Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Optimal operation of hybrid PV-battery system considering grid scheduled T

blackouts and battery lifetime
⁎
Mansour Alramlawi , Aouss Gabash, Erfan Mohagheghi, Pu Li
Department of Simulation and Optimal Processes, Institute of Automation and Systems Engineering, Ilmenau University of Technology, Ilmenau 98693, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In many developing countries where the energy supply capacity is less than the demand, energy companies
Photovoltaic hybrid system distribute the available power according to a specific time schedule, leading to grid scheduled blackouts (GSBs)
Battery lifetime cost for the costumers. A suitable way to solve this problem for residential loads is to install a combined photovoltaic
Economic model predictive control (PV) and battery storage system as a replacement of the grid during the blackout periods. However, it is well-
Grid blackouts
known that the lifetime of battery storage will be considerably shortened, if it is not operated appropriately. This
paper explores the potential benefits of applying economic model predictive control (EMPC) to optimize the
operation of a hybrid PV-battery system to address the GSB problem. The aim of our control strategy is to cover
the load as much as possible and meanwhile minimize the total cost of the energy consumed from the grid. In
particular, the battery is operated in such a way that its lifetime will be prolonged. A comparison between
different operation strategies for the system considering the seasonal variation in the load and the PV power
generation is made. The results show that the proposed approach leads to a significant reduction of the total
energy consumed from the grid while decreasing the curtailment of the generated power from the PV-array, and
maximizing the battery lifetime.

1. Introduction a diesel generator as an economical solution to solve the problem of

There is no doubt that the electrical energy demand has been sig-
nificantly increased in recent years. Normally, to satisfy this increased
demand, the capacity of an existing electrical generation system needs
to be expanded. However, in many developing countries, expanding the
generation system is not always possible due to economic, technical, or
political reasons, which leads to shortage of power supply with black-
outs (Sarkar and Singh, 2010; Seyedi and Sanaye-Pasand, 2009). To
manage such blackouts, electrical distribution companies classify the
distribution systems to a number of zones and distribute the available
energy according to a specific schedule. This is still the current situation
in many countries throughout the world (Murphy et al., 2014; Khoury
et al., 2015; Hooshmand et al., 2015; Hijjo et al., 2016; Nayar et al.,
2000). Therefore, many efforts have been made to develop reliable
energy sources to supplement the shortage during the time period of
blackouts.
According to IEEE guide for design (2011) using adequate design,
operation and integration of distributed energy resources make it pos-
sible to cover the loads in case of planned or unplanned blackouts. The
results obtained in Murphy et al. (2014) demonstrated the capability of
long periods of grid blackouts. However, the continuous decreasing
price of PV-modules and the expected increase in fuel prices makes
hybrid PV-diesel systems more economical than using pure diesel sys-
tems. This concept was extended in Najjar et al. (2016) where the in-
tegration of distributed diesel generators with public grid was proposed
as a replacement of the main grid during the blackout periods. A su-
pervisory control method was used to guarantee the power supply
quality of the main grid, where the fuel consumption of the diesel
generators is decreased by installing a PV-array.
On the other hand, energy storage has been widely used as a backup
system to cover the electrical loads during blackout periods. The work
in Mitra (2010) presented an analytical approach to evaluate the per-
formance of an electrical energy storage system during the blackout
periods and determined the size of the storage to achieve a specified
reliability level. A grid interactive PV uninterruptible power supply
system was implemented in Nayar et al. (2000) using a combination of
a battery and a diesel generator, to solve the problem of frequent
blackouts and voltage instability in India. In Hooshmand et al. (2015), a
diesel-battery system was proposed as a solution to compensate planned
and unplanned grid blackouts and meanwhile minimize the operation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mansour.alramlawi@tu-ilmenau.de (M. Alramlawi), aouss.gabash@tu-ilmenau.de (A. Gabash), erfan.mohagheghi@tu-ilmenau.de (E. Mohagheghi),
pu.li@tu-ilmenau.de (P. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.12.022
Received 20 September 2017; Received in revised form 24 November 2017; Accepted 11 December 2017
0038-092X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

Nomenclature Pav . l (t ) total available power from PV-battery system and grid to
cover connected loads at time t
αg (t ) grid status at time t Pav . pv (t ) available power from PV-array at time t
ηch battery bank charging efficiency Pch . g (t ) battery bank charging power from grid at time t
ηdis battery bank discharging efficiency Pch . pv (t ) battery bank charging power from PV-array at time t
γch parameter for battery bank charging current limit Pch (t ) total battery bank charging power at time t
λsoc (t ) effective ampere-hour weighting factor at time t Pdisp . g (t ) total dispatched power from grid at time t
τ grid-ON period in hour Pdisp . pv (t ) total dispatched power from PV-array at time t
Ac (t ) effective consumed ampere-hour from battery bank at Pdis (t ) battery bank discharging power at time t
time t Pg . max maximum allowed power to be extracted from grid
Ac′ (t ) actual consumed ampere-hour from battery bank at time t Pl . g (t ) power to load from grid at time t
Atotal total effective capacity of the lead-acid battery Pl . pv (t ) power to load from PV-array at time t
Cb . init initial cost of battery bank in $/kW h Pmax . c . stc maximum output power of PV-cell under standard test
Cb . l (t ) cost of battery bank lifetime loss at time t in $/kW h conditions
Ce . g cost of energy dispatch from the grid in $/kW h Pmax . c (t ) maximum output power of PV-cell at time t
DOD battery bank depth of discharge Pmax . m . stc maximum output power of PV-module under standard test
e charge of electron, i.e., 1.602 × 10−19 conditions
F1 total cost of energy dispatch from the grid in $ Pmax . pv (t ) maximum output power of PV-array at time t
F2 total cost of the battery bank lifetime loss in $ Preq . l (t ) required load power at time t
FF (t ) fill factor of PV-cell at time t
Qb . n battery bank nominal capacity in ampere-hour
FF0 (t ) nominal fill factor of PV-cell at time t Rs series resistance of PV-cell
FF0. stc nominal fill factor of PV-cell at standard test conditions
rs (t ) normalized series resistance of PV-cell at time t
FFstc Fill factor of PV-cell at standard test conditions s1,… ,5 binary variables for controllable switches’ status
SOC (t ) battery bank state of charge at time t
G (t ) global solar irradiance at time t
Isc . c . stc short circuit current of PV-cell under standard test condi- SOCmax maximum value of SOC
tions SOCmin minimum value of SOC
Isc . c (t ) short circuit current of PV-cell at time t SOCnorm (t ) normalized battery bank SOC at time t
Isc . m . stc short circuit current of PV-module under standard test T grid scheduled blackouts cycle in hour
conditions Ta (t ) ambient temperature in Celsius at time t
J total operating cost of PV-battery system in $
Tc (t ) PV-cell temperature in Celsius at time t
k EMPC sampling time
Ta . k (t ) ambient temperature in Kelvin at time t
kB Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 × 10−23 Vb . n battery bank nominal voltage
Ki short circuit current temperature coefficient of PV-cell
Voc . c . stc open circuit voltage of PV-cell under standard test condi-
Kv open circuit voltage temperature coefficient of PV-cell tions
Lf (t ) battery bank lifetime losing factor at time t
Voc . c (t ) open circuit voltage of PV-cell at time t
N total simulation time in hour Voc . m . stc open circuit voltage of PV-module under standard test
n diode ideality factor conditions
Np EMPC prediction horizon length in hour
voc (t ) normalized open circuit voltage of PV-cell at time t
Nc . m number of PV-cells in PV-module Vt PV-cell thermal voltage at time t
Np . m number of parallel PV-modules in PV-array Ub(t ) sequence of Np predicted binary control variables
ub(t ) binary control variables vector at time t
Ns . m number of series PV-modules in PV-array
Uc(t ) sequence of Np predicted continues control variables
NOCT nominal operating PV-cell temperature
uc(t ) continuous control variables vector at time t
Pav . g (t ) available power from grid at time t

costs, by developing a power management system. Moreover, a master-
slave control strategy was proposed in Hijjo et al. (2016) to reduce the
fuel consumption of a PV-diesel-battery system for non-residential loads
to deal with grid scheduled blackouts (GSBs), i.e., power supply from
the grid is switched off daily for a certain period of time.
In Khoury et al. (2015), it was shown that an optimal design of a
hybrid PV-battery system could make it more beneficial than a diesel-
based system for residential loads in the areas suffering from GSBs. In
another work (Khoury et al., 2016), the authors proposed a real-time
demand side management approach for a PV-battery system to control
the operational time of the loads. The work in Pillai et al. (2016)
showed the techno-economic feasibility of using a hybrid PV-battery
system as a backup power supply to meet residential loads, considering
the seasonal variation of load profiles. It is worth to mention that the
above reviewed studies (Mitra, 2010; Khoury et al., 2016, 2015;
Hooshmand et al., 2015; Hijjo et al., 2016; Pillai et al., 2016) did not
consider the battery lifetime.
However, it was proved that the battery lifetime has a strong in-
fluence on the total operation cost of the PV hybrid systems (Jossen
et al., 2004). For instance, operating the battery at a low state of charge
(SOC) can considerably reduce the battery lifetime of lead-acid bat-
teries (Kaiser, 2007). A simple solution for this problem is increasing
the battery size, and meanwhile, increasing the charging power to keep
the SOC level as high as possible. This solution could increase the in-
vestment and operation cost of the system. Therefore, many studies
were made to extend the battery lifetime by optimizing the system
operation.
As an example, an optimal operation strategy for a stand-alone
wind-solar-diesel-battery system was proposed in Zhao et al. (2013) and
Dufo-López et al. (2017) to minimize the fuel consumption of the diesel
generator and meanwhile maximize the battery lifetime. An optimal
control method for a stand-alone wind-PV-battery system considering
battery lifetime was developed in Wu et al. (2015) to reduce the system
operation cost. In Teleke et al. (2010), a rule-based control strategy was
introduced to extend the battery lifetime in a grid connected PV-battery
system. In addition, the battery lifetime was considered in Yang et al.
(2008) and Abbes et al. (2014) to determine the optimal size of a PV-
wind-battery system.
In this study, the dynamic behavior of the battery is considered.
Therefore, the operation of the PV-battery for multiple time steps

126
M. Alramlawi et al.
should be taken into account to optimize the system operation. Model
predictive control (MPC) (Maciejowski, 2002; Camacho and Alba,
2013) has been widely used for optimal operation of renewable energy
hybrid systems because it has the ability to explicitly handle system
dynamics, data forecasting, and operation constraints. An economic
model predictive controller (EMPC) differs from the standard MPC in
that the controller provides its actions to improve the economic per-
formance of the process, rather than tracking a setpoint (Angeli et al.,
2012; Rawlings et al., 2012). The potential of using EMPC in power
system management was investigated in Hovgaard et al. (2010) to op-
timize the operation of a controllable power generators for minimizing
the costs of the generated power. In Tedesco et al. (2015) an EMPC was
used to carry out a cost effective supervision control strategy for de-
creasing the operational costs of a grid connected community micro-
grid.
Furthermore, in Zhu et al. (2015) an hourly switched MPC strategy
was developed for optimal energy dispatch for an isolated PV-diesel-
battery hybrid system, to minimize the fuel consumption of the diesel
generator and at the same time to prevent an excessive use of the
battery bank. In Xu and Singh (2011), a hybrid control strategy com-
bining both standby backup and MPC was proposed to enhance the
performance of an electric storage system so as to decrease the blackout
periods in electrical distribution networks. MPC was also used in
Núñez-Reyes et al. (2017) to provide an optimal scheduling for the
operation of a PV-battery system connected to a grid which maximize
the economic benefit of the PV plant considering the electricity market
prices. An optimal dispatch strategy of a PV-wind-battery-diesel system
was developed in Tazvinga et al. (2014) to minimize the system op-
eration costs. The work in Zhang et al. (2015) also used MPC for
minimizing the overall operation costs by scheduling a residential mi-
crogrid.
A special property of a residential hybrid PV-battery system to
campaign scheduled blackouts is that there are switches of the power
flow to different components during the operation. This leads to diffi-
culties in decision-making for design and operation of such systems.
Recently, a grid connected residential PV-battery system was studied in
Wu and Xia (2015) for developing a daily schedule of optimal switching
to minimize the consumed energy costs. The proposed model in Wu and
Xia (2015) was recently modified in Alramlawi et al. (2017) to consider
GSB problem that was investigated in Khoury et al. (2015). In our initial
work (Alramlawi et al., 2017), six operation modes were proposed.
Each of these operation modes gives the available energy sources dif-
ferent priority levels to cover the load and to charge the battery bank.
In addition, an optimization problem was formulated to select one fixed
operation mode for each season in the year. However, the study in
Alramlawi et al. (2017) did not optimize the power flow between
system components and the cost of battery lifetime was not considered.
127
Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137
In this paper, the hybrid PV-battery system model is significantly im-
proved to include more real operational constraints of the system
components, a PV-module model, and the cost of the battery lifetime. In
addition, an economic model predictive controller is developed to
minimize the total costs of the dispatched energy from the grid as well
as the cost of battery lifetime loss. This is achieved by optimizing the
power flow in the system using a receding horizon strategy.
From the discussions above, it can be clearly seen that many studies
have been carried out on the optimal operation of the on-grid and off-
grid PV-hybrid systems which aim to decrease the operating costs of the
system, the fuel consumption of the diesel generator, and the curtail-
ment of the PV power generation. However, most of the previous stu-
dies were focused on the intermittent behavior of the renewable energy
sources and/or the loads as the main problem to be solved. But the
problem of the discontinuous power supply from the grid is rarely
considered, although it is still a common issue in many developing
countries in the world.
In this paper, we presents a new approach to optimizing the op-
eration of a hybrid PV-battery system considering the GSB problem.
This work is a significant extension of our study in Alramlawi et al.
(2017) by optimizing the system operation considering the cost of
battery lifetime. In comparison to Khoury et al. (2015), Wu and Xia
(2015), and Alramlawi et al. (2017) and the above studies, the major
contributions of this study include:
(1) A comprehensive model for a residential PV-battery system is de-
veloped to address the GSB problem. In this model real operational
constraints of the system components and the costs of the battery
lifetime are taken into account.
(2) A new EMPC-based operation strategy is proposed to minimize the
total operation costs of the PV-battery system considering the bat-
tery lifetime and the GSB problem.
(3) A comparison between different operation scenarios is made to
verify the advantages of the proposed strategy and to illustrate the
impacts of considering the costs of the battery lifetime.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the model
of the hybrid PV-battery system is presented. Section 3 describes the
optimization problem and the proposed EMPC. The results of a case
study are presented in Section 4. The paper is concluded in Section 5.
2. Modelling of the hybrid PV-battery system
The structure of the PV-battery system considered in this paper is
shown in Fig. 1. The system consists of a PV-array, a battery bank, a
grid, a load, an AC charger to charge the battery bank from the grid, a
DC charger to charge the battery bank from the PV-array, a DC/AC
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the studied hybrid
PV-battery system.
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

inverter to supply AC power to the load from the battery bank and from Zhang et al., 2017). According to Lorenzo (1994) the Rs value can be
the PV-array and 5 controllable switches (SW1–SW5). It is to note that calculated using the available data in the PV-module datasheet (Yingli
the following real operational constraints of the system components are Solar, 2017), by
considered:
FFstc ⎞ Voc . c . stc
Rs = ⎛1− ⎜ ⎟

• The changing in the battery state of charge should be within the ⎝ FF0. stc ⎠ Isc . c . stc (10)
specified upper and lower limits. Moreover, the maximum charging here FFstc and FF0. stc will be calculated by Eqs. (5) and (6) and Eqs. (8)
power should be limited and compatible with the battery bank size. and (9) using Pmax . c . stc, Isc . c . stc, Voc . c . stc and Ta . k . stc values of the PV-cell.
Here, it should be noted that the battery bank cannot charge and Note that the available data normally in the datasheet are for the PV-
discharge at the same time. In addition, the battery bank cannot module and not for the PV-cells which are connected in series inside the
charge from different chargers simultaneously. PV-module. Therefore,
• The load cannot be covered from different AC sources if they are not
Pmax . m . stc
synchronized. In addition, the system cannot dispatch more than the Pmax . c . stc =
available power from the PV-array or allowed from the grid. Nc . m (11)
Furthermore, the PV-battery system output power should not exceed Voc . m . stc
the load demand. Voc . c . stc =
Nc . m (12)

The mathematical model of the major components of the system and Isc . c . stc = Isc . m . stc. (13)
its operation constraints are modeled below in detail.
Based on the maximum output of the PV-cell, the output of the
whole PV-array can be calculated as follows
2.1. PV-array model
Pav . pv (t ) = Ns . m Np . m Nc . m Pmax . c (t ) (14)
The mathematical model of a single diode PV-cell with a series re-
sistance (Lorenzo, 1994; Park and Choi, 2015) is used in this paper to here Ns . m and Np . m are the number of PV-modules connected in series
calculate the output power from each cell according to the maximum and parallel, respectively.
power point algorithm. The maximum power generated by the PV-cell
is expressed as (Lorenzo, 1994): 2.2. Battery bank

Pmax . c (t ) = Voc . c (t ) Isc . c (t ) FF (t ) (1) The battery bank is used to guarantee a continuous power supply to
where the values of both of Voc . c (t ) and Isc . c (t ) depend on the solar ir- the load during the blackout periods or at low solar irradiance time. The
radiance and the temperature of the PV-cell. The instantaneous value of performance of the battery bank is represented by the state of the
Voc . c (t ) and Isc . c (t ) can be calculated, respectively, as follows: charge SOC (t ) value at each time instant. The SOC (t ) value increases
due to charging the battery bank from the grid or from the PV-array,
Voc . c (t ) = Voc . c . stc + Kv (Tc (t )−25) (2)
and decreases due to discharging for covering the load demand. In this
G (t ) study, the charging and discharging processes is controlled by the
Isc . c (t ) = (Isc . c . stc + Ki (Tc (t )−25)) proposed EMPC through controllable switches, see Fig. 1. The change of
1000 (3)
SOC of the battery bank is expressed by
where
Pdis (t ) s5 (t )
(NOCT −20) SOC (t + Δt ) = SOC (t ) + ηch Pch (t )Δt − Δt
Tc (t ) = Ta (t ) + G (t ). ηdis (15)
800 (4)
where Pch (t ) is given by
The FF (t ) is the ratio of the maximum power that can be produced
by the PV-cell to the product of the open-circuit voltage and short- Pch (t ) = Pch . g (t ) s1 (t ) + Pch . pv (t ) s2 (t ). (16)
circuit current of the PV-cell. The formula from Lorenzo (1994) is used
to calculate FF (t ) : To prevent overcharging or deep discharging of the battery bank,
the SOC should be limited according to the capability of the battery
Pmax . c (t ) bank (Gabash and Li, 2012), i.e.,
FF (t ) = = FF0 (t )(1−rs (t ))
Voc . c (t ) Isc . c (t ) (5)
SOCmin ⩽ SOC (t ) ⩽ SOCmax (17)
where
while, SOCmin is related to the depth of charge of the battery bank by
v (t )−ln (voc (t ) + 0.72)
FF0 (t ) = oc SOCmin = (1−DOD) SOCmax (18)
voc (t ) + 1 (6)
where rs (t ) and voc (t ) are the normalized series resistance and open where
circuit voltage for the PV-cell, respectively, which are calculated by SOCmax = Vb . n Qb . n. (19)
Isc . c (t ) To avoid battery overheating, the maximum charging current
rs (t ) = Rs
Voc . c (t ) (7) should be limited (Koutroulis and Kalaitzakis, 2004). According to
Alramlawi et al. (2017), the charging power should be constrained by
Voc . c (t )
voc (t ) = Pch ⩽ γch Vb . n Qb . n
Vt (t ) (8) (20)

where
nkB Ta . k (t )
Vt (t ) =
e (9)
The Rs value depends on the material of the PV-cell and is affected
by the PV-cell operating conditions. However, this effect could be in-
significant and negligible (De Soto et al., 2006; Rahman et al., 2014;
where γch is a parameter for the limit of the charging current, which is
typically between 0.1 and 0.2 to enable an optimum charge. The
charging and discharging process of the battery bank cannot take place
simultaneously. In addition, the battery bank cannot be charged by
different chargers (i.e., grid charger or PV-array charger) at the same
time (Wu and Xia, 2015). To satisfy these conditions the following
constraint should be held

128
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

s1 (t ) + s2 (t ) + s5 (t ) ⩽ 1. (21)
Based on Eq. (21), only one of the controllable switches (SW1, SW2
and SW5) can be ON, i.e., the battery bank will not be charged from the
grid or PV-array and discharged simultaneously. In addition, the bat-
tery bank will not be charged from the grid and PV-array at the same
time.
Due to the synchronization issue of AC power, the DC / AC inverter
and the grid cannot supply power to the load simultaneously. Thus,
⎧ s3 (t ) + s4 (t ) ⩽ 1
⎩ s5 (t ) + s4 (t ) ⩽ 1.
⎨ (22)
from GSBs, i.e., the available power from the grid has a predefined
periodic scheme. Hence, the Grid-ON and Grid-OFF periods are speci-
fied from the power distribution company and known for the user, as
shown in Fig. 3. The available power from the grid can be described as
Pav . g (t ) = αg (t ) Pg . max (28)
where αg (t ) represents the status of the grid, i.e., when αg (t ) = 1 the
grid power is available and when αg (t ) = 0 , the gird power is un-
available. The behavior of αg (t ) leads to a periodic rectangular pulse
wave, as shown in Fig. 3. Here, the rectangular pulse wave cycle T is the
length of the GSB cycle and τ is the Grid-ON period.

2.3. Cost of battery lifetime loss

Battery manufacturers usually give the expected lifetime of the
battery based on well-defined standard tests (Sauer and Wenzl, 2008).
This is expressed as the number of cycles measured by discharging the
battery with a constant power to a certain depth of discharge and
charging it to its maximum value with a certain charging algorithm
(Reddy, 2011; Gabash and Li, 2013). However, in practical operations
the battery does not work under the so-called standard operating con-
ditions, and thus its lifetime varies according to the real operating en-
vironment (Jossen et al., 2004). The effective ampere-hour (Ah) battery
aging model takes into account the real-time variations to estimate the
battery lifetime (Sauer and Wenzl, 2008). Based on the data from
manufacturers of deep-cycle lead-acid batteries manufacturers, the total
effective capacity of the lead-acid battery in Ah can be calculated by
Zhao et al. (2013) and Jenkins et al. (2008)
Atotal = 390Qb . n. (23)
The effective capacity of the battery can be used to estimate the
losing rate of the battery lifetime. From Zhao et al. (2013) and Jenkins
et al. (2008), the battery lifetime losing factor can be expressed as
Ac (t )
Lf (t ) = .
Atotal (24)
The value of the effective consumed Ah from the battery bank de-
pends on both the actual consumed Ah and the SOC level of the battery
at the same instance, that is
Ac (t ) = λsoc (t ) Ac′ (t ) (25)
where λsoc (t ) is graphically related to the battery SOC (t ) (Zhao et al.,
2013; Jenkins et al., 2008), as seen in Fig. 2. Here SOCnorm (t ) is equal to
SOC (t )/ SOCmax . For simplicity, this relationship is expressed mathe-
matically in Eq. (26)
3. EMPC-based optimal operation
In this section, we introduce a model-based controller to manage the
power flow through the PV-battery system to compensate the GSB de-
picted in Fig. 3. Here, EMPC is used to optimize the operation of the PV-
battery system to achieve the major goals as follows:
(1) Provide a reliable energy source to cover the load, and meanwhile,
minimizing the dispatched energy from the grid when it is avail-
able.
(2) Manage the battery bank SOC to guarantee the availability of en-
ough energy to cover the load during blackout periods.
(3) Minimize the cost of the lifetime loss of the battery bank.
In general, control actions of MPC are obtained by solving a dy-
namic optimization problem over a specified prediction horizon Np .
MPC is performed based on a so-called receding horizon strategy, i.e., at
each time step new measurements are taken, new predictions for the
system behavior over Np are made, and control commands are com-
puted (Camacho and Alba, 2013). Once the optimal control profiles for
the prediction horizon are available, only the values of the control
variables for the first time step are applied as the inputs to the system.
The optimization problem of the proposed EMPC is defined as follows
min J = F1 + F2
Uc (t ),Ub (t ) (29)
where
Np − 1
F1 = ∑ Ce . g Pdisp . g (k|t )
k=0 (30)
and

1.3 0 ⩽ SOCnorm (t ) < . 5 Np − 1

λsoc (t ) = ⎧ F2 = ∑ Cb . init Lf (k|t )
⎩− 1.5SOCnorm (t ) + 2.05 . 5 ⩽ SOCnorm (t )≤ 1.
⎨ (26)
k=0 (31)
From the above equation, it can be determined that discharging
subject to
1 Ah from the battery bank at SOCnorm (t )≤ 0.5 is approximately
equivalent to remove 1.3 Ah from the total effective capacity of the
battery. If SOCnorm (t ) = 1 discharging 1 Ah from the battery bank is
equivalent to removing 0.55 Ah from the total effective capacity of the
battery. According to this analysis, discharging at higher SOCnorm value
will be more beneficial for lead-acid batteries. Using the calculated
Lf (t ) in Eq. (24), the cost of the lifetime loss of the battery bank can be
calculated by
Cb . l (t ) = Lf (t ) Cb . init (27)
where Cb . init is the initial cost of the battery bank.

2.4. Grid scheduled blackout

In this study, the hybrid PV-battery system described above is

Fig. 2. The relation between SOCnorm (t ) and λ soc (t ) .
considered as being connected to an electrical grid which is suffering

129
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137
Įg
Table 2
IJ Type, size and capability of the system components.
1
Component Size/Capability
ON OFF ON
PV-module (250 Wp) × 12 = 3 kWp
DC/AC Inverter 3 kW
0 t
AC charger 2.88 kW
DC charger 2.88 kW
T Battery bank (12 V–200 Ah) × 4 = 9.6 kW h

Fig. 3. The illustration of the rectangular pulse wave representing the grid status.
Table 3
The battery bank parameters.

Parameter DOD (–) ηch (%) ηdis (%) Vb . n (V) Qb . n (Ah) γch (–)

Value 0.7 95 95 48 200 .2

Pdis (k|t ) s5 (k|t )

SOC (k + 1|t ) = SOC (k|t ) + ηch Pch (k|t )− , ∀ k = 0,…
ηdis
,Np−1, (32)

Pav . l (k|t ) = Preq . l (k|t ) , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (33)

SOCmin ⩽ SOC (k|t ) ⩽ SOCmax , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (34)

Pch (k|t ) ⩽ γch Vb . n Qb . n , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (35)

Pdisp . pv (k|t ) ⩽ Pav . pv (k|t ) , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (36)

Pdisp . g (k|t ) ⩽ Pav . g (k|t ) , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (37)

s1 (k|t ) + s2 (k|t ) + s5 (k|t ) ⩽ 1 , ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1, (38)

⎧ s3 (k|t ) + s4 (k|t ) ⩽ 1 ∀ k = 0,…,Np−1,

⎩ s5 (k|t ) + s4 (k|t ) ⩽ 1
⎨ (39)
here, Uc (t ) = [u c (0|t ),…,u c (Np−1|t )] and Ub (t ) = [ub (0|t ),…,ub (Np−1|t )]
are a sequence of Np predicted continues and binary control variables of
the PV-battery system, respectively, where u c (t ) and ub (t ) are expressed
as follows
u c (t ) = [Pch . g (t ),Pch . pv (t ),Pdis (t ),Pl . pv (t )] (40)

ub (t ) = [s1 (t ),s2 (t ),s3 (t ),s4 (t ),s5 (t )]. (41)

In addition to the constraints of the battery bank described in
Section 2.2 new constraints are added to the optimization problem,
such as Eq. (33) to specify the output limit of the system, Eq. (36) to
prevent dispatching power higher than the available power from the
Fig. 4. Illustration of the proposed EMPC working concept.
PV-array, and Eq. (37) to prevent dispatching power higher than the
allowed amount of power from the grid, where

Table 1
Pav . l (t ) = Pl . g (t ) s4 (t ) + Pl . pv (t ) s3 (t ) + Pdis (t ) s5 (t ). (42)
Options of the GA tool in MATLAB.
Pdisp . pv (t ) = Pch . pv (t ) s2 (t ) + Pl . pv (t ) s3 (t ) (43)
Option Value
Pdisp . g (t ) = Pch . g (t ) s1 (t ) + Pl . g (t ) s4 (t ). (44)
Population size 1500
Elite count 100 The proposed EMPC is illustrated schematically in Fig. 4. At each
Crossover function Intermediate time step the EMPC reads the current value of the SOC (t ) and the
Crossover fraction 0.8 forecasted load, grid power and PV-array power. Then, it determines
Mutation function Gaussian
the optimal values for control variables u c (t ) and ub (t ) over the pre-
Selection function Stochastic uniform
Creation function Uniform diction horizon Np by solving the above defined optimization problem
Scaling function Rank based using the EMPC optimizer, see Fig. 4. The control variables computed
Function tolerance 1e−3 for the first time step will be applied to the system. After that, the
Constraint tolerance 1e−4
predictive horizon moves to the next time step and the whole procedure
Use parallel true
is repeated. Note that in this paper we assumed that we have a perfect
forecasting of the values of the solar power generation, the demand and
the available power from the grid in the predictive horizon.
The optimization problem formulated in Eqs. (29)–(39) leads to a
mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP ) problem consisting of

130
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

Table 4
The PV-module parameters.

Parameter Pmax . m . stc (W) Voc . m . stc (V) Ioc . m . stc (A) NOCT °C Kv (%/°C) Ki (%/°C) Nc . m (–) n (–)

Value 250 37.6 8.92 46 −0.32 0.05 60 1

1200
Winter Spring Summer Fall
1000

800
G (Wh/m2)

600 (a)
400

200

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

35
Winter Spring Summer Fall
30
25
T a (C)

20
(b)
15
10
5
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

Winter Spring Summer Fall

200
P-pv-max (w)

150
(c)
100

50

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192
Time (Hour)

Fig. 5. PV-array model illustration. (a) Global solar irradiance at ground level. (b) Ambient temperature. (c) The maximum generated power by the PV-module.

four continuous and five binary control variables which are time-de-
pendent during the prediction horizon (i.e., 9 × Np in total), as shown
Eqs. (40) and (41). In addition, the existence of the nonlinear cost
function and nonlinear constraints leads to a complex MINLP problem.
Genetic algorithm (GA) is an effective stochastic optimization al-
gorithm developed by Holland (1975) and Goldberg (1989) inspired by
the natural selection process which mimics the biological evolution. GA
is different from traditional optimization algorithms in that they work
with many candidate solutions known as a population rather than just
one solution. At each step, GA modifies a population of candidate so-
lutions by performing the selection, crossover and mutation processes
to produce new children for the next generation (Zilouchian and
Jamshidi, 2000). Over successive generations, the population will be
closer to an optimal solution. GA has no restrictions regarding the
model of the system or the type of the decision variables (Stojanovski
and Stankovski, 2012). Because of these features, in our study we em-
ploy GA to solve the MINLP problem described in Eqs. (29)–(39), by
using the GA tool in MATLAB (2016). Meanwhile, parallel computing is
used to speed up the calculations. The parameters used for the GA tool
in Matlab are given in Table 1.
It is to note that the prediction horizon (Np ) of the economic model
predictive control is defined to be equal to the length of the grid
scheduled blackout cycle, i.e., the total length of Grid-On and Grid-Off
periods, see Fig. 3. That means the EMPC will optimally utilize the total
available power to cover the load in both Grid-ON and Grid-OFF per-
iods. Therefore, during the blackout periods, the load will be optimally
covered by the battery and/or PV-array. The sampling time for the
EMPC is set to be 1 h.
4. A case study
To illustrate the potential of the proposed EMPC to optimize the
operation of the PV-battery system shown in Fig. 1, a case study is
adapted from Alramlawi et al. (2017) with data components in Table 2.
The parameters of the battery bank are listed in Table 3 while the PV-
module specifications in Table 4 (Yingli Solar, 2017). The number of
parallel and series connected modules are taken to be 3 and 4, re-
spectively. The price of the lead-acid batteries is set to 213 $/kW h
(Khiareddine et al., 2015) which gives Cb . init = 2044.8 $.
To show the effects of seasonal variations in load and PV power
profiles, two days from each season of a year are selected. The solar
irradiance and temperature data are taken from Solar energy services
for professionals (2017) and shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b), respectively.
According to Alramlawi et al. (2017), we consider τ = 8 and T = 16 to
describe the GSB cycle, see Fig. 3. The maximum allowed power to be
extracted from the grid is 5 kW and the cost of the consumed power
from the grid is Ce . g = 0.15 $/kW h.
The output of each PV-module is generated using the PV-array

131
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

6 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Pav-g & Pdisp-g (kW)

5

3 (a)
2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Preq-l & Pav-l(kW)

1.5

1 (b)

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

3
W in te r S p r in g Sum m er F a ll
Pav-pv & Pdisp-pv (kW)

2.5

1.5 (c)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
W in te r S p r in g Sum m er F a ll
2
Pch(kW)

1.5
(d)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
W in te r S p r in g Sum m er F a ll
2
Pdis(kW)

1.5
(e)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

12
11 W in te r S p r in g Sum m er F a ll
10
9
SOC (kWh)

8
7
6 (f)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192
Time (Hour)

Fig. 6. System operation in arbitrary two days for each season for Scenario A. (a) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from grid. (b) Required load power
(dashed-blue) and available power to cover load (solid-red). (c) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from PV-array. (d) Charging power of battery bank (solid-
blue) and the charging power limit (dashed-red). (e) Discharging power of battery bank. (f) Battery bank SOC (solid-blue) and SOC upper and lower limits (dashed-red). (For inter-
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

132
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

Table 5 charge the battery bank.

Dispatched energy from the grid in kW h in two days at each scenario. The available power from the grid, the load profile and the available
power from the PV-array are shown in Fig. 6(a)–(c) (dashed-blue),
Seasons Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
respectively, whereas the results are given in Tables 5–7 (Scenario
Winter 26.1 21.35 21.7 A) and Fig. 6.
Spring 22.01 12.22 13.07 It can be observed from the results that the system highly depends
Summer 33.31 23.24 22.65
on the grid to cover the load and to charge the battery bank. As an
Fall 21.65 11.29 13.02
example, during the day hours in Summer (e.g., time steps 102–110
in Fig. 6), although the available power from the PV-array is enough
Table 6 to cover the load and charge the battery bank, the system dispatches
Dispatched energy from the PV-array in kW h in two days at each scenario. the required energy from the grid. This increases the total dis-
patched energy from the grid and decreases the dispatched energy
Seasons Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
from the PV-array, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, receptively.
Winter 5.77 7.38 9.79 In contrast, comparing Fig. 6f with Fig. 7f and 8f, it can be clearly
Spring 6.29 14.05 15.15 seen that the SOC level of the battery bank is the highest in Fig. 6f,
Summer 10.18 19.4 20.59 because of the high value of the charging power from the grid, as
Fall 5.12 11.73 13.53 shown in Fig. 6d. Therefore, the value of effective consumed Ah
from the battery bank will be decreased, which will reduces the
lifetime loss of the battery bank.
model described in Section 2.1 and shown in Fig. 5(c). It is to note that
As a result, the cost of the dispatched energy from the grid F1 is
the PV-module is working under practical operating conditions.
highly increased and the total cost of battery bank lifetime loss F2 is
Therefore, the actual output power from the PV-module is less than its
decreased. Consequently, the total operation costs of the PV-battery
rated power stated in Table 4 which is calculated according to the
system J is increased, as shown in Table 7.
standard test conditions (STC) (Muñoz-García et al., 2012). The avail-
able power from the grid, the load profile (Gabash et al., 2013) and the • Scenario B: Here, we use the same input data as in scenario A, but
EMPC is used to optimize the PV-battery system operation, without
available power from the PV-array are shown in Fig. 6(a)–(c) (dashed-
considering the cost of the battery lifetime. The results are given in
blue), respectively.
Tables 5–7 (scenario B) and Fig. 7.
To demonstrate the benefits of using the proposed EMPC-based
Due to considering the cost of the dispatched energy from the grid in
control strategy introduced in Section 3, we consider the following
the optimization problem of the EMPC, a huge reduction in the total
three different operation scenarios to operate the PV-battery system
dispatched energy from the grid is gained, in comparison to Scenario
under the GSB:
A, as shown in Table 5. This effect decreases the total costs of the

• Scenario A: The backup operation stratgy (Khoury et al., 2015), i.e., dispatched energy from the grid in comparison to Scenario A, as
seen in Table 7. The reason behind this is that the EMPC forces the
the system is used only to cover the load during the blackout per-
system to dispatch power from the PV-array even if the grid is
iods, but without using EMPC.
• Scenario B: The EMPC-based operation strategy but without con-
available during the day hours, as shown in Fig. 7a,b,c.
On the other hand, reducing the dispatched energy from the grid
sidering the cost of the battery lifetime, i.e., F2 in Eq. (29) is not
decreases the total charging power as well. Therefore, the SOC level
included.
• Scenario C: The EMPC-based operation strategy with considering
of the battery bank is lowered, as seen in Fig. 7f.
From Table 7, it can be clearly seen that the cost of the dispatched
the cost of the battery lifetime, i.e., F2 in Eq. (29) is included, which
energy from the grid F1 is decreased and the total cost of the battery
is the proposed strategy.
bank lifetime loss F2 is increased, in comparison to Scenario A. As a
result, the total operation costs of the system J is decreased except in
The computation is carried out on a desktop with Intel Core I7 CPU
winter where the cost of the lifetime loss of the battery bank is
3.4 GHz and 8 GB RAM. The initial values, denoted by (0), chosen for all
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) highly increased due to the lack of generated power from the PV-
computations are as follows: Pch . g = Pch . pv = Pdis = Pl . pv = s1,… ,5 = 0 and
array, as seen in Fig. 7c (dashed-blue).
SOC (0) = 0.75 × SOCmax .
The comparison results are shown in Tables 5–7 and Figs. 6–8. The • Scenario C: In this scenario, with the same input data as in Scenario
B, but the EMPC is used to optimize the PV-battery system operation
results of each operation scenario are discussed below in detail.
considering the cost of the battery lifetime. This mean that both the

• Scenario A: In this scenario, the PV-battery system is working ac-

cost of the dispatched energy from the grid and the battery lifetime
loss are considered in the optimization problem of the EMPC. The
cording to the backup operation strategy (Khoury et al., 2015), i.e.,
results are given in Tables 5–7 (Scenario C) and Fig. 8.
the grid (when it is available) is responsible to cover the load and
The aim of this scenario is to see the impacts of considering the
charge the battery bank. The PV-array and the battery bank will
battery lifetime cost. Comparing Fig. 8(d), (f) with Fig. 7(d), (f), it
cover the load during the blackout periods only. If there is extra
can be clearly seen that the total charging power Scenario C is in-
power from the PV-array after covering the load, it will be used to
creased to raise the battery bank SOC level. This increment leads to

Table 7
Cost of the dispatched energy for each scenario.

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Seasons F1("$") F2("$") J ("$") F1("$") F2("$") J ("$") F1("$") F2("$") J ("$")

Winter 3.91 5.02 8.93 3.2 6.42 9.62 3.26 5.1 8.36
Spring 3.3 3.51 6.81 1.84 4.46 6.3 1.96 3.66 5.62
Summer 4.99 5.65 10.64 3.48 5.92 9.4 3.39 5.56 8.95
Fall 3.25 3.51 6.86 1.69 4.42 6.11 1.95 3.53 5.48

133
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

6 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Pav-g & Pdisp-g (kW)

5

3 (a)
2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Preq-l & Pav-l(kW)

1.5

1 (b)

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

3
Pav-pv & Pdisp-pv (kW)

Winter Spring Summer Fall

2.5

1.5 (c)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
Winter Spring Summer Fall
2
Pch(kW)

1.5
(d)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
Winter Spring Summer Fall
2
Pdis(kW)

1.5
(e)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

12
11 Winter Spring Summer Fall
10
9
SOC (kWh)

8
7
6 (f)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192
Time (Hour)

Fig. 7. System operation in arbitrary two days for each season for Scenario B. (a) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from grid. (b) Required load power
(dashed-blue) and available power to cover load (solid-red). (c) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from PV-array. (d) Charging power of battery bank (solid-
blue) and the charging power limit (dashed-red). (e) Discharging power of battery bank. (f) Battery bank SOC (solid-blue) and SOC upper and lower limits (dashed-red). (For inter-
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

134
M. Alramlawi et al. Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137

6 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Pav-g & Pdisp-g (kW)

5

3 (a)
2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Preq-l & Pav-l(kW)

1.5

1 (b)

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

3
Pav-pv & Pdisp-pv (kW)

Winter Spring Summer Fall

2.5

1.5 (c)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
Winter Spring Summer Fall
2
Pch(kW)

1.5
(d)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

2.5
Winter Spring Summer Fall
2
Pdis(kW)

1.5
(e)
1

0.5

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192

12
11 Winter Spring Summer Fall
10
9
SOC (kWh)

8
7
6 (f)
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192
Time (Hour)

Fig. 8. System operation in arbitrary two days for each season for Scenario C. (a) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from grid. (b) Required load power
(dashed-blue) and available power to cover load (solid-red). (c) Available power (dashed-blue) and power dispatch (solid-red) from PV-array. (d) Charging power of battery bank (solid-
blue) and the charging power limit (dashed-red). (e) Discharging power of battery bank. (f) Battery bank SOC (solid-blue) and SOC upper and lower limits (dashed-red). (For inter-
pretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

135
M. Alramlawi et al.
increase the dispatched power from the PV-array as seen in Table 6.
Meanwhile, the dispatched energy from the grid is slightly in-
creased.
As a result, the cost of the dispatched energy from the grid is slightly
increased in comparison to Scenario A, the cost of battery lifetime
loss is highly decreased in comparison to Scenario B and the total
operation cost of the system is decreased in all seasons comparing to
Scenario A and B, as shown in Table 7.
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the total dis-
patched energy from the grid can be considerably reduced, and the
dispatched energy from the PV highly increased by using the EMPC-
based operation strategy for the PV-battery system which increases the
economic and environmental benefits of installation of the PV-array.
Nevertheless, considering the battery lifetime with the EMPC is neces-
sary to decrease the cost of battery lifetime loss while reducing the cost
of consumed energy by the load.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we investigate the optimal operation of a PV-battery
system to provide a reliable and cost effective electrical energy source
for the costumers suffering from grid scheduled blackouts (GSBs). A
new comprehensive model for a residential PV-battery system is de-
veloped to address the GSB problem. The model considers real opera-
tional constraints of the system as well as the costs of the battery life-
time. Controllable switches are added to control the on/off power flows
through the system. The inclusion of the controllable switches leads to a
complex MINLP problem which is solved by using the genetic algo-
rithm. A new operation strategy based on economic model predictive
control (EMPC) is developed to minimize the total cost of the energy
dispatched from the grid and the cost of battery lifetime loss under GSB.
To verify the effectiveness of the approach, we compare it with a tra-
ditional backup operation strategy and with an EMPC-based operation
strategy neglecting the cost of battery lifetime. The results show that
the proposed approach leads to a significant reduction of the cost of the
total energy consumed from the grid while decreasing the curtailment
of the generated power from the PV-array and maximizing the battery
lifetime.
Acknowledgment
The financial support from the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD) for this work is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
References
Abbes, D., Martinez, A., Champenois, G., 2014. Life cycle cost, embodied energy and loss
of power supply probability for the optimal design of hybrid power systems. Math.
Comput. Simul. 98, 46–62.
Alramlawi, M., Gabash, A., Li, P., 2017. Optimal operation strategy of a hybrid pv-battery
system under grid scheduled blackouts. In: IEEE 17th International Conference on
Environment and Electrical Engineering (EEEIC), 2017. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Angeli, D., Amrit, R., Rawlings, J.B., 2012. On average performance and stability of
economic model predictive control. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 57 (7),
1615–1626.
Camacho, E.F., Alba, C.B., 2013. Model Predictive Control. Springer Science & Business
Media.
De Soto, W., Klein, S., Beckman, W., 2006. Improvement and validation of a model for
photovoltaic array performance. Sol. Energy 80 (1), 78–88.
Dufo-López, R., Fernández-Jiménez, L.A., Ramírez-Rosado, I.J., Artal-Sevil, J.S.,
Domínguez-Navarro, J.A., Bernal-Agustín, J.L., 2017. Daily operation optimisation of
hybrid stand-alone system by model predictive control considering ageing model.
Energy Convers. Manage. 134, 167–177.
Gabash, A., Li, P., 2012. Active-reactive optimal power flow in distribution networks with
embedded generation and battery storage. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27 (4),
2026–2035.
Gabash, A., Li, P., 2013. Flexible optimal operation of battery storage systems for energy
supply networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28 (3), 2788–2797.
Gabash, A., Alkal, M., Li, P., 2013. Impact of allowed reverse active power flow on
planning PVs and BSSs in distribution networks considering demand and EVs growth.
136
Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137
Power & Energy Student Summit (PESS) 2013, IEEE Student Branch Bielefeld 11–16.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning.
Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Hijjo, M., Felgner, F., Frey, G., 2016. Energy management scheme for buildings subject to
planned grid outages. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 3, 58–65.
Holland, J.H., 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Univ. Michigan Press.
Hooshmand, A., Asghari, B., Sharma, R., 2015. A power management system for planned
& unplanned grid electricity outages. In: Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin
America (ISGT LATAM), 2015 IEEE PES. IEEE, pp. 382–386.
Hovgaard, T.G., Edlund, K., Jørgensen, J.B., 2010. The potential of economic MPC for
power management. In: 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010.
IEEE, pp. 7533–7538.
IEEE guide for design, operation, and integration of distributed resource island systems
with electric power systems, 2011. IEEE Std 1547.4-2011, pp. 1–54. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2011.5960751.
Jenkins, D., Fletcher, J., Kane, D., 2008. Lifetime prediction and sizing of lead–acid
batteries for microgeneration storage applications. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2 (3),
191–200.
Jossen, A., Garche, J., Sauer, D.U., 2004. Operation conditions of batteries in PV appli-
cations. Sol. Energy 76 (6), 759–769.
Kaiser, R., 2007. Optimized battery-management system to improve storage lifetime in
renewable energy systems. J. Power Sources 168 (1), 58–65.
Khiareddine, A., Salah, C.B., Mimouni, M.F., 2015. Power management of a photovoltaic/
battery pumping system in agricultural experiment station. Sol. Energy 112,
319–338.
Khoury, J., Mbayed, R., Salloum, G., Monmasson, E., 2015. Optimal sizing of a residential
pv-battery backup for an intermittent primary energy source under realistic con-
straints. Energy Build. 105, 206–216.
Khoury, J., Mbayed, R., Salloum, G., Monmasson, E., 2016. Design and implementation of
a real time demand side management under intermittent primary energy source
conditions with a pv-battery backup system. Energy Build. 133, 122–130.
Koutroulis, E., Kalaitzakis, K., 2004. Novel battery charging regulation system for pho-
tovoltaic applications. IEE Proc.-Electr. Power Appl. 151 (2), 191–197.
Lorenzo, E., 1994. Solar Electricity: Engineering of Photovoltaic Systems. Earthscan/
James & James.
Maciejowski, J.M., 2002. Predictive Control: With Constraints. Pearson Education.
MATLAB, 2016. Global Optimization Toolbox Version 3.4. The MathWorks Inc., Natick,
Massachusetts.
Mitra, J., 2010. Reliability-based sizing of backup storage. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 25 (2),
1198–1199.
Muñoz-García, M.A., Marin, O., Alonso-García, M., Chenlo, F., 2012. Characterization of
thin film pv modules under standard test conditions: Results of indoor and outdoor
measurements and the effects of sunlight exposure. Sol. Energy 86 (10), 3049–3056.
Murphy, P.M., Twaha, S., Murphy, I.S., 2014. Analysis of the cost of reliable electricity: a
new method for analyzing grid connected solar, diesel and hybrid distributed elec-
tricity systems considering an unreliable electric grid, with examples in Uganda.
Energy 66, 523–534.
Najjar, M.B., Alameddine, A., Horkos, P.G., 2016. Supervisory control for sectored dis-
tributed generation during load shedding in lebanon’s power grid. In: IEEE
International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA),
2016. IEEE, pp. 73–78.
Nayar, C.V., Ashari, M., Keerthipala, W., 2000. A grid-interactive photovoltaic unin-
terruptible power supply system using battery storage and a back up diesel generator.
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 15 (3), 348–353.
Núñez-Reyes, A., Rodríguez, D.M., Alba, C.B., Carlini, M.Á.R., 2017. Optimal scheduling
of grid-connected pv plants with energy storage for integration in the electricity
market. Sol. Energy 144, 502–516.
Park, J.-Y., Choi, S.-J., 2015. A novel datasheet-based parameter extraction method for a
single-diode photovoltaic array model. Sol. Energy 122, 1235–1244.
Pillai, G., Hodgson, J., Insaurralde, C., Pinitjitsamut, M., Deepa, S., 2016. The techno-
economic feasibility of providing solar photovoltaic backup power, In: IEEE
International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), vol. 20, pp. 22.
Rahman, S.A., Varma, R.K., Vanderheide, T., 2014. Generalised model of a photovoltaic
panel. IET Renew. Power Gener. 8 (3), 217–229.
Rawlings, J.B., Angeli, D., Bates, C.N., 2012. Fundamentals of economic model predictive
control. In: IEEE 51st Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2012. IEEE,
pp. 3851–3861.
Reddy, T., 2011. Linden’s Handbook of Batteries. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sarkar, A., Singh, J., 2010. Financing energy efficiency in developing countries-lessons
learned and remaining challenges. Energy Policy 38 (10), 5560–5571.
Sauer, D.U., Wenzl, H., 2008. Comparison of different approaches for lifetime prediction
of electrochemical systems-using lead-acid batteries as example. J. Power sources 176
(2), 534–546.
Seyedi, H., Sanaye-Pasand, M., 2009. New centralised adaptive load-shedding algorithms
to mitigate power system blackouts. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 3 (1), 99–114.
Solar energy services for professionals, 2017. < http://www.soda-pro.com > (accessed
2017-09-10).
Stojanovski, G., Stankovski, M., 2012. Model Predictive Controller Employing Genetic
Algorithm Optimization of Thermal Processes With Non-convex Constraints. INTECH
Open Access Publisher.
Tazvinga, H., Zhu, B., Xia, X., 2014. Energy dispatch strategy for a photo-
voltaic–wind–diesel–battery hybrid power system. Sol. Energy 108, 412–420.
Tedesco, F., Mariam, L., Basu, M., Casavola, A., Conlon, M.F., 2015. Economic model
predictive control-based strategies for cost-effective supervision of community mi-
crogrids considering battery lifetime. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron. 3 (4),
1067–1077.
M. Alramlawi et al.
Teleke, S., Baran, M.E., Bhattacharya, S., Huang, A.Q., 2010. Rule-based control of bat-
tery energy storage for dispatching intermittent renewable sources. IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy 1 (3), 117–124.
Wu, Z., Xia, X., 2015. Optimal switching renewable energy system for demand side
mantimal switching renewable energy system for demand side management.
Sol.Energy 114, 278–288.
Wu, K., Zhou, H., An, S., Huang, T., 2015. Optimal coordinate operation control for
wind–photovoltaic–battery storage power-generation units. Energy Convers. Manage.
90, 466–475.
Xu, Y., Singh, C., 2011. Distribution systems reliability and economic improvement with
different electric energy storage control strategies. In: IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2011. IEEE, pp. 1–8.
Yang, H., Zhou, W., Lu, L., Fang, Z., 2008. Optimal sizing method for stand-alone hybrid
solar–wind system with LPSP technology by using genetic algorithm. Sol. Energy 82
(4), 354–367.
137
Solar Energy 161 (2018) 125–137
Yingli Solar, 2017. YGE 60 cell series 2, July 2017. < www.yinglisolar.com > .
Zhang, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, R., Liu, Y., Guo, B., 2015. Optimal operation of a smart
residential microgrid based on model predictive control by considering uncertainties
and storage impacts. Sol. Energy 122, 1052–1065.
Zhang, Y., Gao, S., Gu, T., 2017. Prediction of iv characteristics for a pv panel by com-
bining single diode model and explicit analytical model. Sol. Energy 144, 349–355.
Zhao, B., Zhang, X., Chen, J., Wang, C., Guo, L., 2013. Operation optimization of stan-
dalone microgrids considering lifetime characteristics of battery energy storage
system. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4 (4), 934–943.
Zhu, B., Tazvinga, H., Xia, X., 2015. Switched model predictive control for energy dis-
patching of a photovoltaic-diesel-battery hybrid power system. IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol. 23 (3), 1229–1236.
Zilouchian, A., Jamshidi, M., 2000. Intelligent Control Systems Using Soft Computing
Methodologies. CRC Press, Inc.