and
i=Nb ,UR ,APV ,PBG
emissions penalties. Incomes include recovered amount and grid
selling income. The OLCC is achieved by the following equation Where, the decision variables are: number of batteries (Nb ),
(Celik et al., 2008): BG power (PBG ), upper reservoir volume (UR ) and area of the PV
panel (APV).
CTNPC = ACS /CRF (12) Subject to:
Nbmax
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
where, ACS stands for the annualized expense of the system Nb
($/year), and CRF describes the main recover determinant and is ⎢ UR ⎥ ⎢ URmax ⎥
0≤⎣ ≤ (20)
as follows (Celik et al., 2008): APV ⎦ ⎣APV max ⎦
max
PBG PBG
(1 + ir )n
CRF = × ir (13)
(1 + ir )n − 1 Due to the complexity of this problem, an improved meta-
heuristic, called Developed Student Psychology Based Optimizer
where, n defines project lifetime (years), and ir describes the is used here for achieving the best solution which is explained in
annual rate of interest that is given below (Celik et al., 2008): the next section.
i − ri
ir = (14) 5. Developed Student Psychology Based Optimizer
i + ri
where, i signifies the rate of interest, and ri describes the rate of 5.1. The inspiration of the algorithm
inflation.
Also, ACS is formulated below (Celik et al., 2008): Mainly, at the time the students are competing, the student
ACS = (ACC + ARC + AOMC + AFC ) (15) who gets the top marks in exam, is the best one (top student).
Mostly, rest of the students try to enhance their operation to be
where, ACC stands for the combined of yearly main expense, the top one. Das et al. proposed a new optimizer, which is called
ARC signifies the yearly substitution expense of the system, AFC Student Psychology Based Optimizer (SPBO) (Das et al., 2020).
describes the yearly fuel expense of BG, and AOMC represents the The SPBO the students’ psychology of attempting to acquire best
yearly performance and conservation expense of the system. score and to be the top one through improving their operation
at the time of the test. To be the top student when competing,
3.2. Loss of Load Probability each student should obtain high marks in comparison to the other
students of the class. To achieve this target, further efforts are
An index to indicate the performance and quality of the stud- needed. Therefore, they should have great operation in the whole
ied system is the Loss of Load Probability (LOLP). LOLP can be subjects. Additionally, it should be considered that the students’
influenced by compelled power outage rate of the plant, load talent in a particular subject, their ability, and how much they
duration curve, load growth, capacity and number of production are interested in a subject have significant impacts on the exam
units. The mathematical formulation of this index is given below results. Thus, the ability enhancement of the students is different
(Celik et al., 2008): at the time of the exam. Furthermore, psychology of the students
∑T effects the effort of them too be the top one. Some students try to
t =1 DPr (t ) improve their attempt according to the top one, when, the others
LLP = ∑T (16)
t =1 Pal (t ) × ∆t attempt to achieve this target and also attempting to try further
73
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

5.1.3. Mean student

Some students are not interested in some subjects, so they
can have mean attempt value in these subjects. Even though
they attempt in average in those subjects, they can try more in
the other subjects to obtain better marks for total score. They
are as the subject-wise mean students. Therefore, the choice of
the subject-wise mean students is an accidental process because
of different psychology of the students. The operation of these
students can be modeled using the following formula:
Xgi+1 = Xrm + rand × (Xm − Xrm ) (24)

5.1.4. The random improvement of students with efforts

The final classification belongs to the students that try to
enhance their operation. This is achieved by attempting in the
accidental chosen subjects. They try to improve the overall test
operation. This can be obtained as follows:
Xgi+1 = Xminimum + rand × (Xmaximum − Xminimum ) (25)
where, Xmin describes the minimum and Xmax the maximum
amount of the scores.
The SPBO algorithm begins with a random primary individual
(the students in a class) similar to the other ones.

5.2. Developed Student Psychology Based Optimizer

Fig. 2. The classification of the subject wise students.

As aforementioned SPBO algorithm is a new metaheuristic
technique that is verified very little with other works. However,
our validation indicated that however the SPBOA has well results
toward the average number of the students. Considering that the for solving the optimization algorithms in most cases, it fails to
number of students’ attempts is affected by the students’ interest give the best results due to the premature convergence, lower
to a particular subject, the ones who often attempt to have further consistency, and trapping into the local optimum points in some
effort (subject-wise), progress their total results. Thus, according cases. In this study, two modifications have been applied for
to the aforementioned statements, as seen in Fig. 2, the students improving and refining the algorithm to resolve the explained
are classified into four subject-wise groups. shortcomings.
One modification is to utilize the opposition-based learning
5.1.1. Top student (OBL) mechanism. This mechanism is patterned from the orien-
The student who achieve the best mark in the test, is the top tal philosophy conception (Tizhoosh, 2005; Zhang et al., 2020).
one. This can be obtained by attempting to continue to get the The OBL considers that each feasible solution with its position
highest score in the class. Aiming at this purpose, the top student includes an opposite position. This mechanism is a good modi-
has to keep trying to get higher marks in the whole subjects in
fication for increasing the exploration term of the algorithm. In
comparison to others. That is to say, the top student requires to
this mechanism, after generating the opposite position for each
obtain the top attempt in comparison to an accidental chosen one
solution, it compared with its opposite and the best one has been
attempt. This progress is equated as follows:
selected as the new position of the solution. With assuming Xi as
Xbi+1 = Xbi + (−1)k × rand × (Xbi − Xrj ) (21) a solution in the range Xi ∈ [X i , X i ] and its opposite value X̃ij , the
j formulation is modeled as follows:
where, Xbi
denotes the mark obtained by the best student, Xr
represents the random determined jth student in a particular X̃ij = X ij + X ij − Xij (26)
subject, k shows a variable constant chosen to be 1 or 2, and rand
explains a random amount between 0 and 1. where, Xij , X̃ij ∈ Ri .
Based on the mentioned explanation and Eq. (26), the best
5.1.2. Good student position between Xij and X̃ij will be selected and stored as the
The students who try to get higher score in the whole subjects solution and the other is removed. The present research applies
to enhance their total marks are the good students. They can be OBL mechanism to 40% of the main initial population (Fan et al.,
as the subject-wise good student. The choice of the good one is an 2020b).
accidental choice due to various psychologies in various students. The next modification is based on using chaotic map in the
These students try to reach or to delay the top one’s mark in the algorithm. The chaos theory is a conception to consider extremely
test. This can be achieved using the following formula: sensitive dynamic systems influenced by any slight alteration.
The application of chaos theory in improving metaheuristics is
Xgi+1 = Xbi + rand × (Xbi − Xrm ) (22)
exponentially increasing (Guo et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2020b).
At the same time, some others try to obtain further attempts In chaotic mechanism, some high-distribution and simpler points
from the mean students in the class beside the top one’ effort. have been generated to expand the distribution of the solutions
This is obtained as follows: in the solution space. This specification enhances the convergence
velocity of the algorithm (Rim et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2007). A
Xgi+1 = Xrm + rand × (Xbi − Xrm ) + rand × (Xrm − Xm )
[ ] [ ]
(23)
general form of the chaotic mechanism can be defined by the
where, Xrm
denotes the marks obtained by the mth student in the following:
particular subject, Xm defines the class average performance in j
( )
j
that subject. Xi+1 = f Xi , j = 1, 2, . . . , N (27)

74
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Table 4
The employed test functions for the validation.

Function name Equation Lower bound Upper bound

D−1
∑
100 (xi+1 − xi )2 + (xi − 1) 2
( )
Rosenbrock f1 = −30 30
i=1
D
∑
Sum Squares f2 = ix2i −10 10
i=1
D
∑
Step 2 f3 = (⌊xi + 0.5⌋)2 −100 100
i=1
D D
∑ ∏
Schwefel 2.22 f4 = |xi | − | xi | −10 10
i=1 i=1
⎛ ⎞2
D i
∑ ∑
Schwefel 1.2 f5 = ⎝ xj ⎠ −100 100
i=1 j=1
( D )2
∑
Chung Reynolds f6 = x2i [−100, 100]D
i=1

Table 5
The outcomes of the evaluations among the compared algorithms.
Algorithm f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
Min 11.7318 0.0003 0.0007 10.6853 0 2.8049e−7
Max 3.5612e+3 0.7781e+2 0.8776e+5 0.0737e+3 0.3046e−6 1.0706e+9
MFO (Zervoudakis and Tsafarakis, 2020)
Mean 1.0038e+3 3.7380e+2 1.1758e+4 41.6683 4.0548e−8 2.0438e+8
std 2.0642e+4 1.7762e+2 2.3104e+4 12.0738 1.2385e−7 2.0004e+8
Min 26.6937 0.1748 1.6574 1.8753 2.5764e−6 1.3178
Max 412.8710 1.7857 3.8653 34.4738 0.0054 83.7831
IBO (Zhi et al., 2020)
Mean 116.5730 1.0783 2.1346 16.6920 0.0068 12.5374
std 76.4027 0.0871 1.7348 3.3347 0.0002 6.3415
Min 4.3708 1.7640e−5 2.3748e−5 1.0079 1.6113e−13 3.3856e−9
Max 3.0774e+2 0.0402 0.0031 1.0393 1.4371e−8 4.5441e−8
EFO (Yilmaz and Sen, 2019)
Mean 105.5143 0.0095 0.0060 1.0204 2.0843e−9 2.1157
std 259.3926 0.0087 2.0037e−5 1.0433 2.1298e−9 1.2437e−8
Min 0.7820 8.6048e−21 1.4837e−11 4.4215e−15 2.3046e−7 2.2348e−38
Max 37.7514 1.4450e−19 1.7318e−10 1.8746e−14 0.0031 2.1837e−34
SPBO (Das et al., 2020)
Mean 3.2407 1.3104e−19 1.0005e−10 1.0736e−14 5.0148e−5 1.0061e−35
std 3.0032 1.0806e−19 4.2104e−11 5.0883e−15 0.0043 5.2374e−35
Min 4.6137 2.2396e−5 4.3742e−9 0.0026 3.0036e−16 4.0627e−17
Max 403.5781 1.3308 1.2138e−8 3.3845 0.4052e−12 3.1483e−16
DSPBO
Mean 52.4738 0.1875 2.1048e−8 0.0713 2.3108e−13 2.2370e−16
std 74.3761 0.0671 3.3102e−9 0.1830 3.0074e−13 7.3108e−17

( )
j
where N denotes the dimension of the map and f Xi defines the of the outcomes of the algorithm with mayfly optimization (MFO)
generator function for chaotic mechanism. In this study, a widely- algorithm (Zervoudakis and Tsafarakis, 2020), Improved butterfly
used form of chaotic mechanism, called Chebyshev chaotic map optimizer (IBO) (Zhi et al., 2020), Electric fish optimizer (EFO)
is adopted and is utilized to the following variables of the algo- (Yilmaz and Sen, 2019), and basic SPBO algorithm (Das et al.,
rithm: 2020). Table 4 shows the employed fitness functions for the
Xbi+1 = Xbi + (−1)k × r1,q+1 × (Xbi − Xrj ) (28) verification.
The minimum value for all the functions is considered 0 and to
Xgi+1 = Xrm + r2,q+1 × (Xm − Xrm ) (29)
give a fair comparison, the individual size of the whole algorithms
Xgi+1 = Xminimum + r3,q+1 × (Xmaximum − Xminimum ) (30) is assumed 100 with the function dimension equal to 30. Notably,
where, 35 runs has been accomplished for each algorithm to give a
consistent results. To describe the ability of the algorithms, four-
rk,q+1 = cos qcos−1 (rk,q ) , k = 1, 2, 3
( )
(31) measure indexes are employed. Table 5 shows the outcomes of
rk,0 ∈ [−1, 1] (32) the evaluations among the compared algorithms.
As seen in Table 5, by employing the suggested DSPBO, the
5.3. The algorithm validation lowest amount of Min, Max, and Mean are achieved. This shows
higher accuracy of the algorithm toward the other compared
To validate the efficiency of the suggested DSPBO algorithm,
methods. Also, as represented in Table 5, obviously the standard
it should be evaluated by some different standard test functions
deviation amount (std) in this algorithm is also has the minimum
and a comparison of the outcomes with some state of art and
well-known metaheuristics should be carried out. This will help value that shows the higher accuracy of the suggested algorithm.
to show that how and how much the proposed algorithm works The results also indicated that applying the suggested MFFO
better than the other compared methods. Here, six standard test algorithm provides the lowest amount of the standard deviation
functions have been utilized for the verification and a comparison which represents its high consistency than the others.
75
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Table 6
The data of transmitter station utilized for designing.
Power instruments Overall nos. nos. Rating (kW) Operation time (h)
LED 15 0.017 6 nos × 24 and 8 nos × 12
Mini tube light 2 0.006 10
Tube light 30 0.039 9 nos × 24 and 20 nos × 12
Transmitter 1 14 18
CFL 27 0.027 12 nos × 24 and 15 nos × 12
PIE rack (HARRIS) 1 0.7 18
LED TV 1 0.09 18
Sodium lamp 6 0.28 10
Pedestrian Fan 2 0.061 18
Ceiling Fan 5 0.07 18
Electric heater 2 1.3 2
Split A.C. 4 2.48 18
Fridge 1 0.6 22

6. Method of optimization Table 7

The monthly average of primary load.

The population size in this study is selected 100 such that Month Average primary load (kW)
each single population has four decision variables that are defined Min. Max.
before (i.e. Nb , PBG , UR , and APV ) that are made randomly subject January 4 18
to the definite constraints. These parameters are then utilized February 4.6 17.9
March 5 21
for evaluating the LOLP of the system in an iterative process.
April 4 24
Then, the considered population matrix has been nominated by May 7 23
the predefined LOLP value. The decision variables value has been June 4.5 26
applied to the objective function to evaluate the OLCC and to find July 4.7 25
the minimum value as the optimum fitness amount for the first August 4.7 24
September 4.7 23
iteration.
October 4.6 22
The later iteration starts with generating another individual November 3 16
matrix to update the algorithm features. New populations have December 4 20
been checked again to the predefined LOLP value and to achieve
the lowest amount of the OLCC. This iteration is iterated by the
algorithm until the stopping criteria has been met. The present
research analyzes two cases. In the first one, the photovoltaic where, PBGW signifies the BG working power of BG, PBG defines the
panel is considered to generate extra power in comparison to BG nominal power, and PBGT describes the BG technical minimum
the real power demand, and the second one is considered while power (assumed as 25% of the nominal power). Here, LLP = 0.
photovoltaic panel generates low power than the power demand. If Ps (t ) < PBGT , check whether the turbine power satisfy the
For the first case study (PPV (t ) ≥ Prealload (t)), due to the pres- power shortage or not. If so, then the UR volume will be evaluated
ence of extra energy, the battery starts to charge. This process as follows:
happens when the battery SOC is less than 0.8. This process is UR (t ) = UR (t − 1) − RTur (t ) (38)
mathematically modeled as follows:
where, RTur (t ) describes the turbine flow rate (m /s). 3
SOC (t ) = SOC (t − 1) × (1 − αt ) However, if turbine does not satisfy the power shortage, bat-
(PPV (t ) − Prealload (t)) × ∆t × ηch tery starts to supply the remained load demand as follows:
+ (33)
Vbatt × Cah
SOC (t ) = SOC (t − 1) × (1 − αt )
where, (Prealload (t ) − PPV (t )) × ∆t × ηdis
Pload (t ) + (39)
Prealload (t) = (34) Vbatt × Cbatt
ηinv where ηdis describes the discharging efficiency.
where, αt signifies the rate of battery self-discharging, ηch defines The battery SOC and UR volume constraints are considered as
the battery charging efficiency SOC (t ) describes the battery SOC follows:
at time t, SOC (t − 1) represents the battery SOC at time t − 1.
SOCmin ≤ SOC (t ) ≤ SOCmax (40)
When battery SOC > 0.8, the volume of water in the UR has
been increased. The volume of UR at time t is as follows: URmin ≤ UR (t ) ≤ UR (41)
UR (t ) = UR (t − 1) + RPum (t ) (35) where, here, URmin = 0 and:
where, RPum (t ) describes the pump flow rate (m /s). During this 3
SOCmin = DoD × SOCmax (42)
case, the LOLP is assumed to be set zero.
The second case study considered as PPV (t ) ≤ Prealload (t). In If battery SOC cant meet the required load demand, then
this case study, the shortage power (Ps ) has been evaluated. This power shortage will be equal to:
case considers three scenarios that are given in the following. DP (t ) = Prealload (t ) − (PBG (t ) + PPV (t ) + SOC (t ) − SOCmin ) (43)
If Ps (t) ≥ PBGT and Ps (t ) ≤ PBG , BG can satisfy the Ps (t) and
Ps (t ) = PBGW (t). The battery SOC and the volume for UR are as And the LOLP is calculated from the main equation (Eq. (16)).
follows: In the third scenario, when Ps (t ) > PBG , PBGT = PBG . The
remained power has been fulfilled using the turbine power. The
SOC (t ) = SOC (t − 1) × (1 − αt ) (36)
battery has been switched on the system to compensate the
UR (t ) = UR (t − 1) (37) remained shortage power demand in the event of inability of the
76
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Fig. 3. The main structure of the radio transmitter station.

Table 8
The components prices of the studied system.
Components Main expense ($) Substitution expense ($) O&M expense ($) Unit capacity Life time
Turbine and pipes 1000 900 5/year 1 kW 10 years
BG 660 600 0.025/h 1 kW 20,000 h
PV panel 268 200 0.5/year 1 m2 20 years
Battery 309 289 5/year 220 Ah 8.5 years
Converter 300 250 – 1 kW 15 years
Surface Pump (make-Dank off Solartech yoli) 5515 5000 27/year 1 kW 10 years
Reinforced concrete (reservoir) 170 150 0.85/year 1 m3 35 years

Table 9 Table 7 illustrates the monthly average of primary load. The

The system variables applied in the paper. average electrical load of the transmitter station for the mini-
Variables Values mum and the maximum values are 4.5667 kW and 21.6583 kW,
Project lifespan 22 years respectively that are with a load factor of 0.60.
Interest rate at which loan is considered (i) 8%
The next process is to determine the meteorological data col-
Inflation rate 6%
Battery’s self-discharge rate, αt 0.18 lection that are utilized in the transmitter station. The synthetics
Highest value of discharge depth 0.41 meteorological datasets from NASA is applied for collecting the
Highest value of area of PV panels, Amax
pv 750 m2 meteorological data (HOMER, 2019). Figs. 4 and 5 depicts the
max
Maximum power of BG, Ebg 540 kW meteorological description containing the temperature, radiation
max
Maximum number of batteries, Nbatt 420
in a day, and the index of clearness for the considered the site.
Highest value of capacity of UR, URmax 11000 m3
Highest value of LOLP, LLP max 0.48 The biomass data has been collected by the help of Biogas
Institute of Ministry of Agriculture (BIOMA), and the food waste
contribution is achieved to be 8 ton/day at $14/ton. The present
study introduces kitchen waste as a raw material in anaerobic
turbine to reach the demand. Like before, while the battery cant digester to generate daily biomass. The rate of gasification of
satisfy the required load demand shortage, then power shortage biomass generation per unit mass of raw material is considered
will be equal to Eq. (43). to be 0.3 (Zhang et al., 2020).

8. Simulation results
7. The studied case study and meteorological dataset
Simulations have been performed based on MATLAB environ-
This study analyzes the feasibility design of a proper place ment. The size optimization of the studied HSES in the radio
for radio transmitter station on the Three Gorges Dam (Hubei, transmitter station is programmed by MATLB and the introduced
China). This dam is the biggest power station in the world re- DSPBO algorithm. The main idea is to lessen the overall life-cycle
cost subjected to the loss of power probability. For guaranteeing
garding capacity of installing (22,500 MW) since 2012 (Arif et al.,
the consistency in the optimization results, the algorithm has
2020). This location is a good applicant for HSES designing. The
been run for 30 times with 40 number of students and 100 itera-
geographical position of the considered location is determined
′ ′′ ′ ′′ tions. The time step of simulation is considered 1 h and the bulk
using the coordinates 30◦ 49 23 N 111◦ 00 12 E. Fig. 3 shows the
energy reservoir volume of PSH is set with power determinant of
main structure of the radio transmitter station. 0.60. Table 8 illustrates the prices for components.
To determine the optimal value of the system, we should first Table 9 indicates the system variables applied in the paper.
determine the required electricity that is consumed by differ- Table 10 explains the outcomes of performing of the suggested
ent components of the station. The given data for designing is DSPBO algorithm in comparison to WCA and MFO from the liter-
estimated based on some different transmitter stations and the ature (Das et al., 2019) on the process when there is no power
information is given in Table 6. shortage (i.e. LOLP = 0).
77
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Fig. 4. The studied site’s temperature in a day (HOMER, 2019).

Table 10
The results of performing of the algorithms ehen LOLP = 0.
Algorithm Area of PV Size of PV Battery Capacity of BG power Converter Life cycle LEOE Extra energy
panel (m2 ) (kW) nos. UR (m3 ) (kW) (kW) cost ($) ($/kWh) (%)
DSPBO 545.9 71.2 23 2105 18 30 816,427 0.4913 28
WCA (Das et al., 2019) 554.3 71.5 23 2105 18 30 816,584 0.4916 28
MFO (Das et al., 2019) 555.7 71.6 23 2106.5 18 30 817,059 0.4917 29.1

Table 11
Optimized arrangement of the proposed HSES.
Variable Optimum value Unit
Size of BG 16 kW
Area of PV panel 496.11 m2
UR volume of 2142.08 m3
Size of converter 26 kW
Number of battery bank units 21 –

Table 12
Optimization results of OLCC for the compared algorithms.
Statistical parameters DSPBO WCA MFO GA
Mean ($) 820,376 824,418 830,627 827,159
Best value ($) 805,002 805,486 806,154 806.157
Worst value ($) 1,335,281 1,498,551 1,671,901 1,799,687
Standard deviation ($) 49,928 59,693 83,348 61,210
Fig. 5. The radiation in a day and index of clearness of the considered site
(HOMER, 2019).

from the literature. In the DSPBO algorithm, OLCC has higher

convergence. The optimal design for this algorithm is a OLCC of $
816,427 and LEOE of $ 0.4913 $/kWh. Fig. 6 depicts the conver-
gence profile of the analyzed algorithms. For more clarification, a
comparison of the convergence results of the proposed method in
addition to compare with WCA and MFO, with Genetic Algorithm
(GA) as a well-known metaheuristic was carried out.
As seen in Fig. 6, the suggested DSPBO has the highest conver-
gence speed and the GA, WCA, and MFO are placed in the next
ranks, respectively.
Table 11 indicates the optimized arrangement of the proposed
HSES based on DSPBO algorithm.
Fig. 7 shows the hourly load variation profile. As can be con-
cluded from Fig. 7, the SOC of UR volume reduces once there
is power shortage. Instead, once there is extra output power in
photovoltaic, both battery and UR were charged.
Furthermore, while the power demand is higher than the
Fig. 6. The convergence profile of the analyzed algorithms. determined power condition, the BG starts to supply energy. This
is done by considering 25% of its rated power during low load
demand. In this arrangement, 20 kW turbine with 59 kW pump
As can be observed from the results, the suggested DSPBO are utilized for installation. When there is lower requirement
delivers better design solution compared with WCA and MFO for the load demand, PSH supplies the load. For developing the
78
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Table 13
The comparison results of the analyzed algorithms.
Variables DSPBO WCA (Das et al., MFO (Das et al., GA (Biswas and FA (Biswas and GWO (Biswas and
2019) 2019) Kumar, 2017) Kumar, 2017) Kumar, 2017)
LEOE ($/kWh) 0.4458 0.4659 0.4660 0.9632 0.9116 0.9109
Excess energy (%) 28.69 29.0 30.2 27.82 25.46 25.26
PV size (kW) 70.1 70.4 70.5 142.37 143.15 142.90

Cost of Energy also analyzed by some different algorithms from

the literature including WCA, MFO, GA, FA, and GWO. The out-
comes showed that the suggested method obtained the optimum
achievements toward the others for optimal designing of the
radio transmitter station.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ruijing Shi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing - origi-

nal draft, Writing - review & editing. Weiqing Wang: Conceptu-
alization, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Zhi Yuan: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing. Xiaochao Fan: Con-
Fig. 7. The hourly load variation profile. ceptualization, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing
- review & editing. Ehsan Ramezani: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
reliability of the system, the storage parts should be also charged
in the low demand conditions. Therefore, the UR volume should Declaration of competing interest
be increase in this status for the future. To do so, about 40% of
PV produced power is used for supplying the power, and the re- The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
mained is used for supplying the pump energy for charging the UR cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
and also for battery charging. For achieving the minimum value to influence the work reported in this paper.
of the OLCC, each algorithm runs 30 times independently and the
population and iterations for all algorithms are considered 300 Acknowledgments
and 500, respectively. Table 12 illustrates the optimization results
of OLCC for the compared algorithms. This research was supported by the Natural Science Founda-
As represented in Table 12, the minimum amount for the OLCC tion of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China
is achieved by the proposed DSPBO algorithm with mean value of (2017D01A26, 2016D01C062), the National Natural Science Foun-
$ 820,376 and WCA, GA, and MFO are placed in the next ranks by dation of China (51666017, 51667019, 51667020) and the 63rd
$ 824,418, $ 830,627, and $ 827,159. The mean value of the results general program of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
is analyzed for guaranteeing the results reliability. (2018M633608).
For more clarification of the proposed method’s effectiveness
for the studied HSES, a comparison of its results with the HSES References
arrangement of Das et al. (2019) and Biswas and Kumar (2017)
with considering equal elements and diversity along with BG in Agarwal, N., Kumar, A., 2013. Optimization of grid independent hybrid PV–
the proposed technique is carried out. Table 13 illustrates the diesel–battery system for power generation in remote villages of Uttar
comparison results. Pradesh, India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 17 (3), 210–219.
Akbary, P., Ghiasi, M., Pourkheranjani, M.R.R., Alipour, H., Ghadimi, N., 2019.
It is seen in Table 13 that the lowest amount of the Levelized Extracting appropriate nodal marginal prices for all types of committed
Cost of Energy for all of the proposed algorithms are lower than reserve. Comput. Econ. 53 (1), 1–26.
those obtained by the other compared metaheuristics including Arif, M., Zhang, S., Jie, Z., Charles, W., Sanelisiwe Mzondi, P., Li, C., 2020. Eval-
WCA (Das et al., 2019), MFO (Das et al., 2019), GA (Biswas and uating the effects of pressure indicators on riparian zone health conditions
in the three gorges dam reservoir. China. For. 11 (2), 214.
Kumar, 2017), FA (Biswas and Kumar, 2017), and GWO (Biswas
Belmili, H., Haddadi, M., Bacha, S., Almi, M.F., Bendib, B., 2014. Sizing stand-
and Kumar, 2017). The PV size of the DSPBO algorithm with 70.1 alone photovoltaic–wind hybrid system: Techno-economic analysis and
kW is also the minimum size value that is required for designing. optimization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 821–832.
Therefore, the designed methodology gives an operative HSES Biswas, A., Kumar, A., 2017. Techno-economic optimization of a stand-alone
pattern for the studied radio sender station. PV/PHS/Battery systems for very low load situation. Int. J. Renew. Energy
Res. 7 (2), 844–856.
Cai, W., Mohammaditab, R., Fathi, G., Wakil, K., Ebadi, A.G., Ghadimi, N., 2019.
9. Conclusions Optimal bidding and offering strategies of compressed air energy storage: A
hybrid robust-stochastic approach. Renew. Energy 143, 1–8.
This research presents a new methodology for techno- Cao, Y., Li, Y., Zhang, G., et al., 2019a. Experimental modeling of PEM fuel
cells using a new improved seagull optimization algorithm. Energy Rep. 5,
economic optimum arrangement of a hybrid PV/BG/Battery/PSH-
1616–1625.
based off-grid combinatorial sustainable energy system for pow- Cao, Y., et al., 2019b. Multi-objective optimization of a PEMFC based CCHP
ering a radio sender station on the Three Gorges Dam in Hubei, system by meta-heuristics. Energy Rep. 5, 1551–1559.
China. The study uses four decision variables including Nb , PBG , Celik, A., Muneer, T., Clarke, P., 2008. Optimal sizing and life cycle assess-
UR , and APV for lessening the overall life cycle cost under differ- ment of residential photovoltaic energy systems with battery storage. Prog.
Photovolt., Res. Appl. 16 (1), 69–85.
ent constraints. For improving the accuracy and consistency of Das, B., Mukherjee, V., Das, D., 2020. Student psychology based optimization
the problem, a developed version of Student Psychology Based algorithm: A new population based optimization algorithm for solving
Optimizer was proposed. The minimum value of the Levelized optimization problems. Adv. Eng. Softw. 146, 102804.

79
R. Shi, W. Wang, Z. Yuan et al. Energy Reports 7 (2021) 70–80

Das, M., Singh, M.A.K., Biswas, A., 2019. Techno-economic optimization of an Mohammed, M., Agyenim, F.B., Dzamboe, P.D., Bawakyillenuo, S., Okrofu, R.,
off-grid hybrid renewable energy system using metaheuristic optimization Decker, E., . Nyarko, E.H., 2020. Powering communities using hybrid
approaches–case of a radio transmitter station in India. Energy Convers. solar-biogas in Ghana, a feasibility study. Environ. Technol. Innov. 100837.
Manage. 185, 339–352. Mokhtara, C., Negrou, B., Bouferrouk, A., Yao, Y., Settou, N., Ramadan, M., 2020.
Ekoh, S., Unsal, I., Maheri, A., 2016. Optimal sizing of wind-PV-pumped hydro Integrated supply–demand energy management for optimal design of off-
energy storage systems. In: Paper presented at the 2016 4th International grid hybrid renewable energy systems for residential electrification in arid
Symposium on Environmental Friendly Energies and Applications (EFEA). climates. Energy Convers. Manage. 221, 113192.
Elhadidy, M., Shaahid, S., 2000. Parametric study of hybrid (wind+ solar+ diesel) Nejad, H.C., Tavakoli, S., Ghadimi, N., Korjani, S., Nojavan, S., Pashaei-Didani, H.,
power generating systems. Renew. Energy 21 (2), 129–139. 2019. Reliability based optimal allocation of distributed generations in
Fan, J., Xie, H., Chen, J., Jiang, D., Li, C., Tiedeu, W.N., Ambre, J., 2020a. Preliminary transmission systems under demand response program. Electr. Power Syst.
feasibility analysis of a hybrid pumped-hydro energy storage system using Res. 176, 105952.
abandoned coal mine goafs. Appl. Energy 258, 114007. Pandey, A.K., Kirmani, S., 2020. Optimal location and sizing of hybrid system by
Fan, Xiaochao, et al., 2020b. High voltage gain DC/DC converter using coupled analytical crow search optimization algorithm. Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst.
inductor and VM techniques. IEEE Access 8, 131975–131987. 30 (5), e12327.
Fei, X., Xuejun, R., Razmjooy, N., 2019. Optimal configuration and energy Rehman, S., Al-Hadhrami, L.M., Alam, M.M., 2015. Pumped hydro energy storage
management for combined solar chimney, solid oxide electrolysis, and fuel system: A technological review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 586–598.
cell: a case study in Iran. Energy Sources A 1–21. Rim, C., Piao, S., Li, G., Pak, U., 2018. A niching chaos optimization algorithm for
Gao, W., Darvishan, A., Toghani, M., Mohammadi, M., Abedinia, O., Ghadimi, N., multimodal optimization. Soft Comput. 22 (2), 621–633.
2019. Different states of multi-block based forecast engine for price and load Ross, R., 1980. Flat-plate photovoltaic array design optimization. pvsp. pp.
prediction. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 104, 423–435. 1126–1132.
Ghadimi, N., Afkousi-Paqaleh, M., Nouri, A., 2013. PSO based fuzzy stochas- Rullo, P., Braccia, L., Luppi, P., Zumoffen, D., Feroldi, D., 2019. Integration of
tic long-term model for deployment of distributed energy resources in sizing and energy management based on economic predictive control for
distribution systems with several objectives. IEEE Syst. J. 7 (4), 786–796. standalone hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew. Energy 140, 436–451.
Ghadimi, N., Firouz, M.H., 2015. Short-term management of hydro-power sys- Saeedi, Mohammadhossein, et al., 2019. Robust optimization based optimal
tems based on uncertainty model in electricity markets. J. Power Technol. chiller loading under cooling demand uncertainty. Appl. Therm. Eng. 148,
95 (4), 265–272. 1081–1091.
Gong, W., razmjooy, N., 2020. A new optimisation algorithm based on OCM and Sandeep, S., Nandihalli, R., 2020. Optimal sizing in hybrid renewable energy
PCM solution through energy reserve. Int. J. Ambient Energy 1–14. system with the aid of opposition based social spider optimization. J. Electr.
Guo, G., Razmjooy, N., 2019. A new interval differential equation for edge Eng. Technol. 15 (1), 433–440.
detection and determining breast cancer regions in mammography images. Shamel, A., Ghadimi, N., 2016. Hybrid PSOTVAC/BFA technique for tuning of
Syst. Sci. Control. Eng. 7 (1), 346–356. robust PID controller of fuel cell voltage.
Guo, Y., et al., 2020. An optimal configuration for a battery and PEM fuel Spyrou, I.D., Anagnostopoulos, J.S., 2010. Design study of a stand-alone desali-
cell-based hybrid energy system using developed Krill herd optimization nation system powered by renewable energy sources and a pumped storage
algorithm for locomotive application. Energy Rep. 6, 885–894. unit. Desalination 257 (1–3), 137–149.
Hamian, M., Darvishan, A., Hosseinzadeh, M., Lariche, M.J., Ghadimi, N., Nouri, A., Tarafdar, H.M., Ghadimi, N., 2014. Radial basis neural network based islanding
2018. A framework to expedite joint energy-reserve payment cost mini- detection in distributed generation.
mization using a custom-designed method based on mixed integer genetic Tian, M.-W., Yan, S.-R., Han, S.-Z., Nojavan, S., Jermsittiparsert, K., Razmjooy, N.,
algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 72, 203–212. 2020. New optimal design for a hybrid solar chimney, solid oxide electrolysis
HOMER, P., 2019. NASA surface meteorology and solar energy database. In. and fuel cell based on improved deer hunting optimization algorithm. J.
Jamil Ahmad, M., N Tiwari, G., 2009. Optimization of tilt angle for solar collector Clean. Prod. 249, 119414.
to receive maximum radiation. Open Renew. Energy J. 2 (1). Tizhoosh, H.R., 2005. Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine
Lambert, T., 2006. Micropower System Modeling with Homer, in Integration of intelligence. In: Paper presented at the International Conference on Compu-
Alternative Sources of Energy By Felix A. Farret and M. Godoy Simoes. tational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International
Liu, Y., Wang, W., Ghadimi, N., 2017. Electricity load forecasting by an improved Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce
forecast engine for building level consumers. Energy 139, 18–30. (CIMCA-IAWTIC’06).
Liu, Jun, et al., 2020. An IGDT-based risk-involved optimal bidding strategy for Wu, T., Zhang, H., Shang, L., 2020. Optimal sizing of a grid-connected hybrid
hydrogen storage-based intelligent parking lot of electric vehicles. J. Energy renewable energy systems considering hydroelectric storage. Energy Sources
Storage 27, 101057. A 1–17.
Mansouri Kouhestani, F., Byrne, J., Johnson, D., Spencer, L., Brown, B., Hazen- Yang, D., Li, G., Cheng, G., 2007. On the efficiency of chaos optimization
donk, P., Scott, J., 2020. Multi-criteria PSO-based optimal design of algorithms for global optimization. Chaos Solitons Fractals 34 (4), 1366–1375.
grid-connected hybrid renewable energy systems. Int. J. Green Energy 1–15. Ye, H., Jin, G., Fei, W., Ghadimi, N., 2020. High step-up interleaved dc/dc
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2020.1779072. converter with high efficiency. Energy Sources A 1–20.
Mellouk, L., Ghazi, M., Aaroud, A., Boulmalf, M., Benhaddou, D., Zine-Dine, K., Yilmaz, S., Sen, S., 2019. Electric fish optimization: a new heuristic algorithm
2019. Design and energy management optimization for hybrid renewable inspired by electrolocation. Neural Comput. Appl. 1–36.
energy system-case study: Laayoune region. Renew. Energy 139, 621–634. Yu, Dongmin, Ghadimi, Noradin, 2019. Reliability constraint stochastic UC by
Meng, Qing, et al., 2020. A single-phase transformer-less grid-tied inverter based considering the correlation of random variables with copula theory. IET
on switched capacitor for PV application. J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 31.1, Renew. Power Gener. 13.14, 2587–2593.
257–270. Yuan, Z., Wang, W., Wang, H., Ghadimi, N., 2020a. Probabilistic decomposition-
Mir, M., Abbasi, S., Ghadimi, N., Bagherpour, M.A., 2020a. Robust optimization- based security constrained transmission expansion planning incorporat-
based energy management of hybrid AC/DC microgrids. In: Risk-based Energy ing distributed series reactor. IET Gener. Transm. Distribution 14 (17),
Management. Elsevier, pp. 229–250. 3478–3487.
Mir, M., et al., 2020b. Employing a Gaussian particle swarm optimization method Yuan, Z., et al., 2020b. A new technique for optimal estimation of the circuit-
for tuning multi input multi output-fuzzy system as an integrated controller based PEMFCs using developed sunflower optimization algorithm. Energy
of a micro-grid with stability analysis. Comput. Intell. 36 (1), 225–258. Rep. 6, 662–671.
Mirzapour, F., Lakzaei, M., Varamini, G., Teimourian, M., Ghadimi, N., 2019. A Zervoudakis, K., Tsafarakis, S., 2020. A mayfly optimization algorithm. Comput.
new prediction model of battery and wind-solar output in hybrid power Ind. Eng. 106559.
system. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 10 (1), 77–87. Zhang, J., Zhang, R., He, Q., Ji, B., Wang, H., Yang, K., 2020. Adaptation to salinity:
Moghaddam, M.J.H., Kalam, A., Nowdeh, S.A., Ahmadi, A., Babanezhad, M., Response of biogas production and microbial communities in anaerobic
Saha, S., 2019. Optimal sizing and energy management of stand-alone hybrid digestion of kitchen waste to salinity stress. J. Biosci. Bioeng..
photovoltaic/wind system based on hydrogen storage considering LOEE and Zhi, Y., Weiqing, W., Haiyun, W., Khodaei, H., 2020. Improved butterfly op-
LOLE reliability indices using flower pollination algorithm. Renew. Energy timization algorithm for CCHP driven by PEMFC. Appl. Therm. Eng. 173,
135, 1412–1434. 114766.

80