Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Optimal thermal and electrical operation of the hybrid energy system using T
interval optimization approach
⁎
Mohammadali Taghizadeha, Salah Bahramaraa, , Farid Adabia, Sayyad Nojavanb
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Bonab, Bonab, Iran

H I GH L IG H T S

• Optimal thermal and electrical operation of hybrid energy system is studied.

• Upstream network price uncertainty is modeled in the proposed model.
• Interval optimization approach is used for uncertainty modeling of network price.
• Epsilon constraint and fuzzy satisfying techniques are used for solving problem.
• Demand management is applied to enhance economic operation of hybrid energy system.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hybrid energy system is an appropriate solution to meet the local electrical and thermal loads using different
Demand response program energy resources. The operator of hybrid energy system decides on optimal scheduling of its resources and
Hybrid energy system (HES) trading power with the main grid in an optimal way. The price of trading power with the main grid as an
Interval optimization approach uncertain parameter has an important impact of the decisions of the hybrid energy system’s operator. The
Multi-objective problem
novelty of this paper is to apply interval optimization approach for obtaining a risk-constrained operation of
ε-constraint and fuzzy decision making
approaches
photovoltaic/fuel cell/battery hybrid energy system considering the uncertainty of energy price, which is a
powerful uncertainty modeling approach. Using the interval optimization approach the objective function of the
problem is transformed into a multi-objective optimization one in which there are two conflicting objectives
consist of the average and the deviation costs of operation problem of hybrid energy system. This problem is
minimized using ε-constraint and fuzzy decision making approaches. Moreover, demand response program has
been used to help the operator of hybrid energy system to reduce its total operation cost. The total increase of
operation cost with demand response program is 5.52% less in comparison with the case no demand response
program is implemented while cost deviation with demand response program is 13.28% less in comparison with
no demand response program case.

1. Introduction
There are many problems in producing energy from large power
plants and transferring it to consumers via transmission and distribu-
tion networks. High fossil fuel consumption which leads to producing
the high amount of greenhouse gas emissions, low efficiency of large
power plants, high power losses in transmission and distribution net-
works, high investment and maintenance costs of these networks are
the main problems of power systems. In recent years supplying the local
electrical energy demand using renewable energy sources (RESs), en-
ergy storage, distribution generators (DGs), and through demand
response programs (DRP) can decrease the major problems of power
systems [1]. On the other hand, the local thermal energy demand is
supplied through a separate system using Fuel cell and heat storage
tanks [2]. Therefore, creating new energy systems named as hybrid
energy systems (HESs) can integrate several resources to each other to
supply both electrical and thermal energy demands. In such systems, a
fuel cell is an important resource which can link the electrical and
thermal energy systems to each other [3]. The operator of HES decides
on optimal scheduling of resources and optimal trading energy with the
main grid to meet the demand [4–6]. In this problem, the price of
trading power with the main grid as an uncertain parameter has an

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s_bahramara@yahoo.com (S. Bahramara), sayyad.nojavan@bonabu.ac.ir (S. Nojavan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.114993
Received 8 May 2019; Received in revised form 30 December 2019; Accepted 23 January 2020
Available online 25 January 2020
1359-4311/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Taghizadeh, et al.
Nomenclature
Indices
h time index
Parameters
A installation area of the PV system [m2]
DRPmax e
the maximum limitation of load participation in DRP [%]
bat
Emin bat
, Emax the minimum and maximum limitations of the stored en-
ergy of battery storage system (BSS) [kWh]
H the number of hours in a day [No.]
bb
Hcapacity boiler nominal limitation [kW]
st
Hcapacity TSS nominal limitation [kW]
HEratio fu
heat to the electricity conversion ratio of fuel cell [%]
M a constant value representing the maximum limitation of
power export [kW]
N a constant value representing the charge/discharge capa-
city of BSS [kW]
Phl thermal demand for hybrid energy system [kW]
fc
Pcapacity nominal rated capacity of a fuel cell unit [kW]
Rh solar irradiation toward the PV system [kW/m2]
α inverter efficiency of the PV system [%]
β operating efficiency of the PV system [%]
ζ self-discharge coefficient of the thermal storage system
(TSS) [%]
δ self-discharge coefficient of the BSS [%]
ηinst , ηout
st
charge and discharge efficiencies of TSS [%]
b b
ηch , ηdis charge and discharge efficiencies of BSS [%]
ηefc electrical efficiency of a fuel cell unit [%]
ηbb operating efficiency of the boiler [%]
ρhgas price of gas energy [$/m3]
pv
ρsale exported power by the hybrid energy system [kW]
important impact on the decisions of the operator. Therefore, the aim of
this paper is proposing a new optimization approach to solve the op-
eration problem of HESs considering the uncertainty of energy prices.
1.1. Literature review
In this section, an overview of studies and previous studies in the
field of HESs has been presented. Popular optimization algorithm, ge-
netic algorithm has been used to optimize the performance of battery-
wind-diesel HES in [7]. In order to optimize reliability and enhance
power quality of PV-fuel cell-battery HES, a new power management
strategy has been developed in [8]. A new model based on genetic al-
gorithm and weighted aging model has been developed to improve the
operation of the hybrid-based microgrid in [9]. A PV-fuel cell-based
energy system has been optimally designed for cogeneration applica-
tions in [10]. Optimal sizing of energy systems can bring various ben-
efits for these systems. So, in [11], a particle swarm optimization al-
gorithm has been used to optimal sizing of a hybrid battery/PV/H2
system. A new energy management system based on fuzzy logic has
been developed for optimal energy management of fuel cell/PV HES in
[12]. Optimal operation of a battery/PV/fuel cell based HESs is in-
vestigated through various heuristic algorithms and the comparison
results have been presented in [13]. In order to optimally allocate and
size battery/diesel/wind/PV HES, the genetic algorithm has been used
in [14]. In [15], a PV/battery energy system has been modeled as a
residential backup system for an intermittent energy resource subject to
technical constraints. A hybrid fuel cell/PV/wind system has been
economically sized in [16] using a new developed simulation-optimi-
zation model. In order to optimally supply an electric vehicle, a
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993
ρhgrid price of upstream network [$/kWh]
Variables
Cos t total total operating cost of the hybrid energy system [$]
Cos t grid cost of power procurement from the upstream network [$]
Cos t gas cost of gas procurement from the gas utility [$]
Ehb available energy within BSS [kWh]
Hhl thermal demand of the hybrid energy system [kW]
Hhst , out output heat of TSS [kW]
Hhst available heat level of TSS [kW]
Hhst , in injected heat to the TSS [kW]
Hhfu heat production of fuel cell [kW]
Hhbb back up boiler heat production [kW]
Phgrid, ch, Phgrid, l provided power by the upstream network to supply
load and charge BSS [kW]
Phfc, ch, Phfc, l provided power by a fuel cell to supply load and charge
BSS [kW]
Phpv, ch, Phpv, l provided power by PV system to supply load and charge
BSS [kW]
Phpv, s selling power of PV system [kW]
Phb, dis discharge power of BSS [kW]
PhTOU time-of-use rates of DRP [kW]
Phl, DRP electrical demand under DRP [kW]
Sale revenue of exported power by the PV system [kW]
uhgrid, pur a binary variable representing power procurement state of
the hybrid system [0 or 1]
uhgrid, s a binary variable representing power export state of the
hybrid system [0 or 1]
uhb, ch a binary variable representing charging state of BSS [0 or
1]
uhb, dis a binary variable representing discharging state of BSS [0
or 1]
battery/fuel cell HES storage system has been modeled in [17]. Efficient
control and management of a hybrid PV/fuel cell/battery/wind system
under a heat pump load has been studied in [18]. PV-battery-wind
energy system has been efficiently optimized using Hybrid Big
Bang–Big Crunch in [19]. Several sizing and operation management
strategies have been used to analyze the optimal performance of a
battery/fuel cell/PV HES in [20]. In [21], a PV-fuel cell-storage based
HES has been optimally modeled and the operation results have been
compared with other types of HESs. Recently, battery storage technol-
ogies have been improved extensively. Optimal operation of the wind-
PV-diesel energy system has been optimized under various battery
technologies in [22]. An optimal model has been developed for cou-
pling a wind-PV HES with hydraulic and electricity networks in [23].
Based on a new model developed in [24], the optimal sizing of a diesel-
battery/PV HES designed for a ship has been determined. Hybrid CHP-
PV-solar thermal energy system has been integrated to optimize energy
emission and energy consumption of a building in [25].
Although the operation problem of HES is investigated in many
studies, the uncertainty of energy price is modeled in the few studies
such as [2] and [4]. In [2] and [4] the uncertainty of energy price is
modeled through the stochastic and the robust optimization ap-
proaches. In the stochastic optimization approach, the probability dis-
tribution function of energy price is required while the minimum and
maximum amounts of an uncertain parameter are necessary in the ro-
bust optimization approach. Also, decision variables are obtained for
each scenario in the stochastic programming which the worst scenario
may happen in real performance while unique results are obtained for
decision variables in the interval optimization approach. Finally, in the
interval optimization approach, average and deviation costs as the
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

conflict multi-objective problem are minimized instead of minimizing
the expected cost in stochastic programming and robust optimization in
order to reduce risk and obtain robust scheduling.
1.2. Novelty, contributions of this paper
In this paper, optimal operation of HES has been studied under
uncertainty of energy price of the main grid using interval optimization
approach which has not been studied in the previous works. Also, time-
of-use (TOU) of DRP has been used to improve the economic perfor-
mance of the energy system. So, contributions of this paper can be
summarized as follows:
• Optimal operation of HES under uncertainty of upstream network
price.
• Using interval optimization approach for uncertainty modeling of
upstream network price.
• Employing ε-constraint and max-min fuzzy satisfying techniques for
solving the multi-objective problem.
• Using TOU of DRP to enhance the economic operation of HES.
1.3. Paper organization
The rest of the proposed paper is organized as: A mathematical
model of optimal operation of HES without any uncertainty of upstream
network price is presented in Section 2. An interval optimization ap-
proach is briefly described and then applied to the base problem in
Section 3. Simulation and results are presented in Section 4. Conclu-
sions of the proposed paper are presented in Section 5.
2. Problem formulation and methodology
Sample HES studied in this paper is captured in Fig. 1 [2]. As de-
picted in this Figure, sample HES involving renewable and non-re-
newable generation units is responsible to supply two types of energy
demands namely electrical and thermal demands. In addition to local
generation units used in the sample HES, electrical as well as thermal
energy storage system has been used to avoid excessive thermal and
electrical generations from being wasted.
The base mathematical formulation of optimal operation of HES
without considering upstream network price uncertainty is presented in
the following:
2.1. Objective function
The total operating cost of HES should be minimized as the objec-
tive function of the proposed paper.
Min Costtotal = Costgrid + Costgas - Sale (1)
H
Cos t grid = ∑ (Phgrid,ch + Phgrid,l) × ρhgrid
h (2)
demand, fuel cell and boiler need to consume gas and this gas is pro-
vided through the imported gas. The detailed mathematical formulation
of this term is presented in Eq. (3). Finally, the last term related to the
benefits of the hybrid system is mathematically detailed in Eq. (4). This
profit is gained through selling excess generation of HES to the up-
stream network.
2.2. Technical limitations
Electric and thermal energy balances have been presented through
Eqs. (5) and (6).
Phl, DRP = Phgrid, l + Phfc, l + Phpv, l + Phb, dis (5)
Hhl , s = Hhst, s, out (6)
It is clearly expressed in Eq. (5) the generation of local units like PV
and fuel cell systems as well as bought power from the upstream net-
work and discharge power of ESS is used to supply electrical demand
with DRP consideration. Also, thermal is supplied through output heat
of TSS which has been before charged with the generation of boiler and
fuel cell (6).
The power bought from upstream network to supply electrical de-
mand and charge ESS should be under the nominal limitation of the
upstream network (7).
Phgrid, ch + Phgrid, l ⩽ M × uhgrid, pur (7)
The photovoltaic system is the renewable generation system used in
this paper to help the hybrid system to supply electrical demand and
enhance hybrid system economic performance through exporting
power to the upstream network. Total generation of PV system used for
different applications is in accordance with total solar irradiation which
is expressed in Eq. (8).
Phpv, l + Phpv, s + Phpv, ch = α × β × A × Rh (8)
Sold power to the upstream network should be under a predefined
limitation which is expressed in Eq. (9).
Phpv, s ⩽ M × uhgrid, s (9)
Due to the technical limitations, upstream network and HES cannot
exchange power simultaneously (10).
uhgrid
,s
, pur
+ uhgrid
,s
,s
⩽1 (10)
Fuel cell system simultaneously produces electric power and heat to
meet both electric and thermal demands. It should be noted that gen-
erated electric power is allocated for two sections namely electrical
demand and ESS. Sum of donated power for the mentioned sections

H
Phfc, l + Phfc, ch Hhab ⎞
Cos t gas = ∑ ⎛⎜ +
ηbb ⎟
× ρhgas
h ⎝ ηefc ⎠ (3)
H
Sale = ∑ Phpv,s × ρsale
pv

h (4)
The first term of (1) is related to the bought power from the up-
stream network. It should be noted that in addition to local generation
units, the upstream network helps HES to supply its electrical demand.
This term is mathematically detailed in Eq. (2). The second term of the
objective function is the cost of bought power from the gas utility. As
mentioned before, HES is composed of two sections namely electrical
and thermal sections. In order to generate heat and supply heating Fig. 1. Sample PV-battery-fuel cell HES [2].

3
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

should be under fuel cell nominal capacity (11). 2.3. Interval uncertainty modeling technique

Phfc, s, l + Phfc, s, ch ⩽ fc
Pcapacity (11) In this subsection, the interval optimization approach used for un-
ESS is used to make energy flow within the hybrid system more certainty modeling of upstream network price has been briefly in-
efficient and reduce waste energy at the times of excess generation. troduced and later it is applied to the base formulation [29,30].
Mathematical model of ESS is presented through Eqs. (12)–(16). Suppose an optimization problem in which the objective function
Available energy of ESS is depicted in Eq. (12). Stored energy, as well as should be minimized subject to equal and unequal constraints under
charge and discharge power of ESS is limited through Eqs. (13), (14) uncertainty of uncertain parameter, ρ (27)–(29).
and (15), respectively. In order to separate charging and discharging Min f (X , U , ρ) (27)
conditions, Eq. (16) is used.
s. t .
Ehb = (1 − δ ) × Ehb− 1 + (Phgrid, ch + Phfc, ch + Phpv, ch) × ηch
b b
− (Phb, dis / ηdis )
g (X , U , ρ) = 0 (28)
(12)
h (X , U , ρ) ⩽ 0 (29)
b
Emin ⩽ Ehb ⩽ Emax
b
(13)
In the Eqs. (27)–(29), ρ is considered to be an interval variable
(Phgrid, ch + Phfc, ch + Phpv, ch) ⩽ N × uhb, ch defined within [U M , U W ]. Since ρ is defined as an interval variable, all
(14)
equal and unequal constraints will be also defined within intervals and
Phb, dis ⩽ N × uhb, dis (15) this will lead to a multi-objective optimization problem:
Min f (X ) = Min (f M (X ) , f W (X )) (30)
uhb, ch + uhb, dis ⩽ 1 (16)
s. t .
Alike electrical storage used in electrical sections, TSS is used in the
Constraints (31)
thermal section to optimize thermal energy flow in this section and
reduce the loss of excess heat generation. As expressed below, available where:
thermal energy of TSS is proportional with its available in the previous f M (X ) is average cost and f L (X ) is a deviation from the determinist
time period and input and output heats (17). Constraints of available cost of the hybrid system. It should be noted that the multi-objective
heat, internet and output heat of TSS are expressed through Eqs. (18), model is obtained via proposed interval optimization approach. In the
(19) and (20), respectively. proposed model, two objective functions are conflicting with each other
according to worthy Refs. [31,32].
st
Hhst = (1 − ζ ) × Hhst− 1 + Hhst , in × ηinst − (Hhst , out / ηout ) (17) It should be noted that f M (X ) and f W (X ) are defined according to
Eqs. (32) and (33).
st
Hhst ⩽ Hcapacity (18)
f + (X ) + f − (X )
st f M (X ) =
Hhst , in ⩽ Hcapacity (19) 2 (32)

st f + (X ) − f − (X )
Hhst , out ⩽ Hcapacity (20) f W (X ) =
2 (33)
Injected heat to the heat storage system is made of generated heat where:
by boiler and fuel cell (21) which limitations are clearly expressed
through Eqs. (22) and (23), respectively. f − (X ) = min f (X )
ρ∈U (34)
Hhst , in = Hhfu + Hhbb (21) f + (X ) = max f (X )
ρ∈U (35)
Hhfu ⩽ (Ehfc, l + Ehfc, ch) × HEratio
fu
(22) Summarizing the explanations given above, it can be understood
that by defining the uncertain parameter as an interval variable, un-
Hhbb ⩽ bb
Hcapacity (23) certainty based single objective problem is changed to a deterministic
In this paper, TOU rate of DRP has been used to encourage electrical multi-objective problem in which average and deviation costs are due
load of the hybrid system to change its consumption pattern in a way to be minimized:
that load curve is flattened [26–28]. In accordance with various prices Min f (X ) = Min (f M (X ) , f W (X )) (36)
allocated for peak, mid-peak and low-peak periods, the electrical load is
shifted from peak time periods to other periods under a predefined s. t .
limitation which leads to the reduction of total operation cost of HES. It f + (X ) + f − (X )
is noteworthy that that total electrical load at the end of the scheduled f M (X ) =
2 (37)
time period is fixed and maximum allowable limits for the participation
of electrical load in DRP is considered to be 20% in this paper. TOU of f + (X ) − f − (X )
f W (X ) =
DRP is mathematically modeled using Eqs. (24)–(26). 2 (38)

Phl, DRP = Phl + PhTOU (24) f − (X ) = min f (X )

ρ∈U (39)

|PhTOU | ⩽ e
DRPmax × Phl (25) f + (X ) = max f (X )
ρ∈U (40)
24
∑ PhTOU = 0 Eqs. (1) - (26) (41)
h=1 (26)

The objective function (1) subject to constraints (2)–(26) is modeled 2.4. Solving the multi-objective problem
as mixed-integer linear programming problem which can be solved
using CPLEX solver under GAMS optimization software. In this section, the way the multi-objective problem is solved using

4
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

ε-constraint and fuzzy decision-making techniques is briefly explained as results of that Pareto front is obtained.
[4,27].
2.4.2. Max-min fuzzy satisfying technique
At first, this technique normalizes conflict objective functions by
2.4.1. ε-constraint technique
Eqs. (43) and (44). Later, it compares per unit values of each objective
In order to obtain a trade-off condition between two conflict ob-
function in each iteration and then choosing the minimums in each
jective functions, ε-constraint is used. This method defines one of the
iteration according to Eq. (45). Finally, it selects the maximum value
objective functions as the main objective function of the problem and
between the chosen minimums by Eq. (46) and the selected solution is
the other objective function is assumed to be a limitation of the main
the trade-off result of multi-objective problem.
objective function (42).
M
f M (X ) − fmax (X )
OF = min(f M (X )) f M (X )pu = M M
fmin (X ) − fmax (X ) (43)
s. t .
W
⎧ f (X ) ⩽ ε W
f W (X ) − fmax (X )
⎨
⎩ constraints (42) f W (X )pu = W W
fmin (X ) − fmax (X ) (44)
Calculating the minimum and maximum values of second con-
f n = min(f M (X )npu , f W (X )npu) ; ∀ n = 1, . . ., N (45)
flicting objective functions (fmin
W W
(X ), fmax (X )) , ε-constraint technique
change ε vector through this range. So, according to these changes, the
M M f max = max(f 1 , . . .,f N ) (46)
main objective functions changes appropriately (fmin (X ), fmax (X )) , and

Fig. 2. Flowchart of proposed framework.

5
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

For more explanation, the flowchart of proposed framework is de- objective problem of HES is solved and the related results are presented
picted in Fig. 2. According to this Figure, the stages of flowchart are in Table 4.
briefly explained below. According to the obtained results, it is clear that the total operating
cost of the hybrid system under DRP is reduced. This all due to the
1) Minimize objective f W (X ) under all unequal & equal constraints. In implementation of DRP which is used to encourage electrical consumers
W
this stage, minimum amount (fmin (X )) is resulted. Also, calculate in order to shift their consumption from peak intervals to other inter-
M
f M (X ) amount which is in maximum amount (fmax (X )) . vals which have led to a reduction of 5.48%.
2) Minimize objective f M (X ) under all unequal & equal constraints. In Solving multi-objective problem expressed in (38) subject to lim-
M
this stage, minimum amount (fmin (X )) is resulted. Also, calculate itations (39)–(43), Pareto optimal solutions between average cost and
W
f W (X ) amount which is in maximum amount (fmax (X )) . deviation from deterministic cost is obtained in with and without DRP.
Obtained Pareto result is captured in Fig. 5.
In stages 1 and 2, the maximum and minimum amounts of As it can be observed from Fig. 5,selected solution of multi-objective
M M W W
f M (X ), f W (X ) are resulted (fmin (X ), fmax (X ), fmin (X ), fmax (X )) problem in without DRP is solution #6 in which average cost of HES in
without DRP is 43.224 $ which is 5.85% more in comparison with
3) In the third stage, the proposed multi-objective model is solved via deterministic while cost deviation in without DRP is 7.947 $ which is
ε-constraint method. In this stage, objective f M (X ) is selected as 7.63% less in comparison with deviation in deterministic condition. So,
main objective function and the objective f W (X ) is constrained with it can be understood that HES will be encouraged to have 5.85% more
ε parameter and is added to the constraint as below equation: operation cost to reduce upstream network uncertainty impact, cost
deviation, up to 7.64%. In fact, this is a risk-averse strategy for op-
OF = min(f M (X ))
eration of the hybrid system under upstream network price uncertainty
s. t .
which is offered by interval optimization approach. Also, selected trade-
⎧ f W (X ) ⩽ ε off point for risk-averse operation of the hybrid system under the im-
⎨
⎩ All equal & inequal constraints plementation of DRP is solution #7. According to the selected solution
of Pareto front, the total operation cost of the hybrid system with DRP is
4) Considering the iteration n and number of solutions (N), main ob- 40.834 $ which is 0.77% more in comparison with deterministic cost,
jective function varies in discrete steps between its maximum and this is while cost deviation is 6.891 $ which is reduced 8.16% in
minimum amounts. ε is calculated as follow comparison with the determinist case. In fact, by experiencing 0.77%
more operation cost, maximum deviation cost of hybrid system under
W
ε = fmin
n-1
( ) W
(X ) + N - 1 × (fmax W
(X ) − fmin (X )) . In the first iteration,
DRP will be 8.16% which guarantees a stable operation for HES under
f M (X ) is at its maximum amount and f W (X ) is at its minimum
uncertainty of upstream network price.
amount.
Furthermore, by doing a comparison with the cases with and
5) With increasing f W (X ) for different iteration, f M (X ) reduces from without DRP, it can be seen that under the implementation of DRP, the
maximum to minimum amount. In this step, amounts of f M (X ) and
hybrid system not only experiences a less increase of operation cost but
f W (X ) for different iterations are obtained and a set of Pareto so-
also more reduction of deviation cost. In fact, the total increase of op-
lutions is provided.
eration cost with DRP is 5.52% less in comparison with the case no DRP
6) Max-min fuzzy satisfying approach is applied to choose the trade-off
is implemented while cost deviation with DRP is 13.28% less in com-
iteration. For this purpose, the objectives are converted to per unit
parison with no DRP case. Detailed numerical results of obtained Pareto
amounts in different iterations by Eqs. (43) and (44). f M (X )npu and
solutions are presented in Table 5.
f W (X )npu delicate the optimality degree of the n-th iteration of the
For more comparison and clarification, robust operation of the hy-
first and second functions.
brid system under uncertainty of upstream network price is depicted
7) Minimum value between each disagreeing objective function in each
through Figs. 6–14.
iteration is determined based on Eq. (45):
Electrical demand for hybrid system without and with DRP under
f n = min(f M (X )npu , f W (X )npu) ; ∀ n = 1, . . ., N
deterministic and interval approaches is depicted in Fig. 6.
8) Finally, maximum selected value among selected minimums is set Based on Fig. 6, it is evident that under the implementation of DRP,
to be the trade-off solution: f max = max(f 1 , . . .,f N ) the load is mostly shifted from peak intervals to the off-peak intervals in
both deterministic and an interval approach which enhances the eco-
nomic operation of the hybrid system under of uncertainty of upstream
3. Simulation network price. Total power purchasing from the upstream network in
the presence of price uncertainty is captured in Fig. 7.
In order to simulate the optimal uncertainty-constrained operation As shown in this Fig, total purchased power in both deterministic
of PV-fuel cell-battery-grid HES under interval optimization approaches and interval approaches has been changed optimally in accordance
in the presence of DRP, data given below are utilized [2]. It should be
noted that the simulation codes are implemented under GAMS opti-
mization software which the global optimal is obtained via CPLEX Table 1
solver [33]. Technical limitation of BSS and TSS.
Technical limitations of BSS and TSS are given in Table 1 [2]. Also,
Parameters Unit Value
the technical limitation of local generation units involving boiler, fuel
cell, and PV system are given in Table 2 [2]. Energy prices containing BSS charging efficiency % 95
electricity and gas prices are given in Table 3 [2]. Thermal and elec- BSS discharging efficiency % 95
trical demands of the hybrid system, as well as solar irradiation, are Self-discharge value of BSS % 5
charge/discharge capacity of BSS kW 7.5
captured in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively [2].
Maximum stored energy limitation of BSS kWh 5
Minimum stored energy limitation of BSS kWh 0
4. Results and discussion TSS charging efficiency % 95
TSS discharging efficiency % 95
Loss of heat value in TSS % 5
In this section, simulation results are analyzed to approve the va- TSS stored heat nominal limitation kWh 20
lidity of employed techniques. At first, the deterministic single

6
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

Table 2 Table 4
Technical limitation of local generation units. Results of the deterministic problem.
Parameters Unit Value Different parameters Deterministic approach

Efficiency of PV system % 19 Without DRP With DRP

Efficiency of inverter % 95
Installation area of PV system m2 50 Total cost ($) 42.872 40.521
PV Selling power limitation kW 75 Cost of electrical power procurement ($) 24.587 21.440
Electrical efficiency of fuel cell % 39 Cost of gas consumption ($) 22.600 22.268
Heat to electricity ratio of fuel cell % 56 Revenue from sold power ($) 4.315 3.187
Nominal rated capacity of fuel cell unit kW 0.7 Total cost reduction (%) 0 5.48
Efficiency of backup boiler % 95
boiler nominal limitation kW 20

Table 3
Energy prices.
Item Unit Value

Energy charge Peak period Summer $/kWh 0.30

Other seasons $/kWh 0.25
Mid-peak period $/kWh 0.19
Off-peak period $/kWh 0.08
PV sell price $/kWh 0.29
Gas price $/m3 0.12

Fig. 5. Pareto solutions.

with the new load profile. Also, by enhancing the risk-averse operation
of the hybrid system through interval approach, total purchased power
in this approach is reduced.
So, in order to make up the lack of power due to the reduction of
procured power from the upstream network, sold power by PV system
in interval approach is reduced. Fig. 8 shows the exported power by a
PV system.
Optimal charge and discharge of ESS in the presence of DRP in
deterministic and interval techniques is captured in Fig. 9.
Since fuel electrical generation by fuel cell unit needs gas to be
burned, so share of this unit is producing electric power in interval
Fig. 3. Energy demand. approach is reduced and instead generation of renewable-based gen-
eration units like PV system is mostly allocated to supply load and
charge battery storage system. So, electrical generation, as well as heat
generation of fuel cell which is in accordance with its electrical gen-
eration, is depicted in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
So, by reducing the total heat generation of fuel cell unit under DRP
in interval approach, the hybrid system forces backup boiler to increase
its heat generation to charge TSS sufficiently to supply thermal demand.
Heat generation of backup boiler is captured through Fig. 12.
Optimal charge and discharge trend of TSS in with and without DRP
under deterministic and interval approaches are depicted in Fig. 13.
As a result of the increase of boiler heat generation in interval ap-
proach with DRP, total purchased gas from gas utility under DRP in
interval approach increases which are clearly shown in Fig. 14.

5. Conclusion

This work proposes an interval optimization approach for obtaining

a risk-constrained operation of photovoltaic-fuel cell-battery-grid hy-
brid energy system under uncertainty of upstream network price in the
Fig. 4. Solar irradiation.
presence of demand response program. Demand response program has
been mainly used to motivate electrical consumers to shift their con-
sumption from peak periods to other periods to reduce their expenses as
much as possible. Also, by employing an interval optimization

7
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

Table 5
Pareto solutions.
Without DRP With DRP

# Average cost ($) Deviation ($) Φ1(p.u.) Φ2 (p.u.) min (Φ1, Φ2) # Average cost ($) Deviation ($) Φ1(p.u.) Φ2 (p.u.) min (Φ1, Φ2)

1 42.872 8.605 1 0 0 1 40.521 7.504 1 0 0

2 42.881 8.474 0.99 0.10 0.10 2 40.547 7.402 0.96 0.10 0.10
3 42.971 8.342 0.89 0.20 0.20 3 40.587 7.300 0.90 0.20 0.20
4 43.038 8.211 0.81 0.30 0.30 4 40.618 7.197 0.85 0.30 0.30
5 43.131 8.079 0.71 0.40 0.40 5 40.690 7.095 0.74 0.40 0.40
6 43.224 7.948 0.60 0.50 0.50 6 40.762 6.993 0.63 0.50 0.50
7 43.324 7.816 0.49 0.60 0.49 7 40.834 6.891 0.52 0.60 0.52
8 43.417 7.685 0.38 0.70 0.38 8 40.906 6.789 0.41 0.70 0.41
9 43.525 7.553 0.26 0.80 0.26 9 40.996 6.686 0.28 0.80 0.28
10 43.641 7.422 0.13 0.90 0.13 10 41.086 6.584 0.14 0.90 0.14
11 43.757 7.290 0 1 0 11 41.177 6.482 0 1 0.00

Fig. 6. The electrical load of the hybrid system. Fig. 8. Exported power by a PV system.

Fig. 9. Charge and discharge of ESS.

Fig. 7. Purchased power from the upstream network.

in comparison with the deterministic case in without demand response

approach, uncertainty based single level problem is converted to a
deterministic multi-objective problem involving average and deviation
costs as the conflicting objective functions. Solving the obtained multi-
objective problem through popular techniques, epsilon constraint and
fuzzy decision-making approaches, Pareto solution is obtained.
According to the obtained Pareto front, by paying 5.85% more money
program, deviation cost of hybrid energy system becomes 7.947 $. This
is while under the implementation of demand response program, the
hybrid system pays 0.77% more money in comparison with the de-
terministic case to experience deviation cost equal to 6.891 $. By
comparing the obtained results, it can be easily understood that due to
the presence of demand response program, the hybrid system not only

8
M. Taghizadeh, et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993

Fig. 13. Charge and discharge process of TSS.

Fig. 10. Electricity generation of fuel cell.

Fig. 14. Heat generation of boiler.

Fig. 11. Heat generation of fuel cell.

pays less money but also experiences more reduction of deviation cost.
This means that under the employment of demand response program,
the hybrid system pays less money to handle upstream network price
uncertainty impact. The integrations of hybrid energy system with
microgrids as well as the uncertainty and risk modeling can be studied
in the future work.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.114993.

References
Fig. 12. Heat generation of boiler.
[1] F. Jabari, S. Nojavan, B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, H. Ghaebi, H. Mehrjerdi, Risk-con-
strained scheduling of solar Stirling engine based industrial continuous heat treat-
ment furnace, Appl. Therm. Eng. 128 (2018) 940–955.
[2] M. Majidi, S. Nojavan, K. Zare, Optimal stochastic short-term thermal and electrical

9
M. Taghizadeh, et al.
operation of fuel cell/photovoltaic/battery/grid HES in the presence of demand
response program, Energy Convers. Manag. 144 (2017) 132–142.
[3] A. Najafi-Ghalelou, S. Nojavan, K. Zare, Robust thermal and electrical management
of smart home using information gap decision theory, Appl. Therm. Eng. 132
(2018) 221–232.
[4] A. Najafi-Ghalelou, S. Nojavan, K. Zare, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, Robust scheduling
of thermal, cooling and electrical hub energy system under market price un-
certainty, Appl. Therm. Eng. 149 (2019) 862–880.
[5] U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, S.K. Singh, A.K. Tripathi, Energy, exergy, economic analysis
and optimization of polygeneration hybrid solar-biomass system, Appl. Therm. Eng.
145 (2018) 685–692.
[6] J. Allison, Robust multi-objective control of hybrid renewable microgeneration
systems with energy storage, Appl. Therm. Eng. 114 (2017) 1498–1506.
[7] L.K. Gan, J.K. Shek, M.A. Mueller, Optimised operation of an off-grid hybrid wind-
diesel-battery system using genetic algorithm, Energy Convers. Manage. 126 (2016)
446–462.
[8] V. Dash, P. Bajpai, Power management control strategy for a stand-alone solar
photovoltaic-fuel cell–battery hybrid system, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 9
(2015) 68–80.
[9] J.M. Lujano-Rojas, R. Dufo-López, J.L. Atencio-Guerra, E.M. Rodrigues, J.L. Bernal-
Agustín, J.P. Catalão, Operating conditions of lead-acid batteries in the optimiza-
tion of hybrid energy systems and microgrids, Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 590–600.
[10] E. Özgirgin, Y. Devrim, A. Albostan, Modeling and simulation of a hybrid photo-
voltaic (PV) module-electrolyzer-PEM fuel cell system for micro-cogeneration ap-
plications, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 40 (44) (2015) 15336–15342.
[11] M. Paulitschke, T. Bocklisch, M. Böttiger, Sizing algorithm for a PV-battery-H2-
hybrid system employing particle swarm optimization, Energy Proc. 73 (2015)
154–162.
[12] M. Tiar, A. Betka, S. Drid, S. Abdeddaim, M. Becherif, A. Tabandjat, Optimal energy
control of a PV-fuel cell hybrid system, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (2) (2017)
1456–1465.
[13] N. Bigdeli, Optimal management of hybrid PV/fuel cell/battery power system: a
comparison of optimal hybrid approaches, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015)
377–393.
[14] A.S. Ogunjuyigbe, T.R. Ayodele, O.A. Akinola, Optimal allocation and sizing of PV/
Wind/Split-diesel/Battery hybrid energy system for minimizing life cycle cost,
carbon emission and dump energy of remote residential building, Appl. Energy 171
(2016) 153–171.
[15] J. Khoury, R. Mbayed, G. Salloum, E. Monmasson, Optimal sizing of a residential
PV-battery backup for an intermittent primary energy source under realistic con-
straints, Energy Build. 105 (2015) 206–216.
[16] R. Hosseinalizadeh, H. Shakouri, M.S. Amalnick, P. Taghipour, Economic sizing of a
hybrid (PV–WT–FC) renewable energy system (HRES) for stand-alone usages by an
optimization-simulation model: case study of Iran, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54
(2016) 139–150.
[17] N. Mebarki, T. Rekioua, Z. Mokrani, D. Rekioua, S. Bacha, PEM fuel cell/battery
storage system supplying electric vehicle, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (45) (2016)
10
Applied Thermal Engineering 169 (2020) 114993
20993–21005.
[18] S. Sichilalu, H. Tazvinga, X. Xia, Optimal control of a fuel cell/wind/PV/grid hybrid
system with thermal heat pump load, Solar Energy. 135 (2016) 59–69.
[19] S. Ahmadi, S. Abdi, Application of the Hybrid Big Bang-Big Crunch algorithm for
optimal sizing of a stand-alone hybrid PV/wind/battery system, Solar Energy 134
(2016) 366–374.
[20] M.S. Behzadi, M. Niasati, Comparative performance analysis of a hybrid PV/FC/
battery stand-alone system using different power management strategies and sizing
approaches, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (1) (2015) 538–548.
[21] B. Guinot, B. Champel, F. Montignac, E. Lemaire, D. Vannucci, S. Sailler, Y. Bultel,
Techno-economic study of a PV-hydrogen-battery hybrid system for off-grid power
supply: Impact of performances' ageing on optimal system sizing and competitive-
ness, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (1) (2015) 623–632.
[22] G. Merei, C. Berger, D.U. Sauer, Optimization of an off-grid hybrid PV–Wind–Diesel
system with different battery technologies using genetic algorithm, Solar Energy 97
(2013) 460–473.
[23] M. Zaibi, G. Champenois, X. Roboam, J. Belhadj, B. Sareni, Smart power manage-
ment of a hybrid photovoltaic/wind stand-alone system coupling battery storage
and hydraulic network, Math. Comput. Simulat. 146 (2018) 210–228.
[24] H. Lan, S. Wen, Y.Y. Hong, C.Y. David, L. Zhang, Optimal sizing of hybrid PV/
diesel/battery in ship power system, Appl. Energy 158 (2015) 26–34.
[25] L.R. Rodríguez, J.M. Lissén, J.S. Ramos, E.Á. Jara, S.Á. Domínguez, Analysis of the
economic feasibility and reduction of a building’s energy consumption and emis-
sions when integrating hybrid solar thermal/PV/micro-CHP systems, Appl. Energy
165 (2016) 828–838.
[26] A.N. Ghalelou, A.P. Fakhri, S. Nojavan, M. Majidi, H. Hatami, A stochastic self-
scheduling program for compressed air energy storage (CAES) of renewable energy
sources (RESs) based on a demand response mechanism, Energy Convers. Manage.
120 (2016) 388–396.
[27] S. Nojavan, M. Majidi, N.N. Esfetanaj, An efficient cost-reliability optimization
model for optimal siting and sizing of energy storage system in a microgrid in the
presence of responsible load management, Energy 139 (2017) 89–97.
[28] M. Majidi, S. Nojavan, K. Zare, A cost-emission framework for hub energy system
under demand response program, Energy 134 (2017) 157–166.
[29] R.E. Moore, Methods and applications of interval analysis, Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, 1979 Jan 1.
[30] S. Nojavan, K. Zare, Interval optimization based performance of photovoltaic/
wind/FC/electrolyzer/electric vehicles in energy price determination for customers
by electricity retailer, Solar Energy 171 (2018) 580–592.
[31] L. Bai, F. Li, H. Cui, T. Jiang, H. Sun, J. Zhu, Interval optimization based operating
strategy for gas-electricity integrated energy systems considering demand response
and wind uncertainty, Appl. Energy 167 (2016) 270–279.
[32] Y.Z. Li, Q.H. Wu, L. Jiang, J.B. Yang, D.L. Xu, Optimal power system dispatch with
wind power integrated using nonlinear interval optimization and evidential rea-
soning approach, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 31 (3) (2016) 2246–2254.
[33] The GAMS Software Website, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://www.gams.com/
help/index.jsp?topic=%2Fgams.doc%2Fsolvers%2Findex.html.