www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 4th February 2013
Revised on 8th October 2013
Accepted on 20th October 2013
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092

ISSN 1751-8687

Installed capacity selection of hybrid energy

generation system via improved
particle-swarm-optimisation
Rong-Jong Wai1, Shan Cheng2, Yeou-Fu Lin1, Yi-Chang Chen1
1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Yuan Ze University, Chung Li 32003, Taiwan
2
College of Electrical Engineering and New Energy, China Three Gorges University, Yi Chang 443002,
People’s Republic of China
E-mail: rjwai@saturn.yzu.edu.tw

Abstract: In this study, an improved particle-swarm-optimisation (IPSO) method with dynamically changing inertia weight and
acceleration coefficients is employed in determining the installed capacity selection of a hybrid energy generation system
(HEGS). The studied HEGS, which includes wind power, photovoltaic (PV) and fuel cells, is used to suppress the penalty
bill caused by exceeding the contract power capacity with the power company and to supply the backup power when needed.
The objective is to achieve the optimal ratio of the installed capacity of the HEGS, so that each energy source can make the
best contribution in the system, satisfy the load demand at a minimal installation cost and shorten the payback period. To
realise this objective, the payback period is selected as the optimisation objective function by considering the installation cost
and cost recovery. In the IPSO, the penalty technique is designed to solve the optimisation problem with equality and
inequality constraints for updating the particle’s position and its global best position. The proposed IPSO algorithm has been
examined, tested and compared with other methods on the optimisation problem and proven to be more efficient in searching
the global solution through numerical simulations of a real case.

1 Introduction systems based on a single source, the HEGS is cheaper and

The rapid climatic change problem has created increased
interest in low-carbon economy. Recently, energy
conservation efforts have mainly focused on upgrading the
operating efficiency of energy generation systems and
renewable power generation system. The technology for
photovoltaic (PV) and wind power generation systems is
more mature than that of other renewable power generation
systems. Fuel cell (FC) technology has also shown great
potential for power generation [1–4]. The merits of PV
power generation systems are low emissions, high durability
and low maintenance requirements. Energy costs are also
dropping as conversion efficiency and demand from the
semi-conductor industry increase. Therefore PV power
generation systems are now economical and practical. On
the other hand, wind power generation systems have proven
feasible in rich wind environment. The merits of FC include
high efficiency, low pollution and flexible structure. These
renewable power generation technologies have rapidly
advanced in recent years. However, each of the above
renewable power generation systems has some drawbacks.
For instance, solar and wind powers are highly dependent
on climate conditions [5], and the cost of FC is still
prohibitively expensive. This study therefore presents a
hybrid energy generation system (HEGS) with
complementary alternative energy sources. Compared with
more reliable, and it provides a higher quality energy
output. Therefore the HEGS has attracted much attention
from researchers in recent years [6–10].
Now, the technology for renewable power generation is
under intensive study by many researchers, so that the
technology of every renewable power generation system is
possible to fully mature in the near future. Therefore the
proposed HEGS in this study employs sources other than
wind power, PV and FC, such as tidal power, hydropower,
terrestrial heat and biomass energy, all of which can
contribute to the HEGS. In addition to renewable power
generation system, the HEGS also depends on its location,
accepts input from traditional power sources such as diesel
engine and thermal power. The capability of the HEGS to
employ different energy generation systems makes it highly
adaptable to specific installation locations.
In this study, the proposed HEGS is composed of wind
power, PV and FC. When electricity consumers exceed
their contractual limit on electricity consumption, the
consumer must pay over-contract penalties to the power
company. This problem must be solved to reduce the
electricity costs. By combining wind power, PV and FC,
the proposed HEGS can avoid penalties that were caused by
exceeding the contract power capacity with the power
company and supply the backup emergent power. Since FC
generation is unaffected by the external environment, FC

742 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092

power is a suitable source for providing a backup power when
needed.
Kornelakis and Koutroulis [11] proposed a methodology
for the design optimisation and the economic analysis of
PV grid-connected systems. Zhu et al. [12] investigated the
optimised inverter sizing for PV systems in high-latitude
maritime climates. Atwa and El-Saadany [13] introduced a
methodology for optimally allocating wind-based
distributed generation units in the distribution system so as
to minimise annual energy loss. Nick et al. [14] presented a
methodology for optimal wind power development by
taking into account the remoteness of wind sites.
Unfortunately, these optimal methodologies in [11–14] were
only designed for specific renewable sources, PV or wind
power. Regarding designs for optimising installed capacity
of the HEGS in the previous literature, device type of
different power generation systems investigated in [15] was
considered to find the best combination for the lowest cost.
However, the drawback of this approach is that it does not
consider actual power generation efficiency and installation
locations when optimising the installed capacity of a HEGS.
This study presents to assess the size of site that can install
the HEGS. The dynamic models of renewable power
generation systems are considered according to the average
weather information for calculating the capacity factor [16].
Accurately estimating capacity by considering the
generation efficiency and installed capacity of each
renewable power generation system improves the quality
and reliability of the power supply for customers in an
installation location. According to the above conditions, the
calculation of installation cost and recovery cost should
consider penalty charge, energy charge, demand charge and
CO2 reduction cost. By calculating the shortest payback
period, the optimal ratio for an internal power system in a
micro energy grid can be calculated. The objective of
providing reliable power for load and shortest payback
period can then be achieved. Wai et al. [17] presented a
simple evaluation mechanism for the installation capacity of
a HEGS by considering the concept of capacity factor and
cost recovery. Different from the method described in the
literature [17], the installed capacity selection of the
proposed HEGS is formulated as an optimisation problem
with equality and inequality constraints, and an improved
particle-swarm-optimisation (IPSO) algorithm is applied to
achieve the optimal ratio of the installed capacity.
PSO is an evolutionary computation technique inspired by
the social behaviour of bird flocking and fish schooling [18].
It has been applied to power systems in a wide range of
problems and has been shown to perform well. As an
algorithm for finding optimal regions of complex search
spaces through the iteration of individuals in a population
of particles, the PSO has some advantages [18] over other
similar optimisation techniques, such as GA, for example:
† The PSO is easier to implement and there are fewer
parameters to adjust.
† In the PSO, every particle remembers its own previous best
value as well as the neighbourhood best.
† The PSO is more efficient in maintaining the diversity of
the swarm (more similar to the ideal social interaction in a
community).
Although the PSO has been proven to be powerful, there are
parameters to be predefined for a given problem by users [19].
Therefore some strategies to improve the performance of this
algorithm for a given problem must be considered. In this
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
www.ietdl.org
study, an IPSO is introduced by the strategies for the
selections of parameters including the inertia weight,
acceleration coefficients and maximum velocity. In the
IPSO, a penalty technique is used to solve the equality
constraints and the strategies for updating the particle’s best
position and its global best solution is also presented. The
major objective of these developments is to improve the
performance of a conventional PSO algorithm which can be
applied to the given optimisation problem, and is to find a
sufficiently optimal solution in less iterations on average.
This study is organised into five sections. Following the
introduction, the concepts and formulations of the proposed
HEGS are presented in Section 2. Section 3 offers the
model for optimisation, and presents the strategies adopted
in the proposed IPSO in detail after briefly reviewing the
basic concepts of PSO along with the formulation of the
algorithm in the real number space. Moreover, the process
for implementing the proposed IPSO algorithm being
applied to the installed capacity selection of the HEGS is
also given in this section. The effectiveness of IPSO
algorithm is verified by comparative numerical simulations
in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2 HEGS: concepts and formulation
The block diagram of the proposed HEGS, which includes
wind power, PV and FCs, is depicted in Fig. 1. In this
system, the demand power is mainly supplied by the wind
power and the PV, and the backup power in case of an
emergency is provided by the FC. For the utility power, the
user can utilise the power provided by the power company
when the power produced by the proposed HEGS is
insufficient. On the other hand, the user also can consider
selling the power produced by the proposed HEGS for the
power company.
2.1 Capacity factor
The aim of this study is to find the optimal ratio for the
installed capacity of a HEGS. Thus, the installed capacity
and power generation efficiency have to be considered. This
study presents that concept of capacity factor, to determine
the most beneficial ratio of installed capacity. The capacity
factor kcf of a renewable power is defined as
kcf = P/Prate (1)
where P is the actual output power and Prate is the maximal
power rating of the renewable energy source. The capacity
factor for each renewable energy source in the installation
can be obtained via a dynamic mathematical model under
different weather conditions for the location and its
information is beneficial to assess the power generation
efficiency and ensure providing higher quality and more
reliable power to customer [17]. The dynamic mathematical
model of each renewable energy source for the studied
HEGS, which includes wind power, PV and FCs, is
explained in the following subsections.
2.1.1 Power generated by PV generator: The PV cells
can be combined with many P–N semi-conductors to
transform light energy into electrical energy. The equivalent
mathematical model of PV cells [20] can be expressed as
I = Iph − Isat [eq(V +IRs )/AB kB T − 1] − (V + IRs )/Rsh (2)
743
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 1 Block diagram of HEGS
where Iph is the light current; Rs and Rsh are the internal series
equivalent resistance and the internal parallel equivalent
resistance, respectively; V and I are the output voltage and
the output current, respectively; Isat is the reverse saturated
current of PV cells; q is electrical quantity of an electron;
AB is an ideal factor (AB = 1 − 5); kB is the Boltzmann
constant (1.38 × 10−23 J/°K); and T is the temperature of PV
cells (absolute temperature scale °K).
Some PV cell features can be observed through (2), if no
sunshine is available, PV cells have the same features as
diode and the light current is zero. In a PV cell with a short
circuit, the voltage is zero, and the short circuit current is
equal to the light current. The detailed models of the power
converter and control for the PV generation system can be
referred to [21]. Since there are various types of power
converters and controls, the conversion efficiency from the
PV output to the load is set at a predetermined value for
simplifying the computation complex in this study.
2.1.2 Power generated by wind generator: In a wind
power generation system, the mechanism for capturing wind
energy is a wind generating set. First, the ratio of tip speed
λ for wind turbines is defined as
l = r vm /vv (3)
where r is the radius of the wind turbine blades, ωm is the
rotational speed of the generator and vω is the wind speed.
Moreover, the power factor of the wind power is a function
in relation to the ratio of tip speed Cp = fg(λ). The
relationship between the power factor and the ratio of tip
speed depends on the wind turbine type. The mechanical
power Pm(W) is proportional to the air density ρ(kg/m3),
the blade rotational area A(m2), the power factor Cp and the
cube of wind speed. The mechanical power [22] can be
744
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
represented as
Pm = 0.5rACp v3v (4)
The detailed models of the power converter and control for
the wind power generation system can be referred to [23].
Since there are various types of power converters and
controls, the conversion efficiency from the wind power
output to the load is set at a predetermined value for
simplifying the computation complex in this study.
2.1.3 Power generated by FC generator: An FC is a
device that directly transforms the chemical energy of a
reaction into electrical energy. The operational theory can
be represented as a reserve reaction of water electrolysis.
The basic elements of an FC are an electrode, an electrolyte
membrane and a current collector. The output voltage of an
FC [24] can be expressed as
VFC = ENernst − Vact − Vohmic − Vcon (5)
where ENernst is the reserve voltage; Vact is the loss of electric
potential when overcoming activation energy of FC; Vohmic is
the loss of electric potential of ohmic polarisation for FC; Vcon
is the loss of electric potential of concentration polarisation
for FC. The output power of FC can be represented as
Pf = nVFC iFC (6)
where n is cell number; VFC and iFC are the output voltage (V)
and the output current (A) of the FC, respectively. The
detailed models of the power converter and control for the
FC generation system can be referred to [25]. Since there
are various types of power converters and controls, the
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
 www.ietdl.org
conversion efficiency from the FC output to the load is set at a total required power can be represented as
predetermined value for simplifying the computation
complex in this study. Power = wcap wfac + scap sfac + fcap ffac (7)

where w, s and f represent wind power, PV and FC generation,

2.2 Total required power
respectively. The subscripts ⌈fac⌋ and ⌈cap⌋ express the
The study presents a mechanism for the installed capacity capacity factor and the capacity, respectively. In practical
selection of the proposed HEGS. The objective is to applications, wcap, scap and fcap should be restricted as
suppress the penalty bill caused by exceeding the contract
power capacity with the power company and to supply the wcap min ≤ wcap ≤ wcap max (8)
backup power when needed. The optimisation mechanism
for the installed capacity selection of the proposed HEGS scap min ≤ scap ≤ scap max (9)
combines the concept of installation cost and payback period.
First, the contracted capacity is optimised by analysing fcap ≤ fcap ≤ fcap (10)
min max
historical data for electricity use. The method for analysing
the historical data is to find the relation curve of the
demand charges against different contracted capacities where the subscripts ⌈min⌋ and ⌈max⌋ represent the minimal
during one year. For example, one draws the relation curve and maximal installed capacity, respectively. The maximum
of the corresponding demand charges due to different installed capacity can be obtained according to the size of
contracted capacities during the time period from area that can install the HEGS, whereas the minimum can
September 2012 to August 2013 in Fig. 2 by considering a be calculated by setting the values of the other two
real case at 4800 kW contracted capacity in Taiwan generation systems’ capacities equal to their maximum
campus. By observing the U-curve in Fig. 2, it is obvious capacities in (7).
that the optimised contract capacity is about 4100 kW
because the demand charge of 623 820 Taiwan Dollars 2.3 Installation cost
(TWD) will be saved at 4100 kW contracted capacity in
comparisons with the one at 4800 kW contracted capacity. The installation cost for the HEGS [26] is formulated as
Then, the situations for exceeding contracted power

 
capacity are defined as the power usage 10% inside (P2p)
cost = Ii − SPi + OMPi (11)
and 10% above (P3p) the over contracted power capacity. i=w, s, f
Moreover, the size of area that can install the HEGS,
including the maximum area As that can install PV cells where Ii, SPi and OMPi represent the initial cost, the salvage
with no shelter or highlands, and the maximum area Aw that value and the maintenance cost, respectively. The initial
can install wind turbines for good wind field (e.g. average cost, which is calculated by multiplying the power capacity
wind speed over 5 m/s), is measured. Thus, the maximum of the HEGS by the installation cost of 1 kW, is defined as
capacity of the HEGS can be obtained according to As and
Aw. In general, the PV generation system needs a 10 m2 Iw = wcost wcap (12)
area/kW, and the maximum capacity of the wind power
generation system is estimated according to the diameter of
Is = scost scap (13)
the wind turbine blades. In addition, the backup emergent
power fcap is provided by FC since it is unaffected by
environmental conditions. Wind speed, irradiance and If = fcost fcap (14)
temperature data are then input to a dynamic mathematical
model of each renewable energy source for obtaining the where wcost, scost and fcost represent the installation cost of
capacity factors of PV and wind power (sfac and wfac) for 1 kW for wind power, PV and FC generation systems,
each installation. Furthermore, the simulation condition and respectively. Note that, the costs of the power processing
expected payback year (Year) are set up, and to find the devices for the wind power, PV and FC generation systems
optimal ratio of the installed capacity for the HEGS. The are included in the corresponding installation costs.

Fig. 2 Relation of demand charges against different contracted capacities

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752 745
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
The values of the HEGS gradually decrease over time, and
their salvage values [26] are defined as
 Np
1+b
SPw = 0.1Iw
1+g
 
1 + b Np
SPs = 0.1Is
1+g
 
1 + b Np
SPf = 0.1If
1+g
where SPw , SPs and SPf represent the salvage values of
wind power, PV and FC generation systems, respectively;
the recovery value is set at 10% of the installation cost; β is
the inflation rate; γ is the bank interest rate; and Np is the
lifespan of the system.
The maintenance costs incurred to ensure normal system
operations [26] are defined as

Np  1 + v j
OMPw = 0.05Iw j=1 1 + g

Np  1 + v j
OMPs = 0.01Is j=1 1 + g
where OMPw and OMPs represent the maintenance cost of
wind power and PV generation systems, respectively; ν is
the escalation rate. In this study, the estimated maintenance
costs are 5 and 1% of individual installation costs. The FC
has no maintenance cost because it is discarded when its
useful life ends.
2.4 Cost recovery
The calculation for the cost recovery after installing the
HEGS needs to consider the following four items.
2.4.1 Avoid penalty: The power company in Taiwan
gathers double and triple fee for demand charge as the
power usage 10% inside and 10% above the over contracted
power capacity [27]
 
M2p = smcap cost smmon + wtcap cost wtmon × 2 × P2p (20)
 
M3p = smcap cost smmon + wtcap cost wtmon × 3 × P3p (21)
Mp = M2p + M3p
where M2p and M3p represent the double penalty and the triple
penalty incurred for exceeding the contracted power capacity,
respectively; smmon and wtmon are the numbers of summer
and winter months; smcap cost and wtcap cos t are the contract
capacity costs of a kilowatt for summer and winter months,
respectively.
2.4.2 Save demand charge: According to the electric
charge rate of the power company in Taiwan, the charge
rate is divided into two categories: demand charge and
energy charge. The demand charge is related to the amount
of the contracted capacity. Owing to the installation of wind
power and PV, the contracted capacity can be relatively
reduced. Thus, the calculation of demand charges saving
746
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
can be represented as
   
Mb = smcap cost smmon + wtcap cost wtmon × Ps + Pw
(15) (23)
where Pw = wcapwfac and Ps = scap sfac represent the output
(16) powers that came from the wind power and PV generation
system.
(17) 2.4.3 Save energy charge: The energy charge is related
to the amount of day-to-day power usage. According to the
utilisation of wind power and PV, the calculation of energy
charge saving can be expressed as
Mf = (Ps + Pw ) × h × d × egcost (24)
where h and d represent the 24 h of a day and the 365 days of
a year, respectively; egcost is the cost for a kilowatt-hour
(kWh) of electricity.
2.4.4 CO2 reduction cost:
(18)
 
MCO2 = Ps + Pw × wgCO2 × costCO2 × h × d (25)
(19)
where costCO2 represents the CO2 reduction cost for a metric
ton; wgCO2 expresses the quantity of CO2 emitted by
generating 1 kWh of electricity.
Since the FC is expensive and its useful life is limited, the
FC mainly supplies the backup power in case of an
emergency. Thus, the corresponding demand charge saving,
energy charge saving and CO2 reduction cost are relatively
lower and are not considered here [17].
According to the above explanations, the recovery cost can
be represented as
Mr = Mp + Mb + Mf + MCO2 (26)
By considering the useful life of a HEGS, if the installation
cost (Cost) subtracts the recovery cost to be always positive
during the useful life of the HEGS, the installation cost
cannot be recovered.
The proposed optimisation method assumes that energy
generated by renewable power can be sold back to the
power company since many countries worldwide have
adopted such policies to encourage renewable power
generation. In this case, the recovery cost can be expressed as
Mr = Rs + Rw (27)
(22)
where
R s = P s × sb × h × d (28a)
Rw = Pw × wb × h × d (28b)
in which Rs and Rw represent the amount of selling electricity
to the power company from PV and wind power generation
systems, respectively; sb and wb express the amount for
1 kWh of electricity generated by the PV and wind power
and then sold back to the utility company. Since
government policies are rarely implemented to purchase the
FC power generation system, it is not considered in this
selling case. When the installation cost in (11) subtracted
the amount of selling electricity to power company from
PV and wind power generation systems obtains a negative
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
 www.ietdl.org
value, the installation cost can be returned. The capacity ratio described as
with the shortest payback year, which can be obtained by the

proposed IPSO to be introduced later, is the optimal ratio of vid (t + 1) = wvid (t) + c1 r1 × pid − xid (t) + c2 r2
the HEGS in the analysed location. Moreover, the installed
capacity selection of the HEGS based on the algorithm of
IPSO can consider a case, in which all the generated energy
is consumed by the user or is purchased by the power
company. In addition, the user also can consider using
renewable power generation by himself and selling
renewable power generation system for power companies
simultaneously.
3 Model for optimisation and IPSO algorithm
In this section, the model for optimisation is set up, and the
strategies adopted in the IPSO are presented.
3.1 Model for optimisation
According to (11)–(26), the installation cost (Cost) and
the recovery cost (Mr) vary along with the changes of the
installed capacities of wind power, PV and FC, and the
payback year y varies accordingly. In other words, a
different combination of the installed capacity of the HEGS
results in a different payback year. In this study, the model
for optimisation is described as follows.
3.1.1 Control variables, state variables and
constraints: In this study, the control variables are
defined as wcap, scap and fcap in (7). Moreover, the state
variables are selected as the installation cost Cost(scap, wcap,
fcap) and the recovery cost Mr(scap, wcap, fcap). In addition,
the control variables are restricted by the equality constraint
in (7) and the inequality constraints in (8)–(10).
3.1.2 Objective function: In this optimisation process, an
objective function to minimise the ratio of the installation cost
to the recovery cost is defined as
 
Cost scap , wcap , fcap
min y =   (29)
Mr scap , wcap , fcap
The PSO technique would be a useful tool to determine the
powerful energy management strategy [28]. However, the
drawbacks of a conventional PSO technique still exist.
Thus, some strategies are required to develop and modify
the algorithm to adequately solve the optimisation problems.
3.2 Overview of PSO in real number space
In the real number space, each individual potential solution
can be modelled as a particle that moves in the problem
hyperspace, and each particle i is associated with its velocity
vi = [vi1, vi2, ..., viD] and position xi = [xi1, xi2, ..., xiD],
where D stands for the dimensions of the solution space.
The PSO is initialised with a population of particles with
random positions and velocities in the problem space [29].
The best position ever found so far by particle i is recorded
as pi = [ pi1, pi2, ..., piD], whose corresponding fitness value
is called the particle’s best pbest. Moreover, the best position
found by any particle is recorded as pg = [ pg1, pg2, ..., pgD]
and its fitness value is called the global best gbest. During
this evolutionary process, the velocity and position update
formula of particle i on the dimension d|d = 1,2,…,D are
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
 
× pgd − xid (t) (30)
xid (t + 1) = xid (t) + vid (t + 1) (31)
where t is the current iteration; w is the inertia weight; c1 and
c2 are positive acceleration coefficients; and r1 and r2 are
random numbers with uniform distribution in the range of
[0, 1].
Equation (30), which calculates a new velocity for each
particle (potential solution), has three major components
[18]. The first component referred to as ‘inertia’ models the
tendency of the particle to continuously travel in the same
direction. This component is scaled by w. The second
component known as ‘cognitive’ is a linear attraction
towards pi, scaled by c1r1. The third component known as
‘social’ is a linear attraction towards pg, scaled by c2r2.
However, there are some drawbacks existed in the
conventional PSO technique [30], for example, many free
parameters to be tuned. Thus, advanced programming skills
are required to develop, and competing algorithms should
be modified for suiting to different optimisation problems.
3.3 Adopted strategies in IPSO algorithm
3.3.1 Selection of parameters: To accelerate the
convergence speed and prevent an ‘explosion’ of the PSO
algorithm, the selections of the inertia constant w,
acceleration coefficients c1 and c2 and the maximum velocity
have to be considered when designing the IPSO algorithm.
3.3.2 Selection of inertia weight: The inertia weight,
which is used to control the convergence behaviour of the
PSO algorithm [31], could be a fixed value [29, 32] or be
dynamically changing [33–35]. Suitable selection of the
inertia weight provides a balance between global and local
exploration and exploitation, and results in less iteration on
average to find a sufficiently optimal solution. In general, a
linearly decreasing inertia weight [36] is set according to
the following equation
 
w(t) = wmax − wmax − wmin × t/Mt (32)
where wmax and wmin are the maximal and minimal values of
the inertia weight, respectively, and are required to be
predefined in the range of [0, 1]; and Mt is the maximum
number of iterations.
In this study, a dynamically changing w is adopted in the
proposed IPSO algorithm, which adjusts adaptively for each
iteration according to the following equation
w(t) = 1 + rand(·) × (1 − w0 ) (33)
where rand(·) is the random operator, and w0 is a constant
value inside the range of [0, 0.5]. Equation (33) ensures
that w changes in the range of [w0, 1] [34].
3.3.3 Selection of acceleration coefficients: The
acceleration coefficients, c1 and c2 in (30), control the
amount of ‘tension’ in the system that pull each particle
towards pi and pg, respectively. Suganthan [37] showed that
there existed different combination of values for c1 and c2
to yield good solutions for different problems. In this study,
747
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
time-varying acceleration coefficients, where a larger value of
c1 and a smaller value of c2 are set at the beginning and are
gradually reversed during the search [31], are designed in
the proposed IPSO algorithm as
c1 = 2.5 − t/Mt
c2 = 0.5 + t/Mt
3.3.4 Selection of maximal velocity: According to (30)
and (31), the PSO algorithm proceeds by adjusting the
velocity of each particle that moves in the problem space.
Since the velocity is a stochastic variable and is subject to
create an uncontrolled trajectory [29], the upper and lower
limits for the velocity vid can be defined as [38]
as constrained optimisation problems in this study the
v , if vid ≥ vid max
vid = id max (36)
−vid max , if vid ≤ −vid max
where vid max is the maximal magnitude of vid. In other words,
As distinguished from the total required power (Power), the
total power at a specific power capacity is set as Temp =
scapsfac + wcapwfac + fcapffac.
3.3.6 Strategies for updating particle’s best position
(34) and global best position: As can be seen from (30),
each particle’s best position pi and global best position pg
(35) must be selected for updating the velocity of particle i.
Since each individual potential solution being modelled as a
particle, for unconstrained optimisation problems,
comparing the current particle’s fitness value with its pbest
and identifying the particle with the best fitness value is
enough for updating pi and pg. However, for constrained
problems, whether the particle satisfies the constraints in
(7)–(10) or not must be taken into account. In other words,
penalty function in (38) has to be considered for updating pi
and pg. Let pc fit represent the current particle’s fitness
value calculated from (29). Moreover, pc penal , pi penal and
pg penal represent individual penalty values calculated from

the velocity vid is restricted within −vid max , vid max to (38) for the current particle, pi and pg, respectively. The
reduce the likelihood of the particle leaving the problem current particle’s position xi is set as pi if one of the
space. In the proposed IPSO algorithm, the value of vid max following conditions is satisfied, otherwise, pi stays the same:
is chosen as [29, 31]
† pc penal = 0 and pi penal . 0.
vid max = kxid max , 0.1 ≤ k ≤ 1.0 (37) † pc penal = 0, pi penal = 0 and pc fit , pbest .
† pc penal . 0, pi penal . 0 and pc fit , pbest .
where xid max denotes the domain of the search space.
Similarly, pi is updated to pg if only one of the following
3.3.5 Penalty technique: The capacity optimisation of conditions is satisfied:
the HEGS is an equality-constrained problem according to
the model in Section 3.1. The simplest way to reduce † pi penal = 0 and pg penal . 0.
the equality-constrained programming problem to the † pi penal = 0, pg penal = 0 and pbest , gbest .
unconstrained one is to enhance the constraints into the † pi penal . 0, pg penal . 0 and pbest < gbest.
objective function by adding a suitable term, which
penalises the violation of the constraints [39]. Although in
this study, the penalty function in (38) is not added into the 3.3.7 Realisation process for installed capacity
objective function (29). The penalty function Pe consists of optimisation via IPSO: To make the proposed IPSO
two components (Pe1 and Pe2), which penalises the algorithm applied to the capacity optimisation of the HEGS
violation of equality and inequality constraints, respectively clearly, the detailed procedure can be expressed as follows:

† Step 1: input the original parameters including the HEGS
Pe = Pe1 + Pe2 = i=w, s, f
Pe1i + Pe2i (38) data (ifac, icap max , icap min , icost for i = w, s, f; wgCO2 ,
⎧ costCO2 , Power, egcost, β, γ, Np, v, smcap cost , smmon,
⎪ 0, icap ≤ icap ≤ icap
⎪
⎪  2
min max wtcap cost , wtmon, sb and wb) and IPSO parameters
 ⎨ (population sizes N, Mt, w0 and k).

Pe1i i=w, s, f = i − i cap max , icap . icap
⎪
cap max
† Step 2: initialise each particle with a random position and a
⎪
⎪  2
⎩ i random velocity, and set pi and pg.
cap min − icap , icap , icap min † Step 3: calculate the fitness value and the penalty value for
(39) each particle using (29) and (38), respectively.
† Step 4: update pi according to the principles of updating pi
The value calculated from the penalty function in (38) described in Section 3.3.3.
represents the degree penalising the violation of the † Step 5: update pg according to the principles of updating pg
constraints and is useful for updating pi and pg to be described in Section 3.3.3.
described in Section 3.3.3. Equation (39) means that † Step 6: update velocities and positions of all particles via
Pe1w = 0, Pe1s = 0 and Pe1f = 0 when wcap, scap and fcap (30) and (31), respectively.
satisfies the inequality constraint relations of (8)–(10), † Step 7: return to step 3 until the maximum iterations Mt is
respectively. Or else ‘penalty’ will be given to the infeasible met.
solution according to the degree of their constraint violations.
As already noted, (7) must be satisfied, if scapsfac + wcapwfac 4 Numerical simulations
+ fcapffac is not equal to the total required power (Power), a
penalty value calculated from (40) should be given In this section, the proposed IPSO algorithm is applied to
 the installed capacity selection of a HEGS in Yuan Ze
0, Temp = Power University, Taiwan [17]. In this case, the total required
Pe2 =  2 (40) power over the contracted power capacity (4800 kW) is
Power − Temp , Temp = Power
176 kW. The aim of the proposed HEGS is to avoid the

748 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
 www.ietdl.org
Table 1 Simulated parameters for Yuan Ze University in Taiwan
Variables Values Variables Values Variables Values Variables Values

sfac 10.70% scost 150 000 TWD β 2.4% smcap cost 213 TWD
wfac 34.33% wcost 50 000 TWD Np 20 wtcap cost 169 TWD
ffac 1 fcost 280 000 TWD γ 1.568% Power 176 kW
costCO2 650 TWD wgCO2 0.646 kg sb 12.97 TWD wb 2.38 TWD
egcost 3 TWD wtmon 4 smmon 8

Table 2 Predefined parameters for implementing IPSO

algorithm

Variables Mt N w0 k wmax wmin

Values 40 6 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3

penalty incurred for exceeding the contracted power capacity

with the power company and to supply the backup emergent
power. Since the power generation cost of the FC is very
expensive, FC is only used for backup emergent power,
in this study, that is the information services office,
which needs a maximum instant power of 72 kW.
Thus, the PV and wind power generation system provide
104 kW (176 − 72 = 104 kW) to avoid the penalty. Table 1
shows the simulated parameters for Yuan Ze University in
Taiwan, and the parameters predefined for implementing
the proposed IPSO algorithm is listed in Table 2. In Fig. 3 Changes of payback year and system cost with iterations
general, the FC useful life is shorter than its system
lifetime when the FC generation system is always
operated. Note that, the FC generation system in this study Fig. 3 shows the changes of payback year and system cost
is defined as a backup power in case of an emergency, with the iterations. At 27th iteration, the solution converges
and the sudden situation of power failure rarely happens to the global best (169.86, 250.00 and 72.00), and the
in Taiwan. Thus, the FC useful life can be approximately corresponding value of the objective function is 14.72, with
equal to its system lifetime in this study. regard to self-use.
The results obtained by using the proposed IPSO algorithm Table 4 shows the characteristic comparisons of PSO
are summarised in Table 3. As can be seen from Table 3, the algorithms when adopting different strategies (nos. 1, 2 and 3)
installed capacities of PV, wind and FC power generation for selections of inertia weight w and acceleration
systems are 169.86, 250 and 72 kW, respectively, and the coefficients c1 and c2 (each method repeated 100 times).
total installation cost is 6.63 × 107 TWD. The corresponding The mechanism for evaluating the installation capacity of a
payback year for the self-use case is 14 years and 8 months, HEGS in [17] is depicted in Fig. 4 for comparison. As can
and the one for the selling case is 17 years and 2 months. be seen from Fig. 4, the optimisation method in [17] is a

Table 3 Simulated results of IPSO algorithm

Applications Installed capacity of each power generation Payback period Installation cost (TWD)
system (kW)

PV Wind power FC

self-use 169.86 250.00 72.00 14 years and 8 months 6.63 × 107

Selling 17 years and 2 months

Table 4 Comparison of different optimisation strategies

Nos. Parameter selections Running time(s) Accuracy rate, % Convergence iterations

w c1, c2 Minimum Maximum Average

1 (33) (34) and (35) 1.5625 100 6 53 30.55

2 (32) (34) and (35) 1.7965 100 5 57 40.74
3 (32) c1 = c2 = 1.62 1.7188 98 20 60 45.40
4 N/A 6.7343 100 N/A

Bold indicates best performance

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752 749
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 4 Mechanism for evaluating installation capacity of HEGS in [17]
full-scale searching for possible solutions. The combination
result (169.86, 250.00 and 72.00) in [17] can be viewed as
the global optimum solution. By observing Table 3, the
result of the proposed IPSO algorithm is the same as the
one in [17]. Thus, it can be verified that the proposed IPSO
algorithm derives the global optimum solution and it does
not converge to a local optimum point. It also shows that
the proposed IPSO can find the optimal ratio of the
installed capacity of the HEGS more quickly than the
optimisation mechanism (no. 4) proposed in the previous
750
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
literature [17]. From Table 4, it is obvious that the strategy
with no. 1 has a shortest running time (1.5625 s) and a
smallest average convergence iteration (30.55). Fig. 5
shows the convergence characteristics of PSO algorithms
with different parameter selections (nos. 1, 2 and 3). As can
be seen from Fig. 5, the solution converges to gbest at 30th,
43rd and 55th iteration, respectively. In conclusion, the
proposed IPSO algorithm (i.e. the strategy with no. 1) is
more suitable for the installed capacity selection of the
HEGS than other strategies (nos. 2, 3 and 4).
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092

Fig. 5 Convergence characteristics of strategies (nos. 1, 2 and 3)
a Changes of payback year with iterations
b Changes of system cost with iterations
5 Conclusions
This study has successfully developed an IPSO algorithm to
enhance the optimal performance of the installed capacity
selection of a HEGS with a shorter execution time and a
higher convergence speed. By considering the installation
cost and the recovery cost of the HEGS, an optimisation
objective function, which equals the installation cost
divided by the recovery cost, is formulated, and then the
optimal ratio for the HEGS can be obtained via minimising
of the objective function in the sense of the proposed IPSO
algorithm. As can be seen from numerical simulations given
in Section 4, the proposed IPSO algorithm with a
dynamically changing inertia weight and time-varying
acceleration coefficients can find the optimal solution within
rather less iterations for the given capacity optimisation
problem. The iteration number of the proposed IPSO
converging to the optimal installed capacity is decreased by
25.01 and 32.71% in comparison with those of the
conventional PSO methods with a linearly decreasing
inertia weight and constant acceleration coefficients,
respectively. With regard to the running time, the time
spent on executing the proposed IPSO method can be saved
by 76.80% in comparison with the optimisation mechanism
presented in [17].
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092
www.ietdl.org
The proposed method for optimising the installed capacity
of the HEGS can consider all the generated energy to be
consumed by the user, and the user also can consider
selling renewable power generation system for power
companies. For the former, the user can apply the method
for optimising the installed capacity of the HEGS to avoid
penalties that caused by exceeding the contract power
capacity with the power company and supply the backup
power when needed. Moreover, the user also can determine
the electricity that wants to save annually to design the
installed capacity of the HEGS. For the latter, the user can
design the installed capacity of a HEGS according to the
expected profit. On the other hand, the user also can
consider using renewable power generation by himself and
selling renewable power generation system for power
companies simultaneously.
6 Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Science
Council of Taiwan through grant number NSC
102-3113-P-155-001. Moreover, the authors would like to
thank the referees and the Associate Editor for their
valuable comments and helpful suggestions.
7 References
1 EI Khattam, W., Salama, M.M.A.: ‘Distributed generation technologies,
definitions, and benefits’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2004, 71,
pp. 119–128
2 Jenkins, N., Allan, R., Crossley, P., Kirschen, D., Strbac, G.: ‘Embedded
generation’ (The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, 2000)
3 Willis, H.L., Scott, W.G.: ‘Distributed power generation: planning and
evaluation’ (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000)
4 Nguyen, N.T., Ha-Duong, M.: ‘Economic potential of renewable energy
in Vietnam’s power sector’, Energy Policy, 2009, 37, pp. 1601–1613
5 DeMeo, E.A., Grant, W., Milligan, M.R., Schuerger, M.J.: ‘Wind plant
integration: costs, status, and issues’, IEEE Power Energy Mag., 2005, 3,
(6), pp. 38–46
6 Nandi, S.K., Ghosh, H.R.: ‘A wind-PV-battery hybrid power system at
Sitakunda in Bangladesh’, Energy Policy, 2009, 37, pp. 3659–3664
7 Dufo-Lopez, R., Bernal-Agustin, J.L., Mendoza, F.: ‘Design and
economical analysis of hybrid PV–wind systems connected to the grid
for the intermittent production of hydrogen’, Energy Policy, 2009, 37,
pp. 3082–3095
8 Chedid, R., Akiki, H., Rahman, S.: ‘A decision support technique for the
design of hybrid solar-wind power systems’, IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., 1998, 13, (1), pp. 76–83
9 Chedid, R., Rahman, S.: ‘Unit sizing and control of hybrid wind-solar
power systems’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 1997, 12, (1), pp. 79–85
10 Senjyu, T., Hayashi, D., Urasaki, N., Funabashi, T.: ‘Optimum
configuration for renewable generating systems in residence using
genetic algorithm’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2006, 21, (2),
pp. 459–466
11 Kornelakis, A., Koutroulis, E.: ‘Methodology for the design
optimisation and the economic analysis of grid-connected photovoltaic
systems’, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2009, 3, (4), pp. 476–492
12 Zhu, J., Bründlinger, R., Mühlberger, T., Betts, T.R., Gottschalg, R.:
‘Optimised inverter sizing for photovoltaic systems in high-latitude
maritime climates’, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2011, 5, (1), pp. 58–66
13 Atwa, Y.M., El-Saadany, E.F.: ‘Probabilistic approach for optimal
allocation of wind-based distributed generation in distribution
systems’, IET Renew. Power Gener., 2011, 5, (1), pp. 79–88
14 Nick, M., Riahy, G.H., Hosseinian, S.H., Fallahi, F.: ‘Wind power
optimal capacity allocation to remote areas taking into account
transmission connection requirements’, IET Renew. Power Gener.,
2011, 5, (5), pp. 347–355
15 Bernal-Agustin, J.L., Dufo-Lopez, R.: ‘Efficient design of hybrid
renewable energy systems using evolutionary algorithms’, Energy
Convers. Manage., 2009, 50, pp. 479–489
16 Wang, C.S., Nehrir, M.H.: ‘Power management of a stand-alone wind/
photovoltaic/fuel cell energy system’, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
2008, 23, (3), pp. 957–967
751
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
www.ietdl.org
17 Wai, R.J., Chen, Y.C., Huang, L.N., Chang, Y.C., Lin, C.G.:
‘Optimization design for installation capacity of hybrid energy
generation system’, J. Taiyuan Univ. Technol., 2010, 41, (5), pp. 521–526
18 Valle, Y.D., Venayagamoorthy, G.K., Mohagheghi, S., Hernandez, J.C.,
Harley, R.G.: ‘Particle swarm optimization: basic concepts, variants and
applications in power systems’, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2008, 12,
(2), pp. 171–195
19 Zhang, W., Liu, Y.T., Clerc, M.: ‘An adaptive PSO algorithm for
reactive power optimization’, Int. Conf. Adv. Power Syst. Control,
Oper. Manage., 2003, 1, pp. 302–307
20 Kim, I.S., Youn, M.J.: ‘Variable-structure observer for solar-array
current estimation in a photovoltaic power-generation system’, IEE
Proc. Electr. Power Appl., 2005, 152, (4), pp. 953–959
21 Wai, R.J., Wang, W.H.: ‘Grid-connected photovoltaic generation
system’, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Regul. Pap., 2008, 55, (4),
pp. 953–964
22 Morimoto, S., Nakayama, H., Sanada, M., Takeda, Y.: ‘Sensorless
output maximization control for variable-speed wind generation
system using IPMSG’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2005, 41, pp. 60–67
23 Wai, R.J., Lin, C.Y., Chang, Y.R.: ‘Novel maximum-power-extraction
algorithm for PMSG wind generation system’, IET Proc. Electr.
Power Appl., 2007, 1, (2), pp. 275–283
24 Correa, J.M., Farret, F.A., Gomes, J.R., Simoes, M.G.: ‘Simulation of
fuel-cell stack using a computer-controlled power rectifier with the
purposes of actual high-power injection applications’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., 2003, 39, (4), pp. 1136–1142
25 Wai, R.J., Lin, C.Y., Lin, C.Y., Duan, R.Y., Chang, Y.R.:
‘High-efficiency power conversion system for kilowatt-level
stand-alone generation unit with low input voltage’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2008, 55, (10), pp. 3702–3714
26 Wang, L.F., Singh, C.: ‘Multicriteria design of hybrid power generation
systems based on a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm’,
IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., 2009, 24, (1), pp. 163–172
752
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2014
27 Household Electricity Consumption Guide Available at http://www.
taipower.com.tw/e_content/index.aspx
28 Verbruggena, A., Fischedickb, M., Moomawc, W., et al.: ‘Renewable
energy costs, potentials, barriers: conceptual issues’, Energy Policy,
2010, 38, (2), pp. 850–861
29 Eberhart, R.C., Shi, Y.H.: ‘Particle swarm optimization: developments,
applications and resources’, IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., 2001, 1,
pp. 81–86
30 AlRashidi, M.R., El-Hawary, M.E.: ‘A survey of particle swarm
optimization applications in electric power systems’, IEEE Trans.
Evol. Comput., 2009, 13, (4), pp. 913–918
31 Esmin, A.A.A., Lambert-Torres, G., Zambroni de Souza, A.C.: ‘A
hybrid particle swarm optimization applied to loss power
minimization’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2005, 20, (2), pp. 859–866
32 Kennedy, J.: ‘The particle swarm: social adaptation of knowledge’,
IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., 1997, 1, pp. 303–308
33 Abido, M.A.: ‘Optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization’,
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2002, 24, (7), pp. 563–571
34 Chen, M.Y., Zhang, C.Y., Luo, C.Y.: ‘Adaptive evolutionary
multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm’, Control
Decis., 2009, 24, (14), pp. 1851–1855
35 Ratnaweera, A., Halgamuge, S.K., Watson, H.C.: ‘Self-organizing
hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration
coefficients’, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 2004, 8, (3), pp. 240–255
36 Shi, Y., Eberhart, R.C.: ‘A modified particle swarm optimizer’, IEEE
Int. Conf. Comput. Intell., 1998, 1, pp. 69–73
37 Suganthan, P.N.: ‘Particle swarm optimiser with neighbourhood
operator’, IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., 1999, 3, pp. 1958–1962
38 Hu, X.H., Shi, Y.H., Eberhart, R.C.: ‘Recent advances in particle
swarm’, IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., 2004, 1, pp. 90–97
39 Dostál, Z.: ‘Optimal quadratic programming algorithms: with
application to variational inequalities’ (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2009)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, pp. 742–752
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2013.0092